TLTeo

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 Both jets are old, were really really good in their prime, and as time went buy they were superseded by better, more modern jets.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.

@IronMike bump/ping to get some attention on this behaviour, per your request in the EA discussion thread.

Yea the F-5 TACAN has been messy and inconsistent for a very long time. Similar to the RWR or guns, who knows when/if it will get fixed.

To be pedantic, that's your average airquakey loud DCS player, which I don't think is representative of the player base at al. Per ED's data, most of the community flies SP rather than MP to begin with. It's just that the "muh capabilities" crowd is much louder than the silent majority.

Sure, all I'm saying is that if they really are pushing major stuff to November, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. If that major push is seriously delayed and/or the Tomcat clearly keeps receiving more attention I will be just as annoyed as you all though.

They literally stated in this very thread that major stuff will come in November. Hold your pitchforks until then at least.

Meeeeh I don't buy those arguments. The Crusader community had a ~6:1 kill:loss ratio mostly achieved through missiles. The gun-less Navy Phantoms went from 2:1 to 7:1 between pre and post Top Gun. The USAF jets stayed at ~2:1 throughout Vietnam regardless of whether they carried guns or not. Meanwhile those same -E model jets in Israel did extremely well for themselves. The problem at that time wasn't the design of the aircraft. It was the god-awful doctrine and training of the people who commanded those aircraft.

Yep, DMT and ARBS replaced by the APG-65

The Skyflash (and Selenia Aspide) basically started from an AIM-7E and then overhauled most of it. In terms of capability they should be in the ballpark of an AIM-7M iirc.

It's very simple. "If I can't have thing X, nobody should get thing X. If others benefit from thing Y, me not benefiting from thing Y is outrageous" is an overly simplistic opinion that fails to take into account how the world works. If you fail to grasp that, then frankly any further conversation is a waste of time and patience.

The airframe is identical except for the vertical stab as far as I know. The engine was less prone to compressor stalls at high AoA but that's it. Turn performance should be unchanged. Yep this is correct The question isn't whether the above are doable by a modder taking educated guesses (the A-4 mod had an air to ground radar years ago before the Hornet even, and that was entirely lua based), but whether all those features can be implemented while re-using the FM, systems model, and art of the AJS.

I guess if someone could pull it off it would be neat, but I don't see how you would include e.g. the HUD symbology for an a/a gun or radar, or BVR missiles (or whether they could be included in the mod at all), while recycling the assets from the AJS.

It's planned among a couple dozen other modules. Make of that what you will.

I posted the difference between the B/J/N/S above But yeah I agree, it's really hard to do justice to the Phantom in one go. I half think they should have two separate modules, each fully priced, and then whoever has the first Phantom gets a ~50% discount on the second one. It will be on the pricey side, but it could work.

Sort of, they did plenty of a2g during Vietnam (and obviously CAS is the main mission of the USMC) but that role was still mainly taken up by the A-7 and A-6 It was awful, which is why it was yanked in the J/S. Similar to (but worse than) to the F-14A indeed, since that one also went pretty quickly.

Correction: HB did this in addition to the full campaign they released, which is set in Caucasus and is a continuation of the mini-campaign

Iirc the F-4N were rebuilt Bs with the AWG-10 radar, bombing computers, RWRs, and sometimes slats (which required removing the BLC). From what I can tell they retained the IRST. The -J were (mostly) new jets with the similar avionics to the N. I don't know whether they got slats or not. The -S had a further improved radar and slats. The J and S did not have the IRST. The UK Phantoms were more or less built to J or S spec, except for the Spey engines (which would completely change the FM). Honestly, I don't see what asking for all these variants can bring, you can cover pretty much all of their history/service life/peculiarities with even one of them. The UK ones are the most different, but even then we can just pretend jets with a UK livery are part of the batch of F-4J (upgraded to S spec) the Brits leased in the early 80s. None of these jets used PGMs.

Yes, the Italian Air Force has pretty amusing official designations for each jet. The AMX is officially called the A-11 Ghibli, the Tornado is designated as the A-200, and the Typhoon is the F-2000. Most people call it the Eurofighter though.

But the sim crowd now has plenty of ways to play the game they want to. DCS is a sandbox after all. It only becomes a problem when said sim crowd goes on an airquake server and expects realism to apply to that...if they do, I have news for them: the number of HARMs carried by Vipers is the least of their concerns. If they don't do that, and instead fly single player and/or with milsim squadrons, then where's the problem?