HWasp

That would be nice to have as an option. I think the AI should have attack profiles based on expected threat levels, that could be set in the Mission Editor or in Dynamic Campaign. One could be the current low threat "target practice" type, then one intermediate, that is more agressive, and one with bomb/rocket toss.

I would be interested, what type of changes can we expect regarding AI ground attack / CAS behaviour with the new GFM, when it releases? I'm hoping for a new AI, that flies much more agressively by default. Are the attack profiles, speeds and altitudes going to be redone? Regarding unguided weapons, will there be an option or a logic to change profile and release parameters based on expected threat level? (For example AI firing rockets further away from target at a higher speed and more agressive profile if high threat is expected.)

I think you should consider the possible preferences of people outside the US a bit more, because for me, living in Europe for example, the Navy Phantoms are a very distant thing. I have never seen one, not even in a museum. I'm quite certain, more people have some kind of a memory or connection to the F-4E worldwide, than any other version, simply because that was exported all around the world. The Navy Phantoms are also cool, I'll buy that module as well, 100%, but HB has made a sound decision bringing the E first. Honestly, we should all just be very happy, that these cold war legends finally start to show up in DCS. F-4, F-104, MiG-23, F-100, Kfir, etc. whichever version, I don't care, I'll buy them all!

Fresh aircraft does not mean it can go over it's ultimate load limit. There is simply no guarantee there. It's already 150% of the normal limit, so no, I don't like to see that happen routinely in DCS. If we look at it like this, it is not wrong either if the aircraft falls apart 1% over that, it has the right to do so. It's the over-engineering of the over-engineering that protects you at that point... Again, best compromise would be to make it a bit random. It's good to hear that RAZBAM has those features, I'm not up to date on those, will check it out later.

Punish might have been the wrong expression for what I meant. Provide feedback, that they are doing something wrong is better. Is it a warthunder thing to show people, that going beyond the ultimate load limit of their aircraft is not good? Where exactly would you draw the line then? By cumulative damage I meant cumulative within a single flight, simple as that. Again, I don't think it's good or realistic to simply draw a line at 1.5x and be done with it, but on the other hand it is not wrong either. Nobody will ever guarantee, what exactly happens and when exactly beyond that limit.

I agree, these things should be standardized. Best option imo would be an increasing chance of catastrophic failure + cumulative damage further increasing that chance if multiple exceedences happen. The F-5 specifically could use a special control option, that would decrease stick sensitivity as speed increases to aid people flying without force feedback, stick extensions etc. (like the ARU in the MiG-21)

While I have to agree, that wings might break way too easy, and it might not be realistic as it currently is, what would be a more realistic way to punish people for ignoring the limits and abusing their "single use" throw away plane constantly? While simply breaking the wings at a fixed 1,5x limit G is simplistic, that is the legal limit, and it has the right not to withstand more abuse, even though IRL it would survive as it is over engineered for obvious reasons. There are many factors here, like lack of feedback, lack of control forces, so there are no perfect answers to this, but is it surely the correct way to go for a study sim to allow people to pull 13 Gs on a 7,xG plane every single time in practice, just because on the handful of IRL overG situations it did not break? This also paints a wrong picture. I'd much prefer a more complex model with random cumulative damage, not just a simple G=x you loose wings for sure, but I think limitations should be still enforced. That being said, I think the current model is not that horrible, it really just needs a bit of attention and practice. Honestly, I don't even remember the last time I lost a wing during a merge. (I drop the tanks in time though, not trying to go for it with 3 bags:) )

There are at least 3 mystery birds among the 4th gens in DCS now, the Hornet, the M2000 and the JF-17, for them there is no solid data publicly available regarding sustained turn rates, and unfortunately this makes it quite impossible to settle debates about this subject. I don't think it's a good idea to take DCS bfm relative performance too seriously, at least for the modern planes with classified performance data.

Thanks! I think the R-24 in game now is still from the Lock-On era, just as old as the MiG-23 model. I'm sure they'll update it for the module's release.

I've also started to use the radar on the F-5, even if I can't lock up a contact, somtimes it can help a lot. I'm a bit worried about Jester though, because I always found it very slow to work the radar through it in the F-14. I hope they'll create a way to point the radar where I want more quickly, otherwise I think it'll be very difficult without PAL or anything similiar in the F-4. Anyway, really looking forward to it!

Dude... seriously... You start this whole crappy argument about the MiG-23 when I didn't even mention it in the first place, then call me a liar just like this... What the hell is wrong with you? Ok, let's have it your way, F-4 good MiGs bad, everyone is happy! Have a nice day!

I suspect, you don't have too much experience fighting human opponents in fox1 scenarios in DCS, because, then you'd know how important speed and altitude advantage is, given the radars and missiles are roughly in the same league. Maybe during the Vietnam war, MiGs had to intercept US aircraft, that were not flying low? Come on, seriously... You must be joking at this point. That soviet assumption chart has the F-15A on top, far far ahead of the MiG-23. Also the F-16A is shown to be better. I guess that clearly demontrates soviet superiority. lol I'm always eager to learn, so if you have some good data on APQ-120 being used at low alt against aircraft in the ground clutter, just post it, I have no problem with being proven wrong, but at this point you are the one throwing around extremely generalized statements.

First you come up with the MiG-23, that I didn't even mention in my post, you originally replied to, then this, as if I was some kind of 23 fanatic... strange way to discuss things that is for sure. Look, I don't really care that much. I'll fly both modules for sure, and then I'll see, which one is better. If you don't have a Doppler radar or some kind of MTI for look down capability, then surprise, surprise, flying low does neutralize the radar in most cases and therefore the Aim-7. You know, that the F-4E does not have a Doppler radar right? Have you seen this chart before?

I didn't even mention the 23, but ok... My point was, the lack of look down capability of the radar can and will be used against it by non BVR planes like the 21, so that might make it difficult to avoid WVR, where the chances get even at best. Regarding the 23, the main advantage I expect to see is it's speed and acceleration. The MiG-23 has insane acceleration going through the Mach (there is an interview with an American pilot who flew the 23UB and F-22 as well, and he said, it beats even the F-22 in transsonic acceleration. And that is just a UB...) My money will be on our 23MLA in a head on Fox-1 joust that usually happens in DCS, when some sort of GCI is present, because speed and altitude advantage are key there. I think they are actually even more important than in a Fox3 scenario. The 23 can always be a lot faster unless the F-4 comes prepared, already high and supersonic. Afaik radar ranges are pretty close except look down and low altitude, where the 23 has the advantage clearly. The 23 will also be able disengage from the fox1 fight with better chances if needed, while the F-4 can't do that unless the 23 runs out fuel. I don't know, who treats the 23 as flawless perfection, I always only see the opposite, everyone thinks it's complete trash based mainly on the MS version. We'll see how it will turn out...

Here, you can bank the plane without any yaw oscillations up until 40 degrees AoA... Just use the rudder, thats it. The compressor stall got me though F-1roll.trk

For me yaw oscillations happen only if I do large uncoordinated inputs at high AoA. Basic rule: As AoA increases, more and more rudder is needed for roll and at max AoA it is rudder only. Throwing the stick around at high AoA leads to oscillations... so don't do that maybe?

1. Don't ever compare FMs to the AI, because they are not accurate at all, that MiG-19AI might outrate an F-16. They are UFOs as you said. 2. If you can't control your speed and you just get a "wet fart" out of it, maybe learn to fly it, and try again? (btw the MiG-19 is a very good rate fighter, it might outrate the F-1 for real, this does not depend on age, the MiG-17 and 15 will also outrate it for sure)

I think, against human opponents, the F-4 won't have too much success in BVR, even against 21s because of the radar. People will either stay low or dive once engaged and loose the lock. After that, in WVR, it's a huge beast with smoking engines, and that will be more important than exact turn rates imo. Usually, the one who spots the enemy first, wins. Wouldn't be surprised if the F-5 would be more successful in air to air in practice. At least in DCS.

Unfortunately the endless debate will remain, no way around that. Best of luck! Thank you very much as well !

I think you are mistaken here a little bit, because I don't give a sh.t about the F-16 or any specific module, don't care about balance, because I don't do guns only frequently (really only just sometimes) I fly early cold war jets, that's where the fun is for me. The reason I started posting here was, that I thought something might be slightly off with the module, that is all. Thank you very much for your hard work, overall I think it is quite excellent. The STR issue remains an open question for me, you did not produce data, that would convince me, but of course that doesn't matter. There is an unfortunate trend here in DCS, that modules with very scarce documentation, like the Hornet, perform in surprising ways compared to modules that have much more detailed documentation available, that makes me question their accuracy sometimes. Hearsay is hearsay of course, but if the module's performance does contradict it directly, it is natural, that it raises questions. I personally find it very strange, that this great possible feature of the aircraft is such a guarded secret, and they avoid sustained turns at airshows, like a plague... (hud video is prime example, had to look at it 5 times to notice that 2 seconds of actual sustained horizontal turn) I really hope, that at some point some better evidence shows up, so this question gets settled. Did not mean to be offensive in any way, again I do appriciate your hard work, even if I happen to question it like this. Thanks!

I don't see how can you establish useful data from this if half the equation is gear drag , which is also just a big unkown. How can you establish from this, which part of the equation is wrong? If clean config glide is the question for the L/D, there needs to be a gate, an exact altitude and distance to pass with the clean aircraft. Now the result is: A- gear drag is too high B - L/D is too low C - both gear drag and L/D are wrong D- ? So basically the whole thing doesn't make sense.

I'll have to amend that, it is not working from 30k 40nm with 280 as well.

Ok, now it is your turn to demonstrate this with a track, because with the gear extended at 5000, you cannot reach the field from 10k test and is only barely survivable from 30k. You are basically killing yourself with that 5000 feet gear down, I hope there is a strong technical case for that otherwise it is pretty strange.

Dropping the gear at 5000 is a pretty damn big difference! That should have been important to note really What is the reason for that? If I'm flying to survive an engine out like that, I will drop the gear only when landing is assured, otherwise it will just ruin my glide. I would never drop the gear unless a technical reason makes it necessary. btw if that is the case, why was it so important to fly from 40nm at 260 if you can just start the scenario at 10k 260 14nm? It's the gear, what will ultimately decide the difference...

Here is a 40nm one with a center droptank full + 100% fuel had to do S-turns on short final, because ended up high M2000_engine_out_proc_40nm__full_1droptank_1122.trk