Karon

I think you missed this sentence from my last reply: > In a proper mission, the objective may be more important than losing an aircraft, and I'd accept the fight. In that case, which is what I thought we were talking about initially, we'd be in a mid-80s onwards: F-15s were finally sorted and available, and F-14s had the nulla osta for using the AIM-54C against fighters. You will have escort when mud-moving with the F-4, supported by controllers, EW, tankers and so on. You shouldn't YOLO in with a Phantom. Since Kermit is talking about airquake, then the whole situation is different. Out of curiosity, I checked how the game that shall not be named manages this, and F-4E/Kurnass will never see the 9.12 by a long margin (2.0 BR). I hope this reinforces the point I stated above.

Sempre quasi senza voce, ho messo insieme un versione italiana del video riguardo al toolset per planning e navigazione a bassa quota in Syria. Purtroppo non ci sono tools che riportano il dettaglio che volevo, quindi me ne sono fatto uno. Niente di troppo complesso, però funziona. Il flightplan é abbastanza banale e non sono andato troppo nel dettaglio. Ho dei video in inglese, con inputs di equipaggi di F-4E e Mirage. Se c'é interesse posso farne un sunto in lingua nostrana. Altrimenti torno alla geometria e A/A.

OK e, di nuovo, ho capito. É ovvio che tutto ció dovrebbe essere nel gioco base. Detto questo, il punto della discussione era differente... Va beh, lasciamolo lí che altrimenti non finiamo piú.

I started playing flight sims in the late 90s, and about 10-15 years of those playing competitive though different games, now I find airquake terribly boring and limited. I won Right, jokes aside, I see your point but, if the MiG-29 does all of that, why would you accept the fight? Unload and bugout. Circle around and ask your GCI to monitor groups of interest and wait for an opening. If my aircraft were in a disadvantageous position, I would try to flip the situation or just avoid going there. You mentioned BS: it's airquake, and I didn't realise you were talking about arcade gameplay. There's no illusion to dissipate there, and you can safely throw realism out of the window. In a proper mission, the objective may be more important than losing an aircraft, and I'd accept the fight. The other things you mentioned are some of the reasons why I wouldn't touch airquake anymore. Like, everyone is low, where are the AAA/SHORAD/MANPADS (I just made a video about the lack of those in DCS servers)? Where's the escort? No one is sanitising and checking their low AoR? There's no early warning? What is my controller doing? Sure, threat calls are a thing, but in arcade are the norm. As I said, I would wait for an opening. It's not there? I don't go there. It depends on whether your virtual life is worth more than the cost of getting shot down. The F-4 is much older than the MiG-29, either go in with an advantage or don't. Keep in mind that the F-4E was the last Phantom variant (sine G, but that was very specific). There is a reason why it never got PD radar and other upgrades, but you can't effectively portray those differences in an arcade server where all of this doesn't matter.

OK? Vedo che stai cambiando discorso. Tornando a quello, il problema é che l'ATC AI dá un 5% di informazioni utili e l'ATIS compensa molto. Lato AIC/GCI, non si arriva nemmeno allo 0.5% di informazioni utili e non c'é mod che aiuti. Bogey dope e pictures come sono presentate sono completamente inutili (per non parlare dei bug che affliggono il modello dei radar). L'ATC almeno dá vettori e, sebbene in una logica contorta, riesce a far partire le AI e, piú o meno, gli umani (se nello stesso gruppo). Detto ció, la speranza é che, nel caso in cui l'ATC sia rilasciato prima degli altri, le innovazioni sviluppate aiutino a creare GCI utili e realistici.

Sei serio? No, non hanno lo stesso peso. Non sono nemmeno nello stesso universo. Controllers sono presenti per ogni operazione, é molto raro che non ci siano in qualche forma, o che non diano almeno informazioni iniziali. In DCS sono completamente assenti. Sono fondamentali sopratutto per gen 2, gen 3 e gen 4 che non hanno search radars, che senza un AIC/GCI, sono praticamente ciechi. Sono loro che scelgono cosa passare e far visualizzare al L4 del Tomcat, o che guidano intercepts per tutti gli aerei sovietici. A cosa serve un F-16A senza radar se gli togli un controller? Vola stile WWI sperando di cozzare contro qualcuno per puro caso? Ora, capisco che possano piacere cose diverse, ma cerchiamo di non inventare cose, dai. Un aeroporto puó essere unmanned, e per il 130 se proprio bastano due entries nel radio menu per le funzioni base e via, per poi espanderlo dopo. Senza contare le occasioni in cui c'é silenzio radio e quindi é proprio come non avere un ATC. La webapp sviluppata da HB e integrata in DCS aiuta anch'essa, non che serva un ATC per queste cose. Se proprio, dovrebbero integrare un ATIS immediatamente, invece di dover usare terze parti.

Probabilmente pochi saranno d'accordo, ma spendere tempo su un ATC in DCS in questo momento é abbastanza inutile imo. Invece, andrebbe data prioritá prima ad AIC/GCI: é troppo importante per tutti gli aerei, sopratutto pre moderno datalink, e lo status quo non é accettabile. Invece, si puó far finta che l'AF sia unmanned usando una frequenza comune. Non é il massimo ma funzione. L'AIC/GCI attuale invece proprio non va.

As others and Mr Zab have said, it is a bit more complicated than that. STT, when established, is indeed powerful and focused on the target. However, to get there, you need to deal with the monstrosity that the thing that Zab posted is. Radar emissions, although often represented as a cone, are nowhere near as clean. Personally, I'd take a nice negative offset, even 10-15k lower, point the antenna up (depending on the range, it'd be at least 2° upwards), and start working on the gain whilst constantly increasing the elevation. Alternatively, if the target is high enough and the pilot sees contrails, we go pure pursuit, stab off and the target should be clearly visible in the centre of the scope. Then, grab a lock, and take it from there. Alternatively, radar on stand by, and use the AI GCI to work the geometry until you are in an advantageous position. Although terrible, it is somewhat doable. Btw, ED please, drop the ATC thing and prioritise the AIC/GCI. We can live pretending that airfields are unmanned, but controllers are very important for all aircraft, especially ante modern datalink.

I feel you. Well, if anything, you can tinker and adjust the AI a bit. It's not great, but better than nothing. For my campaign, I randomised several parameters, such as skill (not the in-game random, that would drag the nonsensical Ace level), but also the reaction to threat and the reaction times. Since it's set in the mid-70s in non USSR/NATO countries, tech and maintenance are what they are. For this reason, some of them won't even defend from missiles. It's not great as this cuts off IR missiles as well, but it's randomised. Again, lots of compromises, but the result is interesting, especially when your flight is jumped on by 7-8 MiG-21PF all behaving differently. Moreover, even the AI can be jumped on as well.

Better than you? I don't know, does it matter? What does better even mean? Certainly, I do things differently than you, and keep trying until I find a solution, or the best alternative to that. For instance, are you familiar with the new R-27 family (I made a video discussing it)? Have you checked its performance? If you had, you'd see that the 7M has an advantage, kinematics-wise, especially beyond 5-7nm, and it is more pronounced at low or high altitudes. Normally, it wouldn't mean much: "the shoot asap" idea works only vs AI and new players. But, this is one of the exceptions because you have 4 missiles against 2. If it's a 1v1, totally unrealistic scenario, bloody spam them. Worst case, you are lighter when you bugout. The R-60M, correct me if I'm wrong, is another 1983 missile. IIRC it has all-aspect capability, but it is quite old and very light. The AIM-7L had already all-aspect capability half a decade prior. It is also worth checking if the 7M was already around in 1983. Don't dismiss FQ IR shots! So, missiles-wise, you have a minor advantage both in quantity and capability. But, I have the feeling your biggest issue is the radar. I take for granted you have flying with a competent human WSO. Sure, lookdown is a problem, but it can be done depending on how the MLC intersects target and terrain (I have a video about that). If not, take a negative offset, radar on standby, pre-set the elevation, and switch to xmit at 35-45nm. If the MiG goes down to ground level, heck, I'd be tempted to stay up and start to bugout: the MiG does not have the legs to chase you at that point (I have a video about that too). I'm not saying it is a fair match, not at all, but you have 2 strengths: try using them, if not, blow through, unload and bug out. Remember that a clean Phantom supercruises, the MiG doesn't. Anecdote: shortly after the Tomcat was released, we played some 2v1 or even 3v1. If the 54s didn't connect, there was no way I was going against AIM-120C-5s with AIM-7 and in numerical inferiority. So, I told my pilot to go cold and unload. After a few minutes, I hopped on the radio and asked the Hornets if they were happy to continue as we were until they were dry, or to start a new engagement: I had fuel, they didn't, since they had to defend from AIM-54s and then chase me. Result: no one won in that case, and we started a new test. I hope you see my point: if what you are doing does not work, try something different. If it doesn't work, unload and bugout: don't get killed only because manoeuvring or playing the fuel card is "not fun", it makes no sense. Btw, opening a book about military aviation history shows that the majority of the engagements ended with zero kills: some shots fired, then weather/fuel came up or positional advantage never materialised, and people went home. This is a game, of course, and you can depart, make a loop and crash on the runway every time you want if this is your thing. However, I personally don't see where the fun is in getting splashed for free. What do you think?

The AI is subject to none of the limitations a human has. Try lowering the AI skill level: since the AI is omniscient, the higher the skill level, the more it cheats. I have seen most realistic behaviours in Rookie or Average. Problem is, at those very low levels, the AI is even more predictable than usual. Veteran is usually what I use. I can't stand Ace: seeing old aircraft with bare bone RWRs reliably notching AIM-54/120s (dragging / manoeuvring / etc and thus thrashing the incoming ARH missile would be fine, but not at the usual 6-7 nm every single time). Ergo, don't feel bad. Grab a good human WSO and things will get better quickly.

Besides the latest patch that I'm still checking, if we assume a 1983 encounter, you can take an AIM-7M (1982) vs an R-27R (1983). In such a scenario, our Phantom is already 10 years older than the MiG-29+R-27R combo. Besides, the Phantom at that point would have still carried AIM-7E and F, I suppose. Also, the MiG-29 should go around with R-60s at this point, whereas, IIRC the Phantom should already have all-aspect AIM-9s. I need to check the dates though. There are also some DCS oddities to consider, but that should be it. The ER/ET were basically unseen abroad until mid-to-late 90s. That's 20+ years after our Phantom. It's like taking AIM-54s in the Korean War, time-wise. Disregarding all that, by the time the Extended variants were around, our mid-70s Phantom-E was either long gone, or would have been escorted by other, more capable A/A assets. Also, music helps a bit to mess with the range advantage, just enough to bravely bugout.

You have a pretty good understanding of the issue: when the MiG-29 showed up, the F-4E was still capable of do well in A/A, but F-14/15/16/18 had better chances. The Phantom II has some advantages: on paper better medium-range missile, four eyes, better avionics in some regards. Besides that, you have better endurance. Almost everything else is against you so, if I were you, I'd try to gain an advantage during the transition from BVR to WVR, assess the situation then, worst case, blow through and bugout. Depending on the fuel status and DI, you should be able to maintain separation enough to return to friendly lines. This situation reminds me of the F3 vs other aircraft. There are a few interviews here and there on this topic (check Aircrew Interview), they are quite interesting.

Altro giro, altro video: aspect angle / target aspect. Concetto semplice, ma con qualche correlazione interessante.

Grazie, l'importante é che siano interessanti. Sono tutte cose abbastanza semplici in realtá, molte si realizzando anche solo osservando (e.g. CC) e credo che buona parte di si é guardato un minimo di aria-aria sia giá a conoscenza di angoli e quant'altro. Fatemi sapere se il livello di approfondimento é troppo basso a parer vostro, nel caso alzo il tiro!