Phantom12

This should tell you something about the standard of guesswork that has been used in other modules thus far.....

Been a DCS problem for a long time and they can never seem to get it quite right. Part of the problem is still how easy it is to spot things 15-20NM away yet at 2NM aircraft disappear. The only real answers are to lower resolution and use very little AA. If you're in VR I had some success with tips about scan technique and consciously letting your eyes focus on terrain or clouds in the distance rather than up close on the fuzz & scratches on the canopy. Still in anything after the 2v2 scenario my main problem pretty much became keeping track of everyone/anyone well enough to make myself useful in those engagements. Very challenging with that many airplanes around.

Not quite finished it yet myself but can only agree that the campaign is well worth it and lots of fun. Definitely a good look at some of the tactics of the time and good scenarios to practice those in. Certainly the best way to do it in SP I think. The more complex multi-aircraft scenarios are the highlight for me. I think the 2v2 is definitely the sweetspot as far as being able to really nail it in a satisfying way. Its an impressive feat to get the AI in DCS to behave in a way thats even remotely realistic/helpful/cooperative/communicative with the player, but you can tell even with the scripted help the 2vUnk and 4vUnk are a bit beyond their limits. Even then the different approaches you can take to each intercept and the randomisation of the bogeys make the 2&4vUnk hops very interesting to fly, if chaotic.

Yes its quite clear if you look at turn rates and AI behaviour in Tacview that alot of the 1v1 events are quite scripted. Obviously this is necessary given the broken nature of the AI in DCS. That they can be forced into behaving in a way that seems even remotely correct is a feat in and of itself. The AI in the 2v1 events is much less constrained but still I didnt have any issues staying at least stalemated in a rate fight with either the F-5 or F-86. And thats generally fine if you are the engaged fighter in that case anyway. The F-5 in DCS is a good standin for Vietnam era MiG-21s, and their main disadvantage vs the F-4 is how much thrust they have. Both can sustain similar turn rates but if things get slow the F-5 will never recover. The moves taught in the earlier missions are good basics for where to start vs the F-5, but if you need more guidance you can check out the original declassified have doughnut report, which contains a bunch of specific advice for what sort of tactics to use against the MiG 21. Basically extensions, pitchbacks and oblique loops can be used to keep meeting the enemy more or less neutral until hes at such an energy deficit that you can force a position advantage.

Yeah thats what I guessed at the time. Just wasnt 100% sure as that WP is still within the shoshone range. I flew there and passed within a mile of him without seeing him. Since I didnt trust the INS, didnt know any visual landmarks at that WP and didnt want to screw with the jester menu to reselect that WP I went to Piute to use the tacan and cover all my bases. It wouldnt be a problem except I cant call him and ask what he meant, nor did I have the fuel to spend a long time looking for him (a least partially my fault, but not unexpected). Ofc I can cheat with F10 but the whole point of a campaign like this is not to

TBH the intro threw me off as well. I "briefed" for the Fam flight expecting to start there and was then confused by the airstart... Ok looked through the kneeboard and figured out what was going on... more or less. I think it might have gone better if the ingame brief referenced the info docs and kneeboards rather than suggesting to read the briefing docs (which dont exist for the intro). Like I said I read the FAM flight brief instead. A fuel ladder or a quick "you are nearing the end of your crosscountry flt to go to TOPGUN etc etc etc" might have helped. I decided to accept the surprise but struggled to find lead again afterwards. Classic DCSism in that he told me to find him outside the range... Is that outside the entire range area? Or just the range that we were in when we started. In hindsight I had guessed correctly where he was but since jester is muted and spotting is marginal in DCS I flew right past him without spotting him.... I was relatively certain I was in the right spot at the next steerpoint (and tacview showed that I was) but given you're not supposed to mess with jester and i wasnt sure what steerpoint he had selected anymore I decided to go to piute and see if he was there. Piute also has a Tacan fix so theres no risk of INS issues etc. No luck and fuel was very critical at this point. IRL I would have just landed or used the radio to talk to lead, but thats no bueno in DCS. In the end I went back and forth and after trying to find him with the radar or IFF I used the f2/f10 view to find him and rejoin but I flamed out as I got into formation. Ill admit I should have knocked off a bit earlier during the surprise but bingo was a guessing game given the brief was a 30 second squint at the kneeboard. I guessed wrong. Had something like 3-4000 lbs left which I figured would be more than enough to make it to indian springs. Just not enough to do it 3 times. 2nd attempt went much better but even then I actually flamed out upon rolling into the chocks. Hope the above doesnt come off too much as a rant. I get that designing triggers to be idiot proof makes life difficult in DCS. Havent made it much further yet but apart from the initial hiccup things seem very promising. Certainly whatever you've done to the dogfighting AI seems pretty nice.

14-15 looks right and feels pretty good too. But the hook still doesnt engage. Tried 5 or 6 passes again about 2 or 3 each with 14-15 and with 17 or so.... A couple pretty good right on the ball all the way down to the 3 wire... bolters every time. If I fly a cut pass and taxi it through the wires it caught one on the 1st attempt.

Im by no means an expert on the system but that is my understanding from what Ive read here and in the discord etc yes.

AFAIK there is no CW reciever in the system, which is the type of signal usually used to guide the SARH missiles like Sparrow in game. The SAMs are a different beast altogether and for the early SA-2/3 etc Sams we are talking about IIRC the RHAW gear could separately detect both changes in the pattern of emmisions from the TRs or the guidance commands to the missiles themselves (command guidance missiles are basically like big remote controlled airplanes). This as well as the plethora of EW systems used by the US also opened the door to all sorts of strange, unusual and creative tactics with these early Sams in Vietnam which arent simulated at all in DCS. Things like spoofing launches or launching missiles unguided until the last minute to trick the RHAW gear etc.

Fair enough. TBH Id have been surprised if HB hadnt modeled it to the extent you say even if its a secondary/unimportant feature. Just that I tried it a fair number of times and struggled much more than I ever have in any other aircraft, and IIRC one of the content creators in the pre release livestream had very similar issues. As far as the field vs CV comment I meant more as in whether the hydraulics or dampening etc etc was altered in the real USAF aircraft vs the Navy ones. I understand its a similar situation with the gear where the basic structural components are all the same but the tires and some tuning of the hydraulic struts etc are different. Ill see if I can determine a proper AoA next time I boot up DCS and try it again. Edit: had another quick look through some charts and I think in the E somewhere around 14-15 units might give the same attitude as the Onspeed attitude for the J. Assuming the hook and gear dimensions are the same thats probably not a bad starting point. Very fast though, probably a destructively high descent rate given that the 19 unit approach speeds are already significantly higher than for the Naval F-4s.

generally no.

Im aware of the differences. Like I already said I discussed it with Grover in another thread. I also spent plenty of time looking through the flight manuals for both the E and the J as well as all sorts of flight test reports from the DTIC treasure trove, including graphed comparisons of the Flight Test probe AoA values vs Production AoA units & Deg for hard and soft wing F-4Es. Grover suggested using 17 Units vs the normal 19 or so that give the "on speed" indication in the E. I made a bunch of passes and still the most reliable way to get the hook to engage is to do it totally wrong and taxi through the wires. Flying On speed or slightly fast the hook will skip or just not catch a wire so reliably Im almost convinced it just isnt modeled to work that way... Not that its a huge issue as this isnt supposed to be a Navy F-4, but anyway. In theory at least AFAIK flying too slow usually encourages inflight engagements (which are also very dangerous) and not necessarily hook skips. Of course it is possible that the hydraulic setup of the maingear, hook etc and the combination of a slightly wrong AoA is the perfect combo for hook skipping but I tried all sorts of different methods and anything resembling the "normal" technique just didnt work at all. Whilst it is very poor technique, you can also make unsafe or dodgy passes with totally wrong AoAs in the other naval aircraft in DCS and still somewhat reliably engage the wires. Nothing else Ive tried in DCS seems to so consistently blow through the wires as if the hook wasnt even there at all.

Yeah something about it is definitely either not modeled as fully as the other aircraft or just some difference in the aircraft prevents it from engaging the wires if you fly it the navy way. It seems to warp through the wires if you fly onspeed or just hookskip everytime. I mentioned it in one of the pinned threads and Grover also suggested flying a bit faster than onspeed but for me the only way it reliably engages is landing short and taxiing to the wires. The hook is the same structurally AFAIK but could be the hydraulics are setup differently for the E. Taxiing through the wires is how the field arresting gear seems to normally be used so makes sense from that perspective. Nothing to do but wait for the Naval Phantom I guess

I felt like this had gotten better after the 1st patch but it still seems to be around even after todays patch. Curiously the force "jump" seems to be triggerable by going into Burner at some points as well.

As soon as I saw "we consider this good now" in the patch notes I knew they will have touched nothing and given up on it. Same problems as before: spotting planes at 10+ miles is easy, as soon as you start manuevering at what should be WVR its close to impossible to keep things in sight even if you try to stay padlocked the whole time.

Unplayably horrendous in a Rift CV1. Admittedly the blobs were a bit much before but even those were better than what we have now. There is still the fundamental issue that you can spot airplanes at anywhere between 10 and 30 miles but when they get within 3 miles or so they are invisible even across the circle from you in a turn where they should be easiest to spot.

Combat tree isn't tied to DMAS, idk if its scheduled to come at the same time as the DMAS, but it was used on the older jets as well. Also to be a little bit pedantic: Combat Tree doesn't allow you to track anything If Ive understood correctly. What it does is give you a return, similar to the friendly IFF bars, which can tell you where to look/focus your scan. The tracking and acquisition problem itself wont be affected at all if Jester isnt able to get a lock. WRT Have Doughnut, the report in fact states that the MiG-21 was reliably detectable at BVR ranges. In this case those were at an "average" of 15-20 NM, rather than 50-100 one might be used to from the Hornet/F-14 etc. Depending on which sparrow variant you are shooting thats already only locking within Rmax but against a MiG-21 a lock at 10-15 for a shot at 5-10 is already a huge advantage.

From what I saw so far it looks like his routine is basically: Gain as high as possible without totally washing out the display (to maximise range), then once a possible target is spotted reduce gain to try for a clear picture... Basically the same technique a human would use (or at least what Ive been doing from the backseat so far). But he seems to either leave way too much clutter on the screen or turn it way too far down and see nothing like you say. Its a bit better than the first patch now but you could see clearly he was running the gain very high in CAGE or CAA modes and you would get huge amounts of sidelobe clutter even looking up at 15 or 20k feet. In BVR my most common experience is actually that he calls bandits out at more or less the range I would expect to detect them (20-30 miles), and he will focus the target and follow it with the cursors, but the gain is so high that I cant spot the target in all the clutter on screen. I understand he works off of image recognition and doesnt cheat, so how exactly he can spot these contacts in all the clutter is beyond me. The problem is when he tries to lock in a situation like that without a good diferentiation between clutter and target its almost guaranteed to lock the background return instead of the target. Ive had the same issue as a player... I can spot and follow MiG-21s at 18NM at low altitude, but the signal is not strong enough compared to the background in order to reliably track it. Between him taking a few seconds between pressing the context key and actually trying to lock, and the fact that he seems to indiscriminately try and lock whatever is under the cursor, without first verifying a good picture or not, what you usually end up with is a lengthy process of locking onto clutter and breaking lock etc etc several times while you stare at the radar screen to double check all his work, and in the meantime with 1200kts closure you end up merged with no SA or shot in the face from a missle you didnt react to because youve been staring inside the whole time. If you give up on the whole thing you are basically a glorifed F-5 and you throw away what should be one of your biggest advantages over contemporary adversaries.

The sparrows had plenty of issues, as did the radar, but even with all those troubles the missiles were never entirely useless, even against fighters. BVR with jester is in its current state extremely unreliable, and even when it does work you end up task loading yourself too much babysitting him where you should be doing other things instead. He seems to consistently run the gains far too high and washout any returns that might be there, and is far too ready to initate bad locks onto heavily cluttered targets. The need to double check all his work on the radar screen when you should be looking out the window really hurts SA. The 5 mile modes are a little more reliable but thats far too close against anyone with a real forward quarter capability. I know they already mentioned its being added at some point but a Jester BST option for 10 or 25 mile boresight locks can't come soon enough. I think thats the fastest way to make any sort of BVR with jester viable with the minimum programming work. Im sure it will get somewhat better with time... The current implementation has alot of the right ideas IMO, just doesnt work in practice yet.

works great, tried it out yesterday.

IIRC from the Have Donut reports IRL the best detection capability was in MAP-B, and usually locks were achieved somewhere in the vicinity of 15-20 miles head on. Beam aspects more like 30-35 miles. Obviously this is all clutter dependent, the report stresses visual lookout is still the primary method of finding fishbeds in combat, and that matches pretty well with actual combat reports.

I think this is a DCS issue. I have similarly experienced "weirdness" with the forces occasionally, in everything from the F-14, to the WW2 birds. Like you say restarting DCS and replugging the joystick is the only way to fix it.

Best sustained turn speed is in the realm of 450-480 knots. Best instantaneous looks to be more like 430 or so in the real charts and 370 in the "DCS" charts. I think the DCS chart is pushing the AoA higher than they did on the real airplane. As for MiG-17s, there is a nice Powerpoint on the conclusions drawn from Have Drill which can be found here: https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB443/docs/area51_51.PDF Lots of nice insights in there, as well as an EM diagram. My favorite quote: Accelerating at 30-60 deg nose low during escape can force the MiG-17 pilot "into a realm of flight wherein his capability to pull out becomes his dominate consideration" FWIW I have read in one of the osprey books that the wisdom of the time for F-4 pilots was to fight MiG-21s at as low an altitude as possible, and MiG-17s at as high an altitude as possible in order to maximise relative perf advantage. Thanks for the tip. Looking at the F-4 charts its definitely noticeable that STR degrades above .9 Mach, which wasnt as obvious in the other charts. .9 is where transonic begins for the F-4 so that makes alot of sense. I didnt scour every corner of the internet but didnt quickly find anything for the MiG-21... I know some of the russian charts are in a different format as well. Unfortunately its also well known that the DCS MiG-21 deviates from the real charts quite a bit in some areas, which makes comparisons harder. I did find an old analysis some French users made on another flight simulation forum, and I attached them to this post. Those seem to be made from the real charts and are for combat loaded airplanes as well. The conclusions seem to be about the same at 15000 ft. F-4 has an STR advantage in the 4-500 kt range, and a decent climb/thrust advantage at most speeds. Interestingly at 5000 ft the advantage is less than at 15... which goes against the wisdom I mentioned above. Some other random thoughts: Ive had decent luck with Aim-7s in the dogfight environment so far. They arent perfectly reliable by any means but IMO its worth taking any half decent shot that presents itself. If it hits great, if not its a 500lb ballast you just ditched, that obviously wasnt going to be useful to you anyway. With good use of the ACM modes you can get quite a few opportunities for all aspect shots you wouldnt get with a RQ sidewinder. I had at least one hit a MiG-21 after being fired from inside of 1NM. Also I become more and more convinced that AoA management is a crucial skill in the F-4. The nose rise/stick force lightening the airplane was known to have near the stall or coming down from supersonic speeds is maybe not as noticeable as in the real plane with 50lb stick forces, but it is there. Its easy to pull more than you wanted and have an accidental AoA excursion. If you dont consciously reduce AoA you can end up bleeding alot of energy for little gain. null Compared-Air-Combat-Performances-Mig-21-vs-F-4-Opus-1.pdf Compared-Air-Combat-Performances-Mig-21-vs-F-4-Opus-2.pdf

Maybe you can post a tacview or video and someone here can give more specific comments. The F-4 should have an advantage over the F1. And RQ heaters can be tricky against maneuverable targets. Its almost easier to use the gun at times. If you can only go one turn it sounds to me like maybe you are bleeding too much speed off too quickly. It can be very easy to bleed alot of speed off if you arent very careful with pitch inputs.

I think it should be faster, around 17 units. Happy to try that too... I might be wrong but I thought hookskips are aggravated by being too fast, whereas too slow risks inflight engagements. Anyway it does seem to reliably catch a wire if you touch down well short and taxi through the wires... Not proper, but then again I guess landing an airforce plane on the carrier isnt considered proper anyway.