Karon

Nessuno ti costringe a guardare. Muta / esci dal loro discord / threats e via. Ad altri piace essere up to date e vedere il progresso (non sono tra questi).

Se un dev é muto per diverso tempo, la gente si lamenta. Se un dev condivide frequentemente, la gente si lamenta. Mai contenti, eh?

Yep, I have noticed the same, with a loss in the order of 15%/20%. No chances pre-loft (<21nm), but then the loss is really evident. Manual loft helps a bit. Hopefully ED will sort out the missing bit in an hotfix. EDIT: added some stuff here: https://flyandwire.com/2023/07/25/aim-54-phoenix-post-2-8-7-42583-24-07-2023/

I thoroughly suggest you to start as a Tomcat RIO without worrying about the F-4 until the EA starts. Even just a few months will greatly benefit you, as you can get used to flying and cooperating with another human. If you stick to Pulse, you can still use the DDD and learn and practice very elementary stuff about intercepts, drift, CC, angles and so on. Since this stuff is the bedrock applicable to any aircraft, the sooner you learn it, the better. Plus, the Tomcat gives you the TID as an additional tool to simplify the process of learning.

They should do what is more appropriate to the version depicted. What's the matter if we get a strobe/order version? Worst care scenario, we have to learn the associated PRF noise returns

This analysis is very poor. You are not even considering the greatest changes occurred since the mid 80s, that led to a stop, either directly or indirectly, to the development of the Tomcat. A couple of examples: the Phoenix was considered obsolete by mid 80s, but that AIM-152 was cancelled. The plans to move to the F-14D were seriously tuned down. The Tomcat god a pod because techs made a miracle with it, money was very tight. The Tomcat turned out to be an excellent AG platform, what was needed in that moment to fill a gap. As a fighter, it showed some of its limitations (partially doctrinal as well) even in DS. Comparing LINK4 and 16 is just no. Same for INS, radar capability, even cost and maintenance. The Tomcat is often considered a gen 3.5. its core is around since 1962, whereas the others are the frontline of the digital era. Even more so for the versions we have in DCS. I'm in a hurry, but there are tons other factors I could list. These should give an idea though.

I have changed the purpose of the topic a little, and posted another video here, to limit the number of threads. Hope you like it!

In DCS, none. There are three categories of AIM-7s: E2, F/M and MH/P. Kinematically, each category is identical. I posted a couple of charts in the previous pare, and more in the AIM-54 thread, Tomcat section.

True, although the F-4E has been around for so long that it mostly depends on the mission and scenario. Unrelated, I have put together another quick video, focused on two of the main peculiarities of the F-4E: Guns & Slats.

After reviewing the cockpit multiple times, I started to like it and get its logic (I'm talking about the Nav, of course). The majority of the controls follow a pattern, plus some oddly placed, which may have been located there following upgrades. Still, it looks much more intuitive than some Soviet cockpits.

These are in-game values, so whatever rocket motor was represented there. Sorry for the vague reply!

Magari ad altri funziona o non usano quella funzionalitá (mai usata in 15 anni per parte mia)?

M8 PLS null Spawned at 60k M3 or whatever, and fired the lightest and most explosive AIM-54 (hence the A Mk60) with a slight negative pitch with ACM on to disable loft (which reduces the top speed). On a serious note, a 40k M1.5 54A Mk60 versus co-alt with no loft peaks at M4.1. The Phoenix is not a slow missile per se, but the loft trajectory reduces the top speed. However, it does not really matter, as the Phoenix behaves in its own peculiar way. Charts and info here:

Since you are talking about R-24 and AIM-7, this is how they look like in-game right now. At the end of the day, these values are what matters. Hopefully, we will see a thorough upgrade to the new API by the time the Flogger arrives. Speed vs Time: And Range vs Impact Speed:

These are the AIM-7s in game at the moment. And this is a broader comparison of some missiles from the 70s You can see right away how the AIM-7 behaves very differently.

Hey folks! The SE is out, the F-4 looms just beyond the horizon. The long watch is almost over… Possibly. For this reason, I wanted to get a bit more familiar with the Phantom II, and I started with taking a look at the cockpits. The DCS F-4E is not out yet, the old screenshots from Belsimtek are not great, so I have found an alternative, and put together a quick video. Moving the first steps with a new aeroplane is never easy, especially if the game does not match either. I have used MilViz's F-4 for FSX, and this seems to be a DVST Phantom, whereas I am looking forward to the later upgrades, to fit in the best period DCS can imo replicate (late 70s, early 80s). Nevertheless, the difference should not be huge, and this is a good means of familiarising with the cockpit. I am sure there are errors in the video, as I am brand new to the Phantom and I have spent only a dozen hours studying the documentation. So, if you have observations, please do share them, and I will put the corrections in the comments. Thanks! UPDATE 10/07/2023: GUNS & SLATS The F-4E featured two peculiar upgrades that separate it from the predecessors and its Navy brothers: the presence of an internal gun, and the nre wing supporting leading-edge slats. UPDATE 14/07/2023: AIR-TO-AIR WEAPONS EMPLOYMENT An overview of the basic avionics and instrumentation required to employ AIM-7 Sparrow, AIM-9 Sidewinder and the M61A1 20mm Vulcan. UPDATE 23/07/2023: RADAR BASICS & CONTROLS The details of the Radar Set Control Panel, and the purpose of the instruments here installed. UPDATE 03/08/2023: RADAR QUIRKS & FEATURES A discussion about some cool features of the radar and avionics, such as the nutating antenna pattern, or the Computer Automatic Acquisition mode. UPDATE 17/08/2023: AIR-TO-AIR INTERCEPTS - THEORY A two-parts refresher on the basic concepts useful to intercept and engage a target with the F-4E Phantom II. This first video covers the theory. UPDATE 29/08/2023: AIR-TO-AIR INTERCEPTS - PRACTICE The second part of the Air-to-Air Intercepts sees some practical examples using the F-14's DDD B-Scope in Pulse mode.

In a sense, the Strike Eagle is the closest alternative to the F-14D: it has multicrew, air-to-ground capability, updated avionics (INS, later datalink, GPS, databus), they weight almost the same, and the APG-71 is based on the APG-70, and so on. But The cockpit workflow is vastly different, its primary purpose is different, there is no AIM-54, it is not carrier-based, it has no integrated sensors (e.g. TCS/IRST), it seems to accelerate better, but has lower top speed (but it may be due to the EA status), and many other differences. Personally, it also lacks the charisma, so to speak, of many Navy aircraft, but this is a personal opinion, of course. So Can you mock an F-14D with a SE? Yeah-almost-ish. But it is a poor man's option in this context. The SE seems to be a really nice module, it's worth getting it if you like it. Shameless video plug:

Raises hand Dedicated RIO players exist.

A brief video about Cranking and Notching, answering a number of recurring questions, such as speed management in the crank, altitude offsets when notching, and so on, using Maths, chats with real pilots and crews, and a bit of gaming perspective.

You can't notch the AWG-9 in DCS if you do not want. However, in-game you see missiles (either AIM-7 or 54) guide until a certain point where they just go for chaffs, even dropped 10" earlier, seemingly notched by the defending aircraft, even if the AWG-9 always maintains a solid lock. In other words, both STT and ARH can be notched in DCS. The resilience vs chaff of the various missiles is described by a parameter in the lua files. I wouldn't know how to compare the two though. Also, ARH launches never reacquire a target, they start climbing in a very odd way. It wasn't happening before the AIM-54 overhaul. The problem is, I highly doubt this in HB's hands. @tavarish palkovnik Interesting, unfortunately I am not competent enough to comment; you should post them to ED and see what they say.

These are what we have in-game, though. I wanted to comment about the missile API, or the variables used to describe CM resistance, for example, but I have preferred staying on the pure kinematics discussion. On the positive side, as soon as ED improves their missiles, I will be able to immediately compare the datapoints. If you have resources that can help ED to implement more realistic missiles, please do get in touch with them. We all want DCS to improve, and the work they are doing on F-16/18's radars is very promising.

Last video about Phoenix kinematics (on top of AIM-7s and AIM-120C-5), covering the effects of speed and altitude, and how they are not always worth it. The main reason is that the Phoenix hits the brakes in the last few miles, sometimes wasting all the energy advantage provided by flying high and fast. This, and other factors, such as fuel, mission objectives and tasking, may make the whole effort quite pointless, depending on the scenario. I do not plan any additional videos on the topic, I don't think there are aspects still to be discussed (also, enough with the spam! ). In the example above (from the video), the first pair is co-alt, 0TA, 0ATA, 35k, M1. The second ("FAST") is flying at ~M1.15. The last ("HF") is higher and faster: 45,000ft, M1.15. However, the additional 10k the Phoenix has to dive, makes it waste the whole speed advantage it accumulated before. Ergo, the gains are more on the flight time side, rather than the speed at impact. This is, however, only one scenario. When employing at 80nm, for example, the advantages of flying even only 5,000ft higher are really tangible (+ ~M0.5 at impact, flight time -30s). EDIT: I know what I said, but a user on Hoggit asked for more details about Cold War missiles, so here we have another video

I put together another brief video, this time showing missile performance vs *Time*. It's often taken from granted, but I'm finding this aspect, or the lack of understanding of it, to be one of the main causes when people call the Phoenix "bad" or "broken". TLDW: in 30", a Phoenix travels ~10nm. An R-27ER covers almost 17nm, but the longer the range, the greater the advances of the Phoenix. Therefore, manipulating geometry (e.g. cranking) helps to offset the disadvantages in terms of acceleration, top speed, and trajectory.