Jump to content

divinee

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    141

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by divinee

    When we get a Navy Phantom it should have the VTAS helmet mounted sights

    in DCS: F-4E Phantom

    Posted

    On 3/12/2023 at 1:58 AM, Kalasnkova74 said:

    Doubt anyone would be happy paying $70 for a DCS module only to have their radar suddenly go “lead nose” in an MP server.

    I would even pay more if i'd have to stress about the reliability of the systems and if my missiles, radar etc just randomly wouldn't work 😄. It's a big part of the characteristics of those machines and I'm flying DCS because of the realistic simulation, not to be the most efficient target killer. Of course not everyone wan't those so those should be optional things (from the server side).

    • Like 5

    Will the USN/USMC version be a separate module?

    in DCS: F-4E Phantom

    Posted

    20 hours ago, Jojothebox said:

    when the J is just a B with a synthetic-aperture radar (making it a much better BVR fighter than the E), the N is just the J but with  smokeless engines and the S is just a J with smokeless engines and a reenforced airframe to put it on par the the E model for BFM combat.

    Nope and nope. J is newly built version with big upgrades to structure and systems including awg-10. J and B are different generations of the naval phantoms. N is rebuilt B with small upgrades derived from J but it still has the apg-72 from the B. S is overhauled and improved J to handle the biggest problems like the questionable reliability of older, more analog awg-10, maneuverability, smokeless engines (some J’s already had these), more radios. 

    Good source for the quick info which seems to be more correct than wikipedia:
    http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/f4.html

    • Like 3

    DCS now supports OpenXR natively

    in Virtual Reality

    Posted

    1 hour ago, KCOOL said:

    Same situation here, I was SUPER HAPPY before this release, and I was NOT using motion reprojection.

    Really upset with this situation after this OB release (and I believe most DCS users feel the same...). Just by counting the amount of comments/posts on the topic in the last 24h...

    I am afraid it is just about waiting for ED to release a new (fixed) release. Hopefully soon.

    Again, having a playable VR experience for most (not only for 4090 owners) and DLSS soon (not before end of 2023) may be the TOP priority for ED. Not only for us as players/customers, but also for the DCS and ED. I believe these are FAR more important and urgent tasks than any new radar feature or things like that.... 

     

    I’m happy with the last update. If i send feedback to ED it doesn’t mean i’m not happy with the update. Mostly people who doesn’t have any problems don’t post that much here. There is few quirks but they are solvable and ED seems to be on top of it. 

    Why so much negativity? A Phantard Speaks.

    in DCS: F-4E Phantom

    Posted · Edited by divinee

    50 minutes ago, Aussie_Mantis said:

    Otherwise, I'm not really sure why you even bother. This is an F-4E forum. This is about the F-4E. The USN isn't the only user of the Phantom and honestly, if you really want to push the angle of the USN F-4J "mattering" more? The F-4E was used by more nations than the F-4J and its derivatives ever were.

    No, it's F-4 forum which includes all the models Heatblur will make including naval models.

    • Like 4

    RTX 3090 low performance

    in Virtual Reality

    Posted · Edited by divinee

    18 minutes ago, crazyave said:

    Interesting, I must have a magic 8700k, my CPU frame time is always 1/2 to 1/3 of my GPU frame time.  It ever exceeds it and I'm always 50-70fps no reprojection.  This is using the settings I posted earlier.  I have complex multiplayer missions with over a hundred units actively fighting and run a dedicated server install hosting the missions along with my client install on the same system.  I don't see why someone with the same setup can't get similar results, then again, it is DCS!  lol  Good luck!  Curious if you actually see a big difference, I'm actually considering a 13th gen just due to age of my system and future 4090 prospects.

    I swapped from 9600k which run at 5,1GHz to 13600k which runs dcs at 5,8Ghz and i had about 5-6ms overall reduction in CPU frametimes. I adjusted the settings so that i'm always GPU limited with OC'd 3080Ti (~20500pts in timespy gpu score) and after the change i saw no reduction in GPU frametimes so the CPU wasn't bottlenecking the GPU. Overall smoothness especially when flying low is now maybe a little bit better but the step wasn't that big. Maybe with 4090 there can be bigger differences. 

    RTX 3090 low performance

    in Virtual Reality

    Posted

    20 hours ago, Moxica said:

    I don't think "Terrain textures" affects VR, and can be set to Low, and there will be no difference in VR. Only in screen mirror image.

    It does work with vr like about all the settings in game except screen resolution which is for the mirror. The difference is most notable in Syria.

    Naval Phantom Variant

    in DCS: F-4E Phantom

    Posted

    Those failure propabilities shouldn’t be hard coded in to the weapons because there’s just too many variables. Those should be one more tool for the mission builders and they should be considering what failure rates they put on the mission. 

    • Like 1

    Phantom vs XXX

    in DCS: F-4E Phantom

    Posted · Edited by divinee

    40 minutes ago, AnarchyZG said:

    My bad, doesn't say that in the chart and anyway I don't thing for sparrows on the belly make that much difference.

    No problem. Propably not aerodynamically because they are recessed but they weight about 500lb each. There is also charts for the slatted version in the first page of this topic posted by me and they give much better picture. Those charts are also with quite heavy fuel load so be carefull when reading those. Clean weight without fuel is somewhere around 32000lb for block 41.

    Phantom vs XXX

    in DCS: F-4E Phantom

    Posted

    1 hour ago, AnarchyZG said:

    Perhaps I'm misreading the data (note this is ML, not MLD)?
    Seems pretty close to me in what is claimed by many to be the worst MiG-23 aspect (sustained turn), also note that F-4 chart seems to be clean F-4 while MiG-23ML chart is loaded with 2 R-23s (I'm guessing 7G is the structural limit with R-23s)

     

    mig-23-sustain-jpg.46663

    hard wing F-4E turn performance.png

     

    F-4 chart is without slats and with 4x sparrow and more than 7000lb of fuel.

    • Like 2
    • Thanks 1

    F4-B Naval

    in DCS: F-4E Phantom

    Posted

    4 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

    I've read once that a squadron got ex Marines aircraft that had substantial re-wiring performed and that had to be partially undone.

    I just happened to read that same thing few days ago. They had sidewinder tone coming from the radio because of some USMC stuff and when they tried to talk to radio, only sidewinder tone was transmitted. I read it from ”Tonkin Gulf yacht club” but i don’t remember the unit. 

    • Thanks 1

    Phantom vs XXX

    in DCS: F-4E Phantom

    Posted

    1 hour ago, G.J.S said:

    Personally, having never jousted with the MiG-19, nor the MiG-21, I can’t speak for those. The Mig-23ML with the Czech Air Force I have had ‘playtime’ with whilst in the FGR2.
    The MiG-23 was at its best with the wings at 45*, and the speeds not below 450kts. Level accel rates were blistering. Looping manoeuvres were large, with high speed entry making for a large height change.

    When the speed dropped and the wings came forward - the MiG was an ace maker. Just not for the MiG pilot.

    It tended to suffer instability at lower airspeeds, and mixed with the horrendous view from the cockpit, was limited in options. Climbing scissors could easily flush the MiG, and if he lost sight it was easy to go out of phase and take him. Descending scissors were essentially the same, as the MiG would struggle to limit speed gain, and would sail ahead - altitude allowing anyway. In the flat was just as easy.
    However, any mistakes by the F-4 would be capitalised upon quickly, the MiG can pile on the knots rapidly and extend if the F-4 is gun only, any missile still onboard makes this risky for the MiG.

    The relatively slim profile of the MiG can be used to its advantage, as compared to the bulk of the F-4, the MiG can be difficult to acquire visually from 10 down to about 5NM. 

    If (IF!) the MiG survives a sparrow shot, then sidewinders from the rear should be easy to attain, and if all AAM’s are expended, scissoring can flush the MiG and provide a relatively easily attainable gun solution.

    Thanks for the post! It’s always interesting to read real life experiences. I hope you have lots of more interesenting stories about flying phantom 👍

    Phantom vs XXX

    in DCS: F-4E Phantom

    Posted · Edited by divinee
    Few typos

    9 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

    The E, J and S motors had virtually the same thrust. The main difference between early and late models was smokeless combustion on the later models after a mod to the burner-cans. That might have raised EGT a little, but I don't think you'll see significant thrust changes from that. Tactically, that's a lot more decisive, as the smoke on the unmodded J79s was pretty bad and allowed for V-ID at comparatively long range (for a contemporary foe that was usually much smaller in size and didn't smoke) and you could spot power-changes (especially into and out of A/B)

    For a comparison check about 02:00 and following.
     

     

    John Kerr states in the fighter pilot podcast that S had the most powerfull engines with over 18000lb of thrust. I’m not sure about the actual number what he says. Of course it’s from his memory and should be treated like as it is but usually there is some point in those statements. I’ve been trying to find material from the late years of S but seems like the documentation is quite limited.

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...