Jump to content

Biggus

Members
  • Posts

    237
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Biggus

  • Birthday 09/22/1978

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I'm not sure I am ready to agree yet, switchology notwithstanding. My interpretation of the passage I posted is that in a scenario where an F-4 has been vectored to a frontal intercept, a target traveling above 1800kn is going to be impossible to find in PD. Given the scenario, this means Vc of greater than 1800kn but quite a bit less than 2900kn. Maybe I'm misunderstanding something.
  2. Look at the date. The AWG-10 still hadn't reached proper production by May '66 when the first J hit the fleet. The tactical manual I referenced was produced in 1972. I'll go and dig through the F-4J/S NATOPS book later and see if there's more information there, but I'd suspect that the FG.1 report might not have been completely accurate.
  3. Just in reference to the AWG-10, the 2900 closing was in pulse only. PD was 1800. Source is the F-4B/N/J tactical manual. The 1964 document referenced earlier might have been a bit optimistic, but given the date I'm not surprised. I'd pay very little attention to the F-4X proposed performance otherwise. An on-paper-only variant of a radar that would never be produced, referencing a Sparrow variant that was still on the drawing board. Edit: I've attached a snippet from NAVAIR 01-245FDB-1T, page 1-219.
  4. That's a really informative response. Thanks @Naquaii.
  5. I know it's not going to be exactly the same (or perhaps even enough information about the inner workings), but the F-4B/N/J Tactical Manual has quite a bit of detail about how it appeared to work in the Phantom, if you'd find this useful (and don't already have a copy of it) @IronMike.
  6. I think I'm gradually getting my head around it after a couple of dozen passes now, but I'd love someone to show us some technique with the input window on screen. I'd also really like to get a run-down on what we can do to make the burble stronger or weaker in the mission editor.
  7. Well done, guys. Looking forward to angrily swearing at the carrier, the wires, the LSO, the deck crew and the poor unfortunate people who wander into my study over the coming days and weeks.
  8. I very much doubt it's an omission. It's the compromise from prior behavior. There have been many bug reports over the years and ED have said repeatedly that it was a non-issue. And it certainly was a non-issue with the old short legged 120s. The behavior was that at 50% of a missile's maximum range, the AI would maneuver and deploy chaff in order to defend a "possible" inbound shot. They would only do that if a missile had been fired, but with the older 120 behavior by the time that 50% distance was reached, you were nearly within visual range anyway and some maneuvering would be expected. The 54 made the problem more obvious to people flying the Tomcat, but it wasn't until around the time that ED started tuning chaff resistance that they seem to have started to accept the idea that maybe there is an issue after all. I'd expect that there will probably be some more tuning to this behavior but this is probably intentional.
  9. Prior to the latest hotfix patch I was still seeing psychic chaff deployment, and I haven't looked seriously at the current patch. I doubt it has changed, though.
  10. I can't see a way to map it, but I know some people are pretty good at editing the input luas. Hopefully it'll be possible, because I'd like to be able to do that too.
  11. If anyone isn't aware of it, there's a scratchpad mod that passes IC. It's just a text box that you can add text to. I use it quite a bit. You can find it here.
  12. Seeing similar behavior here. They porpoise along their path, generally impacting terrain before they reach their target.
  13. Is the existence of MWS relevant to the discussion if every AI aircraft type behaves in the way described? This psychic AI behavior has been reported a few times before now, and each time the answer has been 'working as intended'. Given the range of the average 120C shot, it probably wasn't that big a deal a couple of years ago. But launching a 54C at 50nm in TWS and then seeing the AI dump chaff as the missile literally leaves the rail is quite infuriating. Within the current implementation of the AI though, I can't see this improving.
  14. I'll buy them all at full price, including the recon birds. I think picking a couple of core models and building modules around them, with a couple of optional extra upgrade models is probably a good idea. An early E main module with a late E or an Arnie bird for an additional fee, for example. A J model, with an S and a J(UK) and possibly even a Super J. C/D module, with some of the later upgrades that some of the Ds got. That sort of thing.
  15. It's kind of tangental to this problem though. It's related, but it's been like that for a long, long time. I probably spoke too conclusively with my 'negative' reply, but from what I have seen, they'll only dump chaff if I have fired in TWS. Not a moment before. They will hold their countermeasures if I hold my shot, down to 25nm if not a hair closer. By that time, the AI tends to become more offensive and I haven't really looked too closely at what happens at that point beyond noting that most of my TWS shots at that range in this patch miss. But this has been happening for a long time and yet it's only the last few weeks that I've been experiencing the problem.
×
×
  • Create New...