TLTeo

Cool (pun indented, hehe)! For the Century Series aircraft, was that all Falcons, or just the G and F? Speaking of, this kinda makes me want an F-102 and/or 106 module even more (and especially a Draken since those also carried Super Falcons). And to try to stay on topic, it's a (admittedly somewhat weak) argument for doing an E over a C/D for the USAF birds.

The AI becomes aware of your presence as well. I've had wingmen in the Mig-19 report detections of targets at tens of miles, which is way more than the radar display can even show. Different modules handle this differently too - for example the Farmer and Viggen are a mess, but the Fishbed seems more or less sensible in my experience. Beyond how radar actually works, it's one more piece of the crappy AI DCS has to deal with.

Maybe when ED implements the new DCS Forum Modding API...and yeah, you guys at HB put in a good effort, put some people's feelings don't care about facts.

Is there a way to correlate this to someone's ED forum account, and only kick that in for particularly annoying forum posters?

HB Tomcat bias confirmed! Riot!!!!1111111111

Yeah, I just flew this mission and it was only somewhat possible to engage the speedboats by using the sea radar, and even then it was guesswork more than anything. Same with finding the Grisha, finding it with the TGP is impossible but luckily it pops up on radar and after that tracking it is relatively straightforward. Tweaking the gain/level/contrast/brightness on the TGP improves things somewhat, but without the radar it would just not be doable.

And more than two minutes worth of coolant...although I'm not sure whether that was fixed later on.

Eh the CT is supposed to have received all sorts of cooler toys. I think those options may be more representative of the F1M, the C we're getting first will likely mostly have unguided ordnance.

Hence my post make both or someone, somehow, will find reasons to riot. Personally I would be happy with both, but I can see why both arguments have merit

At this point we can just agree to disagree and move back on topic, the conversation is going nowhere. Both USAF and USN variants or riot.

Volandia! That museum is awesome, I was just in Malpensa last weekend but I didn't have time for a detour this time. Seeing the G-91 and Vampire sitting next to the F-84F there is always amusing, the Thunderstreak is immense by comparison.

Because most bombs missing on either side is better than risking being off by a small amount, and having the whole string of bombs miss. At least, this is what RB's SMEs have been saying about the Mirage employing BAP-100s.

Yeeeeaah no? The (clean) A model Viper can still pull 19 deg/s STR at 50000 ft. From the above, the ML model does about 14. There is no magic vortex generator or aero bit you can happily stick on a plan that will increase your STR by 5 deg/s. Could some late Mig-23 ML type thing go ahead against Vipers and come out decently? Sure, it has plenty of other advantages - BVR missiles for one, possibly aircraft numbers, possibly acceleration and climb performance. That's likely what the Soviet would have meant by "roughly equal to a Viper". But could it easily out turn a Viper, any Viper, in a 1v1 fight? Hell no.

That is a very misleading way to look at it though. A single Meteor right now costs a lot because (to a fair extent) the thing is just entering production, while a single AMRAAM is relatively cheap because thousands of rounds have been built. Not that the Meteor will ever be super cheap of course, but it won't be 6 times more expensive than an AMRAAM forever either. And that has nothing to do with whether carrying 14 missiles in combat on a single jet makes sense or not.

Not necessarily, I have seen aircraft fly off into the distance when they were supposed to simply attack a ground target in front of them. No lua scripts involved, just the DCS AI doing its usual dumb thing.

Again, well aware, I just don't see how that turns a Phantom into a Viper. It's not like the Mirage 3 magically became a Viper when the later variants got strakes, canards or J79s for example...

I am well aware. What I'm saying is, the performance posted in the link is from an ML, which is reasonably close to an MLA, NOT an MS. That ML, close to an MLA, way better than an MS, performs similarly to a Phantom. Again, I find it highly unlikely that some relatively minor aero refinements (because as you pointed out, the wings had already been updated, the engine had already been improved, and the airframe had already been lightened by the time the ML/MLA came out) would take you from that to a Viper's turning performance.

Uuuuh there's supposed to be a huge difference between the MLA and MLD though, because one had the extra strake thingies near the intakes and the other didn't. I also find it highly unlikely that a single airframe could go from being more or less like an F-4, to being comparable to the Viper, with just some relatively minor updates. I wouldn't be surprised it was true in terms of e.g. climb, acceleration, etc, but turning performance? No way. edit: in fact, the ML (shown in the link above) and MLA only differed in avionics.

Yep, even the AIM-9M/L aren't all that useful with a HMS, nevermind older missiles... To be precise - Marine Phantoms didn't really go to North Vietnam or do a2a. Navy Phantoms post Top Gun improved their kill:loss ratio from ~2:1 to ~7:1. USAF didn't change anything about training, assumed the -E with the gun would magically fix everything, and stayed at ~2:1 even during Linebacker. Regarding the Phantom's turning capability, someone posted the EM chart for a slatted E against the Mig-21bis and F-5E here So the Phantom can do ~14 deg/s at 5000ft. By comparison, the -A model Tomcat sustain ~16 deg/s over a much wider speed range: So yeah, claiming that the Phantom is going to be some amazing un-appreciated killer that can take on modern fighters is about as useful as claiming that the Tomcat can do the same. Both jets are old, were really really good in their prime, and as time went buy they were superseded by better, more modern jets. On a practical note, it's very interesting how the F-4 and Mig-23 diagrams from those two posts are so similar.

Buuuut the parts of the DCS code that actually matter (and do physics, and graphics, etc etc) are already in C++? And it's not like lua is *that* limited either - the A-4 folks coded a freaking a2g radar with it, before ED had their own!

It does, still WIP by Deka afaik

Signal to noise is not a property of a detector alone (radar, IR sensor, CCD detector, whatever), noise is. Signal is a property of what you're looking at.

Uh, that may also be a DCS core issue? @IronMike You can see the antenna elevation on the radar scope if you have IR-RB selected on the armament panel (or after pressing the IR missile fast select button? I'm not sure on that one...), otherwise you can still tweak it but you can't see what the antenna elevation is. edit: also, I haven't had a problem detecting stuff in the default log mode regardless of whether it's ships or tanks. Guess I have to play with linear mode more.

Other than tuning the gain, also make sure that you are in logarithmic gain mod and not in linear mode.

Unless I'm misunderstanding....I can see tank/vehicles (especially in groups) perfectly well in the Viggen from ~20km out. In fact, I can see them well enough that I use the radar to spot targets for the RB-75 because screw that crappy sight. I think oil platforms are likely a DCS-side issue since afaik they are built into the map and not recognized as "units" by the engine.