Karon

This game aims to realistically represent military aeroplanes (+CE2 :] ), and flying a fighter jet is not easy, isn't it? That being said, it will take some time, practice and study, of course, but eventually, it will become a slightly more complex version of the Tomcat (which is quite easy to operate). A point you have not considered is that a GCI (get a human one) will do most of the work to get you where you need to be. Moreover, you can fly directly from the back more efficiently than in the Tomcat. You can do all the radar work there and move to the front when needed. Hell, you can even land from the backseat, worst case pretend it's IFR!

That's why it is a bummer that the classification in DCS does not matter at all: it is either Friendly or Hostile. Intercepts and ID should be quite an important component of air-to-air, but they are missing entirely.

Sorry mate, I was not talking about you; I should have specified. I was referring to the broader discussion. This, assuming it is not a one-off occurrence, seems to be the side effect of something changed on ED's side since they control terminal guidance, and I am not aware of any changes on HB's side. Do you have tracks / tacview, or have new noticed if there was something in common between the shots? Laggy server otherwise? Finding a common point and recreating the problem would help to find the solution. I'm happy to test the same conditions (SP though) if you provide more details.

I haven't checked this post in a while, and apparently, I missed a lot of nonsense. Skipping the complaints about realism whilst mentioning ""Cybersport"" which cracked me up, there are lots of posts in this infinite thread that talks about the current issues of the missiles, the game in general (inconsistent radar and missile simulation, rwr, bug/exploits and so on - lol at esport again), and the fact that the Phoenix in DCS is actually a good missile no matter the API limitations. It has a very high top speed but slow acceleration; its behaviour changes a lot depending on the range, and whoever expects a preventively defending target to be splattered at 70 nm does not know how the phoenix works. At those ranges, a minor offset or changes in Vc can seriously affect the missile envelope. So far, people complaining mostly have three-four main "issues": - they haven't tweaked the AI to make it less dumb but exceptional at notching; - they play with no set era. Who would have thought that missiles from 2000+ are better than the Phoenix, especially vs fighters, right? - they play against modules with subpar avionics simulation: everyone can defeat a Phoenix if their SA and RWR are better than the F-35's fusion; - they expect Pk to be 100%. Well, it doesn't work like that. Obv this does not mean that there no issues, on the contrary, but the game can be made better and closer to real situations. It's boring AF, but only a matter of patience and will. Sorry to sound a bit annoyed, but I can't believe that almost 60 pages later we are still repeating the same things.

Welcome to the great mashup of videogame-playing-desktop-pilots Sir! Take sources from US Navy, Air Force, sprinkle them with Brits and other NATO/Commonwealth countries spanning from the 50s to the day before yesterday, and this is the result. Bonus points if something sounds cool On the bright side, these acronyms help a lot to shorten discussions by acting as de facto brevities Neg Sir, the IFF in DCS is *magic* and based on the coalition. Even a British Focke-Wulf does not return as spades when interrogated with APX-80 or -76. Which is a huge shame as it kills a great part of gameplay. Hopefully, the work on the MiG-29A's IFF will see a more thorough implementation later applicable across the game because, at the moment, Spades = Bandit/Hostile. Against fighters, yeah, but, in theory, employing at 12nm and using cranking as a displacement turn should leave enough room for a counterturn, depending on VC and how the target reacts. Versus less agile targets, say, a pair of Tu-95: FOX-1, crank, at timeout, start the counterturn on the second bomber Also, I'd love to see the AI (or even players) avoiding a merge with a blowthrough. It is a concept hardly applicable to DCS, unfortunately.

Thanks @Gianky & @SuperKermit! I cannot say much right now, but the greatest issue coming from modern modules or even the Tomcat is the APQ-120. As you can read from the manual, it is shockingly less powerful than the AWG-9 and lacks many features we are used to. At the same time, it is a very good radar, the first full solid-state system, that had to fit into the limited room available in the nose of the F-4E. Besides that, the other big issue is the GCI. In DCS is extremely poor and both too good (too precise) and awful to use (spamming requests is necessary, it is not proactive, minimal information given). 3rd gen fighters, or aircraft with limited radars, really benefit from good controllers, and I recommend flying with a human one. If playing as RIO in the F-14 is a walk in the park once you get used to it, in the F-4E is quite a full-time job, as building SA is fundamental but time-consuming. On the one hand, we have a Pulse radar, so TA is not a factor any more; on the other, we have the ground clutter. You can practice this with the F-14 by using PSRCH only, set to 50 nm 1B and without cheating with the Gain knob. In the F-4E is even more interesting as the radar simulation is outstanding. You will immediately see how tricky the process is, especially if you do not want the target to know your position and intentions, and therefore you proceed without a lockon. Flipping the perspective, in fact, if you start locking left and right, you are only improving the target's SA. So, BVR. Since the F-4E comes with modern Sparrows, it is totally doable; the question is whether it is worth it. The -45 was introduced in the early/mid-70s, and in DCS, we have only the F1 (mid-70s in Spanish service) and the MiG-21bis (1972) landing in a similar time frame. The AIM-7E is better, kinematics-wise, than its equivalent of the 50s and 60s. If we include the whole decade of the 70s, then we find that the S530F (1979) and R40R (MiG-25, 1972) accelerate better than the AIM-7F (1976), but they are not vastly superior. So, can you expect a BVR engagement in a '70s setting? Sure. But I doubt it will be common. For instance, an AIM-7F takes ~30" to cover 10-12 nm and arrives slower than M2. Any offset or manoeuvre by the target will thrash the missile. I expect a lot of FOX-1s from very far to push the target into a defensive stance, or so people may think (mostly depends on the target's SA - if they recognise a FOX-1 from 20nm, they will basically shrug and carry on), but the odds of success will be minimal against fighters. At the end of the day, I would approach this similarly to any other engagement: work on obtaining superior SA, respect the MAR, and improve crew and section coordination. More data here: https://flyandwire.com/2023/07/27/missiles-kinematics-part-ii-cold-war-era/ @Kirk66 Unfortunately "notching" is one of the aspects where DCS' missile simulation diverges the most from RL

Era una domanda retorica. Cosa c'era un 3rd party con altri moduli? Niente, a parte che vien comodo per lamentarsi. Non hai nemmeno letto l'articolo linkato, altrimenti sapresti che sono ben piú avanti del mero modello 3D, e ció di cui han parlato é molto interessante e promettente. Curiosa la parte sull'ottimizzazione, per quanto DCS non sia un titolo particolarmente pesante, piú efficienza aiuta i sistemi low-end. Poi chiudono con: Ironico che continuino con la sequente. Profetico, quasi.

> almeno finissero come si conviene quelli che ci sono...... Quali altri moduli ha FlyingIron in EA?

Uh, it has been a while since the last update. Here is something new:

Added Part IX, long overdue: "A brief look at the past (50s/60s)". I decided to post it without the F-4E, as it will have a separate series with a greater focus on avionics and crew. https://flyandwire.com/2024/02/25/intercept-geometry-part-xi-a-brief-look-at-the-past-50s-60s/

La fusoliera é rialzata e la prospettiva non aiuta. Ció dovrebbe dargli abbastanza clearance. Fai un po' di eyeballing con lo spessore dell'ala e vedi che ci sta.

It depends on the versions in use, but it is generally a bit different from the Tomcat, where there is a more neat separation of roles. Have a look at both cockpits. This should immediately give you an idea.

No problem I can't speak for the devs, but I guess we may see something changing when the missile API from ED is fully operational and deployed to 3rd parties. It was announced in 2019, IIRC. Last I recall, the devs were quite happy about its current status. I see your point about PvP. It is, unfortunately, the fate of the Phoenix. Players who don't know how to deal with it (spoiler alert: it's easy) are louder than the Phoenix users, and this relegates a '60s weapon to the late '90s or 2000s. I wonder why we do not have the AIM-120A, though. That being said, the Phoenix is not slow; it is actually surprisingly fast, albeit not very explosive. If you compare it against similar-era missiles, it blows everyone out of the water. The problem is that it flies upwards, and thus, the projection of its position on the ground plane makes it look as if it were a slow missile. See if this helps: https://flyandwire.com/2023/07/27/missiles-kinematics-part-ii-cold-war-era/ If you compare it with older missiles from the '60s, the difference is even more staggering: This is the kind of opposition you should go against in a realistic scenario (e.g. Iran v Iraq war, starting in 1980). Some are missing, though, such as the R-23. There are also other issues, such as the huge differences in terms of realism between different avionics, such as the Hornet and FFalcon's radar and RWR. ED is doing a great job updating those, which would help a bit (although they should not even face each other). Next, the AI is a huge problem: when you see a MiG-21 perfectly notching your Phoenix, you are indeed a bit perplexed. I hope that post-Multithreading, ED will have room performance-wise to make the AI less focused on perfect SA and last-mile ditch manoeuvres and more capable of pre-emptive defence and tactics, in concert with their level of SA and ability to recognise the threat and act accordingly. Seeing them VID, for example, would be fantastic. Anyway, sorry for the wall of text. What you can do now is avoid Ace AI (definitely unrealistic) and create or find servers or squadrons when "RP"-PvP is encouraged. This kind of PvP, where life and resources matter, is the most fun imo.