Zabuzard

This variant of the Phantom is not carrier capable and was not used to land on ships. Actual carrier capable variants had several changes and modifications, including on the gear, which also results in AoA changes that cant be translated onto the E directly. So you have to be careful when applying any IRL techniques for those other Phantoms onto our E, they might not work.

Hey guys, it appears that there was a confusion and the above patch notes list some items that are actually not included in this particular patch. We will try to include them in a hotfix or make them available in the next patch instead. Sorry for the inconvenience and confusion caused by this. Items not included are: Inputs: Added Slow/Fast variants for Target Latitude/Longitude knobs (WSO). Inputs: Added UHF Repeater brightness control. Inputs: Added some missing TOGGLE and AXIS binds Inputs: Fixed Jester Scan Elevation (relative) binds being reversed. Inputs: Fixed afterburner detent option text and tooltip. Mission Editor: Support absolute pitch trim (iCommandPlaneTrimPitchAbs) Weapons: Added BDU-33 to inner wing pylons. Also, it appears that the introduction of the 2-stage trigger binds for the Flight Stick unintentionally broke the existing trigger-bind. Which means that you will likely have to map the trigger to your hardware again.

The team and SMEs werent able to dig it out anymore. Cant say for sure at the moment if its correct or not without reference. Ive put the investigation into the backlog for when theres more time and we will in the meantime go for a compromise that raises the limit to 250 mils.

Doublechecked, it is indeed too long. The standard MK-82 would, if attached to stations 2 and 8, clash and interfere with the gear doors.

Correct, thats what will be done now. We have heard from the issue during the weekend, just investigated what exactly happened a few hours ago and will now clarify things. Cheers.

If you rename the folder, it will be recreated with the default files. If you wish to fully deactivate all external communication made by HB UI, select the OFFLINE option in the Special Options tab, also see our manual which explains this in detail: https://f4.manuals.heatblur.se/dcs/special_options.html#domain-access

Multiple steam users reported CTD since the last patch and it appears its because the steam DCS isnt correctly managed to update the C++ redistributables. From AlphabetGhost on Discord:

Sorry, I am not sure I follow. Can you elaborate a bit? Cheers

In development. Cheers

I am not quite sure what we are discussing at this point anymore. Country lock: people are annoyed (we had that in the past) No country lock: people are annoyed (we have that right now) Let's bring this to ED and let them fix it in a way that makes everyone happy (see previous ideas). Otherwise we will just ping pong between the two parties. In the meantime, if you belong to the group of people who wants country locks, use this great mod :)

Not sure I quite understood your request, but our Phantom is not equipped with the APR-36. It carries the ALR-46, see: https://f4.manuals.heatblur.se/systems/defensive_systems/radar_warning_receiver.html The RWR is missing a small list of features, such as the active missile radar detection, but other than that is pretty much feature complete (minus a few bugs perhaps).

The first stage is for the gun cam. (Which is currently not there yet)

My suggestion wasnt meant to be taken that literally. It was more about the fact that after seeing the wishes of all parties involved, it seems that the best approach is not "country lock liveries yes/no?" but rather to provide improved utility in the DCS native GUI. That is, mission designers should be able to select any livery they want if they want, but also be able to easily and quickly access the liveries appropriate for a givrn country, as well as forcing/allowing players in-game to do the same. And further even allowing players for fast in-game selection in servers to save favorite liveries etc. There seems to be plenty of ways to deal with it from that front, while our tools as thirdparty are very limited. We can only choose livery lock yes/no and it seems that for the majority of people no livery lock seems to be the better of the two evils... [emoji106]

I need to doublecheck tomorrow but afaik that version of the bomb was longer or had larger fins and it collided with something if put on those stations and hence wasnt allowed.

Im not a mission designer myself and cant comment much on the process. But the motivation for removing the country locks was done by community request. We had the skins locked originally in our projects and then there were huge threads with the community demanding it to be removed. We removed it and now the majority of Mission Makers seems to be happy with the choice. So here we are. That said, all your comments are totally valid. Which is why I believe it would be best to try and find a solution that can satisfy all the needs and make everyone happy. For example by having a way to bypass the coubtry lock individually per plane with a checkbox similiar to the "realistic loadout restrictions" checkbox that would then apply a filter. Unfortunately out of our control, something that ED would have to do.

Sorry, this was probably lost while creating the changelog. It was highlighted internally.

Known issue, thanks :)

Lmao, I wonder what happened there... really odd stuff. I'll see if your track has anything to work with, but usually long MP tracks dont work well.

Thanks for your investigations and tracks The Aspect Switch is only relevant if you launch Sparrows without a radar lock. Jester learns in the upcoming update how to do that. He will offer the use of (regular) BORESIGHT mode and will offer changing the target aspect for a no-lock shot via the Context Commands (also in CAGE/BORESIGHT mode). The manual has details on this already https://f4.manuals.heatblur.se/jester/combat/radar.html#dogfight

I cant comment on it, sorry. You will get news when there is news. Cheers

So first of, thank you for the tracks! What I am seeing on my screen looks all normal and correct to me. I will go through all the tracks and explain whats going on. If something different happened to you when you played it, we have to investigate why (perhaps you have the radar performance special options enabled?). In case my description lines up with your experience, I suspect the issue might just be misunderstanding of how to control Jester, i.e. when to use which Context Command. For that, I would suggest having a quick read of: https://f4.manuals.heatblur.se/jester/combat/overview.html https://f4.manuals.heatblur.se/jester/combat/radar.html And practice until it clicks Here we go. Track 1: * Jester detects both bad guys at 21nm by himself, which is very reasonable for this radar and a small fighter aircraft coming at nose-aspect * at 10nm and 4nm you command Jester to switch the targets (SHORT press), you are not commanding him to lock (LONG press) Track 2: * This time you approach them with a slight angle, RCS increases and Jester can spot them at 25nm already and would be ready for a lock * Jester is ready for a lock the entire time but you never give him the command. Track 3: * Again, approach from the side yields higher RCS, spotting and ready for lock at 25nm * You are flying pretty much at the sideways limit of the radar though, so he loses sight at 20nm * Then you are turning into them and they appear back on the screen at 17nm * at 4nm (very late) you are giving the command to lock * at 3nm Jester obtained a solid lock * with the bandit at 1nm you are entering a hard turn with the target on the gimbal limit while it is deploying chaff. that broke the radar lock and Jester returns to scan mode * you command him now to LOCK the target he just lost out of sight, so he is waiting a few seconds for it to re-appear on screen, which it never does * instead, you probably intended to command him to lock the other guy, i.e. first tell Jester to switch targets (SHORT), then lock (LONG). Watch where his cursor is to tell who you are commanding to lock, it is still on where he lost the previous guy, not the other guy * Also, at ranges below 5nm you should consider switching to CAGE/BORESIGHT mode instead to enable Jester to "lock the target on your nose" instead, much easier to use in a Dogfight. Track 4: * Similar attack profile, targets spotted at 23nm * Command to lock at 4nm, at the same time you are executing a hard maneuver, so Jester fails to lead the target correctly with the cursor (as the proper position would be outside of screen bounds), you moved the target out of screen, Jester lost it and gave up on the lock attempt Track 5: * targets spotted and ready to lock at 23nm * no lock command or anything given, you guys merge and overshoot while Jester was ready to lock the entire time

Really odd. Was it also circling for the WSO, or just on your Pilot Screen? Was the WSO having really bad FPS perhaps? With a human WSO, these things are all computed on the WSOs machine and then synced to the Pilot for his display. If Jester can not run his routine fast enough then such overshooting could occur. We are talking about slide-show FPS here though, not just 30 FPS.

Yeah agreed. There is a section that explains Jester features: https://f4.manuals.heatblur.se/jester/combat/overview.html But overall the manual lacks "tutorials" and generally some "hands on" guides. As in, not just explaining what each switch does, but also explaining how that should be used all together. The manual isnt really an ideal place to teach these things and we hope to cover those aspects better with in-game trainings and YT videos and then perhaps embed/link that in the manual. That said, if someone submits a PR to the (open source) manual that adds a written "guide", would definitely appreciate and merge it

I am not sure I follow. The option to force-activate Jester while a human WSO is in the plane is meant to be used for WSOs to sit by and watch while Jester does the job. You are not supposed to control the WSO pit actively while Jester is turned on. Deactivate him if you want to control the backpit directly

(duplicate thread, see the other one)