Feedback Thread - Tomcat Patch 24-12-24

[Despayre]

9 hours ago, Sindar said:

A module in which the critical element RIO is not done properly cannot be the best. HB themselves recognize the shortcomings of RIO.

Could not disagree with you more.

[Naquaii]

10 hours ago, Sindar said:

A module in which the critical element RIO is not done properly cannot be the best. HB themselves recognize the shortcomings of RIO.

I think you're mistaking RIO for Jester.

And Jester was never intended or described as a replacement for a real human RIO.

That said he will continue to evolve but no, I do not agree with you that the "RIO" isn't properly done.

[JupiterJoe]

On 2/7/2025 at 4:41 PM, Naquaii said:

I 

 

[Ramius007]

Aim-54A is most likely overperforming compered to reality after last patch, I know people throw at me Phoenix effectivness during Iraq-Iran war, but keep in mind, that except F-1, nothing what Iraq used had ECM pods, mig's 17/19/21/23 su-25's, now in DCS 80's reality, 4th gen fighters with modern ECM are inefecctibe against 60's designed missile, I dont think previous Aim-54 was perfect, and occasional misses against chaffing tankers looked funny, but what we have now is much worse, I understand that Aim-54C with upgraded ECCM from mid 80's was most likely good missile, but AIM-54A was just antique, that was proven murdering other antiques (2nd and 3rd gen planes) and it's what we had in DCS pre last patch

[DD_Fenrir]

6 minutes ago, Ramius007 said:

Aim-54A is most likely overperforming compered to reality after last patch, I know people throw at me Phoenix effectivness during Iraq-Iran war, but keep in mind, that except F-1, nothing what Iraq used had ECM pods, mig's 17/19/21/23 su-25's, now in DCS 80's reality, 4th gen fighters with modern ECM are inefecctibe against 60's designed missile, I dont think previous Aim-54 was perfect, and occasional misses against chaffing tankers looked funny, but what we have now is much worse, I understand that Aim-54C with upgraded ECCM from mid 80's was most likely good missile, but AIM-54A was just antique, that was proven murdering other antiques (2nd and 3rd gen planes) and it's what we had in DCS pre last patch

Nothing like a well evidenced argument. 

Oh, wait…

 

Edited February 9 by DD_Fenrir

[Ramius007]

5 minutes ago, DD_Fenrir said:

Nothing like a well evidenced argument. 

Oh, wait…

 

I would love, if you could elaborate... but if not and your age or intellectual properiites not allow this, at least I try

I dont own Tomcat, but I'm thinknig about getting one, and sadly I cant share like dozen of tacview links with old aim-54A performance in 80's pvp setup, but my wild guess, based on tens of hours fighting along or against Tomcat, made me think, that missile was modelled decently for like last year of my experiance with Tomcats, it's also based on results I found in my SP scenarios where I fielded AI Tomcats against AI in mentioned by me old planes, it was performing well. Now if I see aim-54A getting kills against ECM equipped 80's Flankers or M2k, it doesnt feel right, similalry, if it would doesnt feel right to see Vipers or Hornets dying to Sa-2 or Sa-3, despite manouvering, chaffing and use of ECM, we have this kind of info based combat history, sadly we dont have combat history about Aim-54A against 4th gen planes, but I think most people agree with me, that currenty missile is overperforming vs threats that were designed 1 or 2 decades after old Aim-54

[DD_Fenrir]

1 hour ago, Ramius007 said:

I would love, if you could elaborate... but if not and your age or intellectual properiites not allow this, at least I try

I dont own Tomcat, but I'm thinknig about getting one, and sadly I cant share like dozen of tacview links with old aim-54A performance in 80's pvp setup, but my wild guess, based on tens of hours fighting along or against Tomcat, made me think, that missile was modelled decently for like last year of my experiance with Tomcats, it's also based on results I found in my SP scenarios where I fielded AI Tomcats against AI in mentioned by me old planes, it was performing well. Now if I see aim-54A getting kills against ECM equipped 80's Flankers or M2k, it doesnt feel right, similalry, if it would doesnt feel right to see Vipers or Hornets dying to Sa-2 or Sa-3, despite manouvering, chaffing and use of ECM, we have this kind of info based combat history, sadly we dont have combat history about Aim-54A against 4th gen planes, but I think most people agree with me, that currenty missile is overperforming vs threats that were designed 1 or 2 decades after old Aim-54

Look, I am not saying you are automatically wrong, but there's a heap of conjecture, supposition and "I feel" in your position statement.

None of this provides meaningful data to support your position.

If you think something is wrong, bring a good selection of .trks (some tacviews too can help but .trks are better) demonstrating the behaviour and where you think the problem lies. Then we can talk.

It doesn't help that you're essentially coming from the opposition and accusing the F-14 of having unbeatable missiles - we in the DCS: F-14 community are only too aware of the limitations and weaknessess of the Phoenix and are rather cynical when OPFOR players come in here and make unsubstantiated claims; if you're gonna do it the burden is on you to provide the proof, so bring evidence.

Regards ECM resistance, this is not unique to the Phoenix, as as far as I can tell, no A2A missiles in DCS, whatever the nation/alleigance, seem to be even vaguely affected by jamming, as the DCS noise jammer is a rudimentry simulation at best, being burnt through by Air Interception radars at ranges well outside the Rne of most of the A2A missiles in DCS.

Also, in real life, the AIM-54, even the -A, had the ability to automatically switch to home on jam mid flight should the track file be swamped so in RL switching on jamming might not be the best idea; in DCS if you're approaching a bandit who has a AR/SAR missile with HoJ capability it is a bad idea to have your ECM on under 20nm; ask me how I know...

As an OPFOR player, if you're fighting F-14s carrying AIM-54A and you aren't dropping into the notch at regular intervals as you try and close to your effective missile range, then you're doing it wrong.

 

Edited February 9 by DD_Fenrir

[Ramius007]

51 minutes ago, DD_Fenrir said:

Look, I am not saying you are automatically wrong, but there's a heap of conjecture, supposition and "I feel" in your position statement.

None of this provides meaningful data to support your position.

If you think something is wrong, bring a good selection of .trks (some tacviews too can help but .trks are better) demonstrating the behaviour and where you think the problem lies. Then we can talk.

It doesn't help that you're essentially coming from the opposition and accusing the F-14 of having unbeatable missiles - we in the DCS: F-14 community are only too aware of the limitations and weaknessess of the Phoenix and are rather cynical when OPFOR players come in here and make unsubstantiated claims; if you're gonna do it the burden is on you to provide the proof, so bring evidence.

Regards ECM resistance, this is not unique to the Phoenix, as as far as I can tell, no A2A missiles in DCS, whatever the nation/alleigance, seem to be even vaguely affected by jamming, as the DCS noise jammer is a rudimentry simulation at best, being burnt through by Air Interception radars at ranges well outside the Rne of most of the A2A missiles in DCS.

Also, in real life, the AIM-54, even the -A, had the ability to automatically switch to home on jam mid flight should the track file be swamped so in RL switching on jamming might not be the best idea; in DCS if you're approaching a bandit who has a AR/SAR missile with HoJ capability it is a bad idea to have your ECM on under 20nm; ask me how I know...

As an OPFOR player, if you're fighting F-14s carrying AIM-54A and you aren't dropping into the notch at regular intervals as you try and close to your effective missile range, then you're doing it wrong.

 

We may have here endless debate here about many things in DCS vs how they compere to real live, and HOJ is one of them, but it's not the point, my point is that if only 1 server was allowing aim-54A in 80's pvp setup, and after changes, mods of those server had to limit aim-54A to 1, despite having Tomcat for years, and all those guys of said server have more hours in DCS, than I ever get in all video game in my entrire life. Pvp is minority community, but at the same time, this minority, given nature of pvp is also most insightfull for how things work, spending more hours in tacview than more casual palyers, and IMHO, it's more important than guesses, how HOJ mode WOULD work vs ADVANCED 4th gen airframes with much more mdern ECM. Prior, in pvp setup aim-54A was considered unreliable and hi skill weapon against modern jets, but still forced opposition to flying in more cautios way, yet good pilots was making kills with one, also missile acted like a "scrub filter" vs those who didnt adjusted to Phoenix with tactics you mention, issue is, that currently said tactic not work, and we are talking about system that remember mentioned by me Sa-2 and Sa-3. I have a feeling or estimation, if you dont like this word, that come from history of HB products, that HB fall to laud pve majority crawd that see EVERY opfor SAM, AAA, enemy plane as overperfroming, and EVERY weapon used on own module as underperforming, those are my 2cents

[Naquaii]

7 hours ago, JupiterJoe said:

 

Pinging me in doesn't make sense here, it's just annoying honestly. You have to turn to the actual guys in charge of responding to those things, I can't really help you as I'm just the SME and researcher for the F-14.

4 hours ago, Ramius007 said:

Aim-54A is most likely overperforming compered to reality after last patch, I know people throw at me Phoenix effectivness during Iraq-Iran war, but keep in mind, that except F-1, nothing what Iraq used had ECM pods, mig's 17/19/21/23 su-25's, now in DCS 80's reality, 4th gen fighters with modern ECM are inefecctibe against 60's designed missile, I dont think previous Aim-54 was perfect, and occasional misses against chaffing tankers looked funny, but what we have now is much worse, I understand that Aim-54C with upgraded ECCM from mid 80's was most likely good missile, but AIM-54A was just antique, that was proven murdering other antiques (2nd and 3rd gen planes) and it's what we had in DCS pre last patch

Unless you have actual data supporting this there's not much to say really.

In fact it's the other way around, as we've been saying for some time now we're happy with how the kinematics of the missile performs and the still remaining inaccuracies is with the seekerhead and guidance which should be better than they currently are. But we need ED's help with that. As for how the ECM works, that's a DCS thing and not something we can affect on a module basis.

What happened in the December patch is that we fixed a long standing issue with the AWG-9 TWS mode that we hadn't managed to fix previously, so that was about fixing an inaccuracy and remove an unrealistic limitation/bug.

Edited February 9 by Naquaii

[Northstar98]

2 hours ago, Ramius007 said:

how HOJ mode WOULD work vs ADVANCED 4th gen airframes with much more mdern ECM

This up to ED to sort out.

HOJ works best against noise jammers and shouldn't really work at all against DECM (the kind designed to break tracks, which is the most common type found in our fighters).

These systems should generally automatically stop transmitting when a threat isn't detected (like you see in say, the F/A-18) meaning that it's only transmitting when a missile is capable of being guided via radar anyway and when the track is broken, the DECM system stops transmitting, giving a HOJ system nothing to home in on (though of course, this allows radars to reacquire and for the process to begin again).

Until EW in DCS isn't just basic noise jammers, that only seem to magically affect the mainlobe of radars, missile vs ECM performance may as well be a moot point.

[Ramius007]

4 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

This up to ED to sort out.

HOJ works best against noise jammers and shouldn't really work at all against DECM (the kind designed to break tracks, which is the most common type found in our fighters).

These systems should generally automatically stop transmitting when a threat isn't detected (like you see in say, the F/A-18) meaning that it's only transmitting when a missile is capable of being guided via radar anyway and when the track is broken, the DECM system stops transmitting, giving a HOJ system nothing to home in on (though of course, this allows radars to reacquire and for the process to begin again).

Until EW in DCS isn't just basic noise jammers, that only seem to magically affect the mainlobe of radars, missile vs ECM performance may as well be a moot point.

DCS jammers are 2 realms rn, one are FF modules, that are, as you said mostly DECM, and HOJ iis not effective against them, and other are FC jammers, where HOJ is crazy effective, but as already said, sorting ECM influance on missile seekers is on ED, I also agree Aim-54 kinematics is well made, issue I see is, that despite better system moddeling, we ironically, get less realistic combat performance, and in the past HB was rather following letter, just mind you about RB-15 and RB-04 dmg model, to override bad ship dmg moddeling.

[Northstar98]

1 minute ago, Ramius007 said:

DCS jammers are 2 realms rn, one are FF modules

Well, by FF modules, just the F-16 and F/A-18 (and no idea what they do under the hood, not sure if they affect radars of other modules or just the AI).

Absolutely everything else uses what you describe as FC-level jamming.

2 minutes ago, Ramius007 said:

get less realistic combat performance

But this requires evidence.

[JupiterJoe]

3 hours ago, Naquaii said:

Pinging me in doesn't make sense here, it's just annoying honestly. You have to turn to the actual guys in charge of responding to those things, I can't really help you as I'm just the SME and researcher for the F-14.

Apologies for annoying you Naquaii.  You seem to be one of the very few 'DEVS' who keep in touch on the F-14 forum these days, so I tried flagging you down.  Where is everyone?  How am I supposed to know who's in charge of responding to these things?  Your Avatar says HB 3rd Party Developer.  If it said "Hey, I'm just the SME Guy and researcher for the F-14", I would have still sent it to you, because how am I supposed to know who does what?  The Bug Report I sent you, has been in existence since September.  It's formatted in the correct way and correctly located in the Bugs & Problems section, but as you can see for yourself there's been no response. It's all very well all the cool kids being on Discord, but not of all of us have access to that and why should we need to?  Having bug reports in two different locations is madness. This forum is the original source for information and I think it should be the first place everything gets posted.  This mini-rant isn't directed at you personally Naquaii, you just happened to be the only representative of the firm to wander by in quite some time. 

Edited February 9 by JupiterJoe

[Naquaii]

3 hours ago, JupiterJoe said:

Apologies for annoying you Naquaii.  You seem to be one of the very few 'DEVS' who keep in touch on the F-14 forum these days, so I tried flagging you down.  Where is everyone?  How am I supposed to know who's in charge of responding to these things?  Your Avatar says HB 3rd Party Developer.  If it said "Hey, I'm just the SME Guy and researcher for the F-14", I would have still sent it to you, because how am I supposed to know who does what?  The Bug Report I sent you, has been in existence since September.  It's formatted in the correct way and correctly located in the Bugs & Problems section, but as you can see for yourself there's been no response. It's all very well all the cool kids being on Discord, but not of all of us have access to that and why should we need to?  Having bug reports in two different locations is madness. This forum is the original source for information and I think it should be the first place everything gets posted.  This mini-rant isn't directed at you personally Naquaii, you just happened to be the only representative of the firm to wander by in quite some time. 

While I can absolutely understand you it also kinda makes me not want to be here if I'm gonna get pinged in for everything.

I'm no longer really a paid member of the team (for various reasons) and only remain as I still have an interest in the F-14 and to help out with research and other SME stuff because I like doing it. So I don't really have any time for handling error reports etc.

At this point in time the Discord is much more active and should probably be regarded as the primary source of information and reporting stuff. At least stuff gets added much quicker there and responded to. But that said I do know that the guys do check in here as well. In general the dev cycle for the DCS modules isn't that quick so at many times it will seem like you're not getting any answers but afaik everything is still tracked and added to the fix lists when possible. It just takes time and sometimes it won't get fixed until it fits into the plan for changing things in the module unless it's a gamebreaking bug.

[Ramius007]

16 hours ago, Naquaii said:

Pinging me in doesn't make sense here, it's just annoying honestly. You have to turn to the actual guys in charge of responding to those things, I can't really help you as I'm just the SME and researcher for the F-14.

Unless you have actual data supporting this there's not much to say really.

In fact it's the other way around, as we've been saying for some time now we're happy with how the kinematics of the missile performs and the still remaining inaccuracies is with the seekerhead and guidance which should be better than they currently are. But we need ED's help with that. As for how the ECM works, that's a DCS thing and not something we can affect on a module basis.

What happened in the December patch is that we fixed a long standing issue with the AWG-9 TWS mode that we hadn't managed to fix previously, so that was about fixing an inaccuracy and remove an unrealistic limitation/bug.

So you are now saying, that HB didnt made any tests, how Aim-54A behave now, compered to previous seeker, and you ask for feedback/data, or you actully did tests, and Team thinks it's just correct as it is? IMHO, buffing Aim-54 A gives you nothing, missile is dead outside maybe 1 popular pvp server, and buffing to a state, where common opinion is, "it's just some HB BS" leading to server removing missille from inventory, doesnt make any good to You. I know it's easy for both clients and 3rd party devs drop all responsibility for parts of game, where ED is responsible, in that case it's ECM, but it' not like this, it's up to developer to model seeker in a way, it's behavior is somewhat realistic inside current level of simulation of DCS World, 3rd party devs are not living in a bubble.

[Snappy]

1 hour ago, Ramius007 said:

So you are now saying, that HB didnt made any tests, how Aim-54A behave now, compered to previous seeker, and you ask for feedback/data, or you actully did tests, and Team thinks it's just correct as it is? IMHO, buffing Aim-54 A gives you nothing, missile is dead outside maybe 1 popular pvp server, and buffing to a state, where common opinion is, "it's just some HB BS" leading to server removing missille from inventory, doesnt make any good to You. I know it's easy for both clients and 3rd party devs drop all responsibility for parts of game, where ED is responsible, in that case it's ECM, but it' not like this, it's up to developer to model seeker in a way, it's behavior is somewhat realistic inside current level of simulation of DCS World, 3rd party devs are not living in a bubble.

Not sure how you arrive at such a conclusion from his post.

He wrote the changes were to the AWG-9, not to the seekerhead of the AIM-54.

He also said there are yet-to-be improved inaccuracies with the seekerhead and guidance , which are currently under-, not overperforming.

Edited February 10 by Snappy

[Ramius007]

24 minutes ago, Snappy said:

Not sure how you arrive at such a conclusion from his post.

He wrote the changes were to the AWG-9, not to the seekerhead of the AIM-54.

He also said there are yet-to-be improved inaccuracies with the seekerhead and guidance , which are currently under-, not overperforming.

I didnt read initial IronMike post, still, even fox-3 missile effectivness depends on quality of TWS radar "lock" quality, and currently it seems, that in similar enviroment aim-54A=aim-54C, and I m finding this highly unrealistic, given how big gap we could see in missile technology betwean time when Aim-54 was developed (60's) and time when AIM-54C entered service, that was mid 80's. Like already said, we dont have data on aim-54C effectivness IRL, but we have data on missile effectivness during Vietnam war, compered to Desert Storm. I understand that TWS could underperform before changes, but It doesnt mean that current missile relation with radar, like target position update for missile, immunity to ECM,  give expected combat performance. Also nobody from team answered, if missile was tested internally after changes, and this was My question to HB, becouse I doubt playes did tests themselves.

[DD_Fenrir]

20 minutes ago, Ramius007 said:

I didnt read initial IronMike post, still, even fox-3 missile effectivness depends on quality of TWS radar "lock" quality, and currently it seems, that in similar enviroment aim-54A=aim-54C, and I m finding this highly unrealistic, given how big gap we could see in missile technology betwean time when Aim-54 was developed (60's) and time when AIM-54C entered service, that was mid 80's. Like already said, we dont have data on aim-54C effectivness IRL, but we have data on missile effectivness during Vietnam war, compered to Desert Storm. I understand that TWS could underperform before changes, but It doesnt mean that current missile relation with radar, like target position update for missile, immunity to ECM,  give expected combat performance. Also nobody from team answered, if missile was tested internally after changes, and this was My question to HB, becouse I doubt playes did tests themselves.

We're done.

We've told you what you need to provide in order to first effect review and thereafter - potentially - change.

EVIDENCE.

And no, "trust me dude, PvP servers don't like Phoenix" does not count, as surprising as that may seem to you.

Demonstrate the problem, with repeatable examples in various .trk files. On top of that actually provide data for examples of what it should be (if you can find it).

You have done literally zero of the above and as such your legitimacy is at rock-bottom and from this point forward you will struggle to make anyone in this community even bother to listen.

So, before you yet again basically repeat exactly what you wrote in your OP just worded slightly differently, let me remind you that simply repeating the same thing over and over and over again doesn't actually make it objectively true.

Repeated testing of evidential data against a hypothesis does.

Which you have done none of.

[Ramius007]

If I provide tacview files with Phoenix A, not going after chaffs in terminal phase vs fighter sized target, will this count as evidence of missile overperforming?

[Naquaii]

8 hours ago, Ramius007 said:

So you are now saying, that HB didnt made any tests, how Aim-54A behave now, compered to previous seeker, and you ask for feedback/data, or you actully did tests, and Team thinks it's just correct as it is? IMHO, buffing Aim-54 A gives you nothing, missile is dead outside maybe 1 popular pvp server, and buffing to a state, where common opinion is, "it's just some HB BS" leading to server removing missille from inventory, doesnt make any good to You. I know it's easy for both clients and 3rd party devs drop all responsibility for parts of game, where ED is responsible, in that case it's ECM, but it' not like this, it's up to developer to model seeker in a way, it's behavior is somewhat realistic inside current level of simulation of DCS World, 3rd party devs are not living in a bubble.

No, I'm not sure where you saw me saying that at all. You're not making much sense here.

Like I said, the missile motor performance is from the data we have and it matches well with actual real life shots in tests in DCS.

And like I also said we know there are some issues with guidance and seekerhead performance that we would like fixed but that's not something we could fix on our side, we need EDs help for that. So the end state would be a slightly better missile than what we currently have if/when that's fixed.

And no, I don't really care about buffing or nerfing the missile, that's not in any way how we model our systems. We look at trying to make it more realistic than it is.

You don't have to agree with that but we're also not gonna change anything just because you "feel" something about it or disagree about it. That's why I asked for data supporting any claims you've made about changing the missile. Because if you don't have those we're not gonna act on them. We model the missile from the data we have, not the feelings of people on the net.

If that makes some servers remove it because they feel it's too powerful and they want to balance their mission instead of focusing on realism, that's absolutely fine. But we're not going to artificially "nerf" the missile just to "balance" it.

Edited February 10 by Naquaii

[RustBelt]

On 2/9/2025 at 6:38 PM, Naquaii said:

While I can absolutely understand you it also kinda makes me not want to be here if I'm gonna get pinged in for everything.

I'm no longer really a paid member of the team (for various reasons) and only remain as I still have an interest in the F-14 and to help out with research and other SME stuff because I like doing it. So I don't really have any time for handling error reports etc.

At this point in time the Discord is much more active and should probably be regarded as the primary source of information and reporting stuff. At least stuff gets added much quicker there and responded to. But that said I do know that the guys do check in here as well. In general the dev cycle for the DCS modules isn't that quick so at many times it will seem like you're not getting any answers but afaik everything is still tracked and added to the fix lists when possible. It just takes time and sometimes it won't get fixed until it fits into the plan for changing things in the module unless it's a gamebreaking bug.

Discord….the In game chat app is now the official support site? Have you ever gotten google search results for Discord? And have you ever tried to search a discord stream of consciousness chat log?

 

[Ramius007]

16 hours ago, Naquaii said:

And like I also said we know there are some issues with guidance and seekerhead performance that we would like fixed but that's not something we could fix on our side, we need EDs help for that. So the end state would be a slightly better missile than what we currently have if/when that's fixed.

And no, I don't really care about buffing or nerfing the missile, that's not in any way how we model our systems. We look at trying to make it more realistic than it is.

You don't have to agree with that but we're also not gonna change anything just because you "feel" something about it or disagree about it. That's why I asked for data supporting any claims you've made about changing the missile. Because if you don't have those we're not gonna act on them. We model the missile from the data we have, not the feelings of people on the net.

If that makes some servers remove it because they feel it's too powerful and they want to balance their mission instead of focusing on realism, that's absolutely fine. But we're not going to artificially "nerf" the missile just to "balance" it.

I found post from 2021, and that AIM-54A had better ECCM than Sparrow M, did you guys needed "help" from ED too for doing this? AIM-54A currently tracks perfecty, is near impossible to notch, like amraam, chaff have 0 effect, ecm have 0 effect. Do you guys "feel" it's realistic performance of 60's era missile? ECCM factor is in ED hands? I also dont care said missile is banned on some server for balance or not, it's 1 server, nobodoy cares, but this fact alone, triggered me to look closer, just as possible future user of Tomcat, and with high degree of certainity, doing tests vs AI with aim-54A, i can say that seekers of C and A behave in a same way, and as long, as we dont have hard coded documentation about missile guidance, and histories of kills, it's impossilbe to base our assumpations on anytihng else, but "feelings", and I doubt, you guys have data confirming IRL, what I see in tacview fighting against AIM-54A is real. IMHO it's just BS. I can flood forum with dozens of tacview files as confirmation, but at the end, it's your word, against mine, guess forum users can be curious about those tracks

Edited February 11 by Ramius007

[BIGNEWY]

If you have evidence of a bug or something that isnt correct please post track replays and DM public evidence to us we will check it. 

We can not change things based on peoples feelings, we would be for ever chasing peoples opinions. 

thank you 

[Despayre]

I, for one, will very definitely NOT be "curious about those tracks".

You've offered nothing but opinion and claims you can't back up.

[Sindar]

В 31.01.2025 в 03:07, Raven (Elysian Angel) сказал:

HB have stated Jester doesn’t use AEW&C data yet, but that it’s planned for later during the F-4 EA - and since the F-14 is also supposed to receive Jester 2.0 at some point, both modules should benefit.

 

В 07.02.2025 в 09:27, draconus сказал:

It is done as intended for the scope. They were always clear on that:

 

Who's not telling the truth?

В 07.02.2025 в 19:41, Naquaii сказал:

I think you're mistaking RIO for Jester.

And Jester was never intended or described as a replacement for a real human RIO.

That said he will continue to evolve but no, I do not agree with you that the "RIO" isn't properly done.

We discuss its interaction with targeting from AWACS. And we don't think there is one. We don't think RIO is a real person in the game. We don't think he's using AWACS data to piss us off.