Karon

Which is incorrect, as it depends on where the mainlobe is. So, if you have a general idea of where the target is azm-wise (e.g. from the RWR), you can acquire a lock whilst looking down. You need a human, though, as it requires a bit of work on the radar. Once the lock is achieved, it is very hard to break. null

After a few months sitting on these numbers, I finally gathered enough mental strength to deal with modern DCS Jokes aside, here is the probable final part of the Thrust-to-weight ratio, performance and fuel consumption study. This time the focus is on the 16-17-18 triad: FFalcon, Jeff and Hornet.

This question resembles a lot the initial critiques of the F-14's Jester, which were caused mostly by a lack of understanding of the avionics and Tomcat systems. So, since you said Jester did not see the target, could you spot it on the radar instead? Btw, the 50nm scale is sometimes barely enough. A lot depends on the conditions you are facing.

Thanks @TOViper!

Great work, thanks!

I just asked the devs and linked your post. They'll check here or let me know if there's a better solution than unpacking the miz. Thanks! In the meantime, may I suggest a magnifying glass? > I already asked that question in the Heat Blur section but did not see any response yet. This section seems to be much faster. That's the Italian section of ED's forum though

Quick old tip of mine: CPTR PILOT → CCIP CPTR TARGET → CCRP CCIP is a very unsafe delivery method. As Tau mentioned, tossing prevents you from flying too close to the target (and it is also a lot of fun - self lasing especially). CPTR IP is something different, and it can help you find the correct target if the area is cluttered.

Last part of the INS discussion: Visual/Radar fix updates. Bonus: the NS430 is back, with an unexpected supporter

Hey folks, continuing the INS Navigation discussion in the F-4E, I started to look into the fix updates methods. I hope this can be useful to you.

Something different for once, a broad discussion about SARH employment: ranges, timeline, tactics and more.

Back to Back to Basics! This chapter of the Back to Basics series focuses on the INS, the acronym for Inertial Navigation System. Often misunderstood or taken for granted, understanding the limitations, features, and potential issues of the INS is fundamental, along with knowing the alternative means the crew can use for navigation. Article: https://flyandwire.com/2025/02/13/back-to-basics-ins-drift-and-navigation/

Glad it helped I think both F-14 and F-4 pilots need to spend some time in the backseat, whether they fly solo with Jester or a human. Having a decent understanding of "all-thing-in-the-back" definitely helps to better understand properties, capabilities and limitations of the aeroplane.

As I mentioned in the first video, at ~2:10, I think it is easier to see "reset" as "re + set" or "set again". If you think about it, the prefix "re-" stands for "redo" or "repeat", in a sense. About TGT1/2, I think you can see #1 as the first, immediate value. Ergo, straight from the target counters. #2 is secondary, or indirect. Therefore, the memory. Or, you can follow @Zabuzard's tip and simply memorise the functions. Whatever works for you

Hey folks! This is a sort of follow-up to Leapfrogging and discusses the usage of Bullseye with the AN/ASN-63 INS and -46A Nav Computer. If Leap Frog ops used TGT2 and Memory, Bullseye and similar nav references use TGT1. Let me know if this is interesting for you, I don't want to spam not-useful content

Hey folks, I made a quick video about a topic that I considered well explained in the manual, but given the feedback, it is apparently less intuitive than I thought initially. So, here is a neat navigation technique: "leapfrogging". Since the AN/ASN-46A can store only one point, the WSO (Wonderfully Sexy Operator) can apply this method to ensure no delays when switching waypoints. Also, it enables bullseye / other references whilst maintaining the ability to immediately revert to the current steer point and vice versa. The idea is well described in the manual: TGT2 is used for navigation, thus leaving the Target Counters free to be manipulated. As the SP gets close, the WSO can input the new point latlongs, then turn the Nav Comp Mode knob to RESET. This causes the memory to be overwritten. Now, the GIB (Gorgeous In the Back) can switch back to TGT2, and the BDHI will show the new nav info. If you are confused, check the video or the article below. Article: https://flyandwire.com/2025/01/30/f-4e-leap-frog-operations/ HB F-4E Manual: https://f4.manuals.heatblur.se/jester/navigation.html?highlight=leapfrogging#operation More F-4E Articles: https://flyandwire.com/f-4e-phantom-ii-articles/ I hope this is useful to you. The next videos will be about bullseyes in the F-4E (something I already mentioned here) and INS alignment (yeah, no AHRS shenanigans for land-based aircraft!!). Feel free to suggest more simple-but-not-really topics. Post scriptum: shoutout to HB and their SMEs. I have been accumulating content about the F-4 since long before its release, but every time I jump into it, I notice new, subtle but great details.

TWR, Fuel & Performance: F-4 vs MiG21 vs Mirage F1 - Aircraft Details https://flyandwire.com/2025/01/16/twr-fuel-performance-f-4e-mig-21-mirage-f1-details/ This video introduces and discusses the thrust-to-weight ratio characteristics, fuel consumption, and performance of the F-4E-45MC, the MiG-21bis, and the Mirage F1CE. Due to its length, the next part of this series will compare the three directly.

I know, but this post was opened over a month ago. If, after such a long time, he still struggles and TacView can solve everything in 30 seconds, perhaps it's better to get it, isn't it? I mean, it's free.

Ah, sorry, I understand now. I often see the problem in my missile test mission, and it is very easy to reproduce. The cause is the low Vc of the first shot that leads the follow-ups (at decreased separation) to arrive even earlier than the first one. Quite often they smash into each other. However, I've never seen this happening in the wild, only once with SD-10s. Post a Tacview track, it would make everything easier.

***Thrust-to-Weight ratio, Fuel & Performance Study: F-14 Tomcat*** After a few months collecting data, I have finally finished a new thrust-to-weight fuel & performance model. However, the amount of data is so huge that I had to break it down into multiple discussions. This is the first one, and we start with a bang with one of the most beautiful aeroplanes ever designed: the F-14 Tomcat. Article: https://flyandwire.com/2024/12/20/twr-fuel-performance-study-f-14-tomcat/

Pulse does not guide the Phoenix. It is a glorified maddog with some angles provided until the missile magically acquires the target you locked initially. It's a launch-and-leave TWS, if you will. Add some manual loft to it, and it will go quite far. It's a neat trick to show your friends. Example here. Also: > i dont have tacview, i never really used it > i have a feeling that that multiple aim-54s are colliding, to me thats a big sign of something going on You have just proved why you need TacView. Jokes aside, TV is single-handedly the most important software you can add to DCS. It teaches you how things work or don't, and exponentially accelerates your growth as a virtual pilot. Grab it, it's free Btw, I had two SD-10 collide whilst testing for my recent video about Active Radar Homing missiles, and I remember even managed to have one Phoenix chasing a previously fired one. However, the setup was outside DCS' laws of physics.

Whatever works for you, mate. I am not telling you how to play PS: HB, by popular demand, we now want this:

No, not all of them. Most of them? Definitely yes. The DDD tells you how to use the MLC switch, when to turn preemptively, and when to accelerate or slow down, for example. Also, min-maxing? You are playing an aeroplane that requires two crew members but on your own (the cockpits are not symmetrical) with an AI that is not even close to what an actual RIO should do (because very few would accept an AI telling them what to do), and worry about that? De gustibus, sure, but this is not min-maxing but rather filling the game's gaps.

I "play" (→ try to) in SP as well, and I do it from the backseat. Or, at least, I jump back before employing and right after that. You know ~6 seconds in advance if your track is about to get extrapolated. You also immediately see changes in geometry, id est when the target manoeuvres and approaches the MLC or ZDF bands. All it takes is a glance. Actually, two, depending on in which bar the target is. The point is: this is a two-crew fighter jet. Jester works if you know the aircraft, but it cannot do all this basic stuff a human can. However, these are minute things that it would. Yes, this is pattern-recognition-based, but it entails recognising and contextualising a situation that might be a problem in the future and commanding the pilot to act. We can't expect Jester to do that. It's also a lot of work on HB's side for no real reason when the solution is pressing a button, checking the DDD for a few seconds, and returning to the stick monkey's seat. What do you think?

A simple way to tell is how the DDD looked. I am unfamiliar with such a campaign and particular situation, but 99% of the time, you can tell on the DDD when the TWS is about to go stupid. Not enough players keep an eye on it post-launch, though — and I don't mean you in particular. Also: why STT at 10nm? can you provide footage / tacview?

Thank you! I really appreciate your words