Jump to content

Biggus

Members
  • Posts

    253
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Biggus

  1. There are no guarantees that the switch symbology matches the actual limitations.
  2. I'm absolutely not any kind of signals engineer at all, but I believe it's PRF eclipsing. The radar return is happening whilst the radar is in the transmit part of it's cycle rather than in the receiving part of the cycle. This is probably a grossly simplified explanation, but that's why the radar has limits on the closure it can work with. It is apparently less of an issue with pulse mode however that's not really particularly helpful when launching 54s.
  3. Plenty of reactions. Most of us I think are content to leave it to HB to address this, with presumably the full unredacted report. I agree it's an excellent investigation.
  4. Our current work around is for the idiot in the front to make a ker-chunk sound effect.
  5. I find that the button inputs don't work for elevation, but having it on an axis certainly works for me.
  6. Great bunch of skins. Thank you very much!
  7. I can't see it until around .3-.4 on a flat 3440x1440 screen. I don't think it's just VR that this is a problem for.
  8. Just to add to the comments so far, there are two things you should know that aren't often explicitly stated in tutorials: 1. Pay attention to the buffeting and creaking of the airframe and be gentle. Everyone rips the wings off at least once through overly violent maneuvers at high G. Learn the limits. 2. When you encounter radar issues, the problem is not Jester. It's your lack of understanding about what the AWG-9 can and can't do in nearly every instance. IMO the Tomcat and the Viper are a great pair. I find it easier to switch between them than I do switching between the either of them and the Hornet.
  9. One thing that's really helped me is to watch the rate of change on the altimeter more than the VSI as you level out. There is a bit of lag in the VSI.
  10. Ah ok, didn't realise it was specific to a land based campaign as I haven't played it. Nevermind.
  11. I've had blackouts on launch pretty regularly over the last few years. I've also experienced redouts too. I've heard that head position is a large factor in whether it happens or not, but I don't know if this is true.
  12. I think I experienced this or something similar a few nights ago. I had spawned on the SC, had made it not terribly far into the alignment and was head-down in the cockpit doing start up things. I heard a loud bang, looked up and saw that another player had spawned beside me. I didn't see any obvious damage and didn't give it another thought for a few minutes. I flipped the TID switch so I could follow the alignment process and noticed that instead of the "ASH" message, there was another acronym in it's place and the alignment did not seem to be progressing. It would appear that although my aircraft was otherwise physically fine, the gentle nudge given by another aircraft spawning next to me was enough to break the alignment process. I wonder whether you're having another aircraft damage you when you or they spawn?
  13. That matches my experience. I wasn't sure if I was imagining it when I noticed it a year or so ago.
  14. For what it's worth, I find it easier for some reason to switch between the Viper and the Tomcat than I do between the Hornet and the Tomcat. However, the Hornet does things that the 14 cannot do and that the Viper cannot do quite as well. So I treat flying the Hornet as a necessary chore, and the Tomcat as a reward for getting my chores done.
  15. Vaguely recall a 100ms delay working for me a month or so ago. I didn't experiment much, though.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. That's a really informative response. Thanks @Naquaii.
  20. 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.
  21. 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.
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. 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.
×
×
  • Create New...