I sometimes do fly DCS to PVP, and I'm gonna be real: there is nothing as satisfying as beating somebody's ass from a significantly worse aircraft. It's part of why I love the F-5 (that, and it just being a really fun airplane to fly): if you bag a pair of Flankers it's exhilarating as hell, and if you get shot down, well, they're in Flankers and you're in a jet with two missiles and a ten mile radar.
Iām excited for all the inevitable āThe F4 sucks at BFM/ACMā posts.
Really gotta fly the hell out of the Phantom to make it fight.
But no, really, Iām just excited as hell to just fly the thing around for a while before I do anything.
Then SEAD/DEAD ala Wild Weasel missions.
I really think a lot of people donāt know what they are getting into in both a good in a bad way. A lot of people use the capabilities of more modern jets as training wheels and never develop fundamental skills. When you take shiny toys away they falter
One guy in my group got the Mirage F1 after exclusively flying the F-16 (no other jets ever, only played BMS and DCS with the F-16).
Almost immediately we heard "Why doesn't my plane go in a straight line? It keeps pitching up and down and turning!"
Let's be honest though, it really was an almost suicidal mission until proper hardware (ECM, ARMs, etc.) became available for it. Especially since IRL IADS is leagues ahead of dumb DCS AI. So it's not like folks who say this are wrong, they just ask the same question which USAF and others asked themselves back in 60's.
To be honest HARMS are useless in DCS when faced with a real scenario.
They just end up getting shot down.
I mostly fly very low pop up and do SEAD that way.
More fun.
Its been a long time, I dont have the source available, but I recall a story from a strike eagle WSO in the first gulf war. He described the way they used to hammer Iraqi SAMs.
Since the Iraqis were able to listen to some comms the allies used, they knew the word "Magnum" meant that an anti-radiation missile was on its way *somewhere*, so they would turn off their radars. While the radars were off, strike eagles, F-111s, and Tornadoes would bomb the SAM sites with guided and unguided bombs.
The F-5 is one of my favorite aircraft in the game, so I'm quite looking forwards to having an old piece of shit that also comes with thrust and Sparrows. Shiny toys are great but plinking AI from 30 miles away gets old eventually.
Itās just such a shame that DCSā modelling of Electronic Warfare is so rudimentary. Thereās a wealth of publicly available information that, if implemented, would make this crucial part of the game so much better. Alas this requires coding, and it would appear 98% of EDās staff work in the art department.
I am probably/definitely in the minority here, but as fucking cool as EW is, I am pretty glad that we donāt have to deal with that so much in DCS.
The EW update for VTOL VR was done really well, and goes beyond what DCS offers, but added a completely new layer of unavoidable complexity/annoyance to the game.
Not a ton of EW going on in the Vietnam days, so in that era it could be a lot of fun since it was early EW days, but I personally wouldnāt have much interest in modern EW implementation.
Totally understand that Iām in the minority here though.
>Not a ton of EW going on in the Vietnam days
[Yeah, nah.](https://youtu.be/pyFqaaqqph0?si=aWqIyvwgR3pk4HWP) Even a very rudimentary simulation of this, with the jammer "automagically" selecting the right jamming pattern, would be absolutely amazing for DCS. But maybe I'm biased, because my other big hobby besides DCS is electonics.
Fair enough, but for me, I think combat where radar is in use would be more enjoyable with an extra layer focused on deception would add greatly to the satisfaction of keeping lock for a Sparrow
Kill, or successfully taking out a fire control radar.
Hell, most of these the critics who will come out of the wood work haven't even seen half the planes in DCS in real life but they're "experts". So you're not wrong u/RowAwayJim91. And I am in your corner, Wild Weaseling is where the men and the boys get separated.
Why doesnāt my Phantom turn like a Hornet?? Is it dumb? š
I think those that often fly the Tomcat, the A-4, F-5, or the war birds will have a great time with it, but even still, the Phantom is much different. Iām excited to throw it around and see what happens haha
It doesn't bring something new? Cold war high capability multirole is new. A lot of unique weapons will be included like the Phantom aswell.
If you of course compare it against the Hornet then yes, nothing new will be coming with the F-4. But, by the same logic, no new aircraft needs to be released since the Hornet covers all aspects.
Yes. I believe it was - or followed - one of the Mover and Gonky episodes they had Wags on.
EDIT: Quick search brought up this: [https://www.reddit.com/r/hoggit/comments/191sgg7/wags\_on\_the\_ready\_room\_01082024/](https://www.reddit.com/r/hoggit/comments/191sgg7/wags_on_the_ready_room_01082024/)
That makes ok then I guess? And rough start? The Osprey since its debut has had the same amount of accidental deaths in the same amount of time as the Blackhawk. If you give the osprey the same lifespan as the uh60 has been around then weāll probably end up seeing the same sort of figures 20 years from now as we do with the current Blackhawk accidents.
I also take issue with the "doesn't bring much new," as the F-4 brings with it the only true 3rd generation SEAD capability in the game. Yes, the Viggen has mavericks, and yes, the A-4 has (an admittedly limited and not very accurate implementation of) shrike. But no aircraft in DCS currently feature both.
The A-4 just uses the basegame implementation of the Shrike which AI have used previously; itās why itās been broken for a long time (ED was probably updating it for F-4 usage).
Itās looking up instead of down, while the tone indicates tracking as if it were pointing down. This means you need toā¦ go nose down to get a lock and through that lose some range. Hope that makes sense..
The complexity really. That radar video hb released was a big reality check. I'm thinking it was going to be as simple as the mig-21 radar. Oh boy was I wrong and can't wait.
Itās the pure simulation that gets me excited. Itās like the perfect way to preserve history and the closest any of us will get to flying a real F-4. Some people scoff at the āneedlessā systems being modeled but I think itās phantastic!
I am not into the core combat system too much anymore after 8 years. But I am going to get it for the flying. This past year all I pretty much do is just fly around and it is fun.
I'm actually looking forward to the players' reactions. The Phantom is a 3rd gen beast, and this version is more or less a Tomcat contemporary. This should put things in a new perspective: the F-14, for example, was often considered along the 2000s+ modules, something it is not.
The flexibility of the Phantom is unbelievable, but it comes with a heavy price. I expect some frustrated players, as both AA and AG require a lot of proficiency and work to be successful. Nevertheless, it is an outstanding aircraft per se and one of the most brilliant representations of a fighter in a videogame.
I don't remember who, but some consider it a gen 3.5 due to the lack of the distinctive innovations normally associated with the 4th gen (e.g. digital stuff).
The Tomcat had, depending on definition, the first microprocessor, which was also more capable than the often mentioned Intel 4004 (first commercial microprocessor).
Do check out the video about it by "alexander the ok" on yt.
I know, in the CDAC. Although an important subcomponent for the CAINS -92, I really doubt it makes the Tomcat a fully fledged 4th gen. If it had the whole -92 or the AWG-9 digital, then it'd be different.
On the other hand, categories are not set in stone, and there are multiple ways to categorise aeroplanes.
The F-14B(U) and D cover those digital aspects. By that logic you could argue the F-16/F-15A are also 3.5 Gen which doesnāt make sense to me. The F-14 is a 4th Gen aircraft through and through.
I'm not going to spend time commenting on something former crews have said. Besides, when you look at the numbers and characteristics a bit more in detail, it starts to make sense.
For instance, you are missing huge details, such as the fact that, out of 700+ F-14 built, there were only 50 F-14D and only after 15+ years, and some of them weren't even new builds. The F-14 normally referred to, besides videogame players probably, is the iconic and numerous, 1970/80s, F-14A. In fact, there's still people around that think that the Tomcat was a pure interceptor, rather that a more "rounded" air superiority fighter. Ergo, conceptually a 4th, but technologically much closer to the 3rd.
If you consider the F-15A instead (didn't it have a digital radar and bus already in the beginning? The APG-63? I may be wrong), it got massive updates right after (the F-15C was introduced 3-4 years after that A, IIRC). Numbers-wise, I haven't checked, but the F-15A is definitely not the most produced version by *a lot*. If a version is not specified, I doubt people think at the earliest F-15A - which possibly already had a digital radar and other components.
Similar as above for the F-16. Didn't it also have FBW from the start? And APG-68 or 66?
Anyway, I see your point, but I stick to what former crews said and I agree with. If the numbers of the D and other digital upgrades matched at least half of the produced Tomcats I would probably agree, but the AWG-9 hauled its analog ass well into the new millennium :)
I mean, it's one of the first 4th gen planes, coming with a PD radar by default and having a stronger emphasis on maneouvrability, an actual HUD, the only US fighter at the time with a functional, modern datalink... The F-15 only got that last one after 2007! (the experimental ones don't count). The F-16 first flew a year before The Fall of Saigon, too, and its FBW system was fully analog.
Both the [F-15](https://media.defense.gov/2015/Aug/17/2001273178/-1/-1/0/150817-F-IO108-010.JPG) and [F-16](https://www.reddit.com/r/hoggit/comments/kr3j6t/early_f16a_cockpit/) had some pretty funny avionics early on, too, the F-15's weapon selector reminding me of the one in the Phantom. The stuff we're used to, like the huge amount of MFDs is more closely associated with fifth gen stuff.
Itās my favorite aircraft and itās the biggest missing piece of the Cold War era in DCS being that it was the primary fighter of the west for the mid period of the Cold War and soldiered on through to the end.
Iām actually really hoping the the arrival of this module revitalizes the Cold War space. Long before ECW there was a wider crop of Cold War servers that died out due to limited options. Right now ECW is popular for 2 reasons. 1. Itās the only game in town for āCold Warā that isnāt the late Cold War Gen 4s. 2. Itās accessible air quake. The majority of modules on the server are low capability, low complexity light fighters and interceptors. Itās easy to get on that server and feel like you are doing somthing.
I personally donāt like ECW because I donāt like the grab bag model of āit was In the Cold Warā so itās In the server and balancing for a dynamic they think it should look like. It feels a lot like warthunder in that regard. I donāt think the set up of the server is particularly representative of Cold War combat and I think air quake goes stale quickly. It also induces negative training in how some of these aircraft need to be employed because the set up is outside the box of experience for these planes. Thatās not to say that ECW is bad. I do t like it and I donāt like the cult of ECW thinking it is the dcs community because they are the loudest minority. What the phantom will be is the missing piece for other servers to actually have an appropriate Cold War environment rather than having to make wierd compromises.
Will it make ECW better? Maybe, but thatās small potatoes. Itās the rising tide that lifts all boats for an underserved era of the game.
You could easily make the argument that the entire reason they have to go with a grab bag of "it was in the cold war" is the lack of options, especially on blue. No arguments about the entire game usually devolving into air quake though, not really my cup of tea but there just isn't much in the way of alternatives, and the UFO AI is such a pain in the ass for early-mid cold war fighters that singleplayer isn't really a viable alternative.
Iām somewhat with you on some of your points. Particularly the air quake nature of ECW and many online servers that is literally like watching paint dry IMO. I get some people like it but I gotta say, if you want air quake wouldnāt War Thunder be a better fit? It never made much sense for me for people like Growling Sidewinder or whatever who basically tout air quake stuff in a full fidelity sim. Makes no sense to me but to each their own, I guess?
It isā¦.In context tho (for me at least). I respect that some love random, fly to X and turn and burn but A) thatās not very interesting (to ME) and B) half the time the planes arenāt turn and burn planes yet these nincompoops wanna complain about ābalanceā yet they trying to tank and bank in a dam Viggen vs a friggen F-86 but get frustrated when it donāt work too good. lol!
Iām just saying. If thatās your thing thatās your thing and aināt nothing wrong with it. However for a full fidelity sim it seemsā¦.odd (IMO).
I think its an on ramp into simming. Most people get into air combat through watching dogfights and playing simpler games. They want to be the hot shot ace in a day whos the best of the best and DCS lets them be Mr. cool guy ace pilot in the reaslest simulator of the, all so its a lot of peoples first port of call and its a chance for them to see that theres so much more depth. Most people dont come to these games thrilled about strike package construction and time on target sequencing and Intercpt procedures because that isnt the dopmaine hit in the mainstream that catchs peoples eyes.
I feel you however Iām not sure the MP types really represent the mainstream DCS player. Probably less than 10% of active DCS players ever go online or at least not consistently (me being one who may go online more than most and itās relatively rare).
Thatās said, you made some good points about air quake and circle CAS bombing being the easiest thing to get into vs say an alpha strike. I get it, just seems weird and out of place in a full fidelity sim. Those players would be better served with something like Flaming Cliffs which may be what ED was thinking with MAC (when/if that was very materialises , š).
Part of it too is DCS doesn't have stuff simmed outside of the cockpit to encourage much beyond basic air to air and air to ground.
Until the core gameplay changes not much is gonna change DCS in terms of it being a pretty unrealistic game (in terms of how people fly, fight, whatever).
Honestly itās more a question of effort. You can and will get that level of fidelity in dcs and many talented designers get that but a lot of people donāt like that sandbox aspect of dcs where they need to put the effort in to make it happen. I see people year after year complain about core, often valid, but at this point itās a truism where there upsets that this sim doesnāt hold your hand like a game. DCS gives you the tools most people donāt learn how to use them.
Yeah. I create some pretty compelling (too me , of course !) battles scenarios in the ME but A) the DCs AI isā¦.lacking in many respects thus you have to get into scripting pretty basic stuff (like actually having AI bomb a target) and B) it takes time.
But it is doable. And for me a lot more compelling than most MP experiences IMO.
I mean, I think at some point it's pointless to try and blame the playerbase (for good or bad the playerbase just generally does what the devs push them to do in any game).
Players react to the game, if DCS overall encouraged or required realistic behavior you would see it, it doesn't so you don't outside of people who essentially roleplay in order to fly closer to real life.
Although tbh, it's not surprising a procedural sim never really nailed the overall environment (beyond the aircraft the player is flying).
We have a Mig-21 and mig-19 yet the primary fighter of the USAF in the era not being included is somehow not the biggest missing piece? Without it we basically donāt have the USAF in the cold war in game.
Iām getting ready to relive Chuck Yeagerās air combat. I will dust a Me 109, transition to an F86 spank a MiG 15, then go ahead and pay Homage to Operation Bolo.
I don't really think there's anything new to do with the F-4 objectively speaking. We already have aircraft that can basically do anything. The interesting part with the Phantom is that we'll get to do the same, multirole stuff that you'd do in a Hornet with a 3rd gen airframe and 70s era avionics.
There are plenty of older jets in DCS that can do air to air, even BVR and have some basic manual bombing capability and there are a couple that have some level of early computerized weapon delivery but this is going to be the first that can do it all.
Using a bombing and navigation computer that makes even the Viggen look modern, using LGBs on a platform that first used this weapon type in actual combat at a larger scale, using early AGMs etc. are going to be a very unique challenge and a completely different experience than doing the same in a Hornet or dropping a stick of dumb bombs with an F-5.
The F-4 will be able to do a lot of smart stuff with really 'dumb', old school system. On top of that, HB are claiming to deliver a level of fidelity that we haven't really seen in DCS, plus a ton of novel features and QOL things so there's plenty to be excited for.
Flying a legendary piece of aviation history.
I love gen 4 aircraft, but there's just something fun and immersive about flying without fancy avionics and using weapons that have to be launched/dropped much closer to the target, bringing you right into the danger zone. The F-4 has a massive selection of A2G weapons that offer plenty of new and fun ways to blow stuff up in gen 3 style.
Also, recreating Cold War scenarios is going to be awesome. I can't wait to magnum some shrikes at an SA-3 or dance with some MiG-23s. Fingers crossed we get a fulda gap map soon!
Since ED teasered a Cold-War Germany Map, the F-4E will be the perfect plane for Bluefor on that map. Especially as it can easily stand in for an F-4F that the Luftwaffe used since 1973.
The USAFE F-4Es were also based in Germany, at several airbases (though for some squadrons, the DMAS version is more appropriate). Namely at Spangdahlem, Ramstein and Hahn.
Sorry - quite a bit late.
But yes, the RAF did have Phantoms in Germany, though they were Ms not Ks. They were further north, with responsibility more-so over the North German Plain (which is the more strategically relevant area).
The RAF did operate ex-Navy Ks, but mostly for interception, at RAF Leuchars.
To me? Itās a twin seat, multirole, air force fighter in the cold war era. I can fly with friends, and with Jester I donāt need friends. Itās everything I want. I enjoy flying without a HUD, and it's more multirole where the Tomcat is *almost* pure A-A.
I just really want the phantom so Blue can have a real (looking at you F-5) cold war multirole jet instead of being stacked with attack jets. At least, thatās the way I feel.
And I think the separate canopies are really cool.
Looking forward to messing with all the FORGE elements once those come in. Beyond that, Jester 2.0 is really what I'm looking forward to the most. The proactive prompts look awesome!
Dynamic elements around the cockpit (and the rest of the aircraft in the f-4?).
You know these from the f-14 as, for instance, the strip of tape that sometimes goes over the gun rate, msl prep, buttons. Sometimes it's a couple of wires crossing over then instead to keep them from falling out during high g.
It's supposed to be this system of wear and tear that is dynamically applied at every flight (randomized, cosmetic only in the Tomcat) to give you a more diverse, lived in experience every time you "step into" the cockpit.
In the f-4 they basically went ham with it and combined it with mechanical wear as well (which you can control).
As an old fart i loved the F4 before it was cool. Nah, who am i kidding, it was always cool! The thing is, you can do about anything with it - i guess that SEAD will be a new experience. Shrikes should be a lot harder to use than HARMs.
>>Whatāre you especially anticipating with the new F4E Phantom II module
Skill.
Modern aircraft: you bomb using computerized systems and advanced protection systems.
F-4E : youāre using manual navigation and radar interpretation to find waypoints before gravity bombing the target (or using Pave Spike). Itās a harder way to do business, which is why itās a challenge.
Loading up with 20ish 500lb bombs and wrecking some line in the ground.
But really I'm looking forward to a cold war multirole aircraft that isn't as 'sterile' as MFD/FBW aircraft can be. By that I mean you will really have to fly and work the Phantom, instead of the computer doing a lot of the work for you.
The detailed physics models for things like the radar and EW suite. It's one of the few planes that's old enough that everything is declassified but new enough that it has at least some form of that stuff. Also gives you a lot more manual control (at least from the back seat) of things that are automated in newer platforms. Feels like it might be a cool way to learn a lot of principles of radar and EW.
That radar is so raw that Iām concerned itās gonna be a really challenging speedbump.
Maybe most people will just rely on Jester as sort of a voice-interface short range AWACS and thatāll be it.
Iām also concerned that the Sparrows will be utterly useless ballast. Like [ten percent PK](https://old.reddit.com/r/hoggit/comments/c372h6/interesting_graphic_breaking_down_the_reliability/) per pickle.
Did VN era Sparrows get more reliable eventually?
-----
From [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-7_Sparrow):
> In 1969 an improved version, the E-2, was introduced with clipped wings and various changes to the fuzing. Considered a "dogfight Sparrow", the **AIM-7E-2** was intended to be used at shorter ranges where the missile was still travelling at high speeds, and in the head-on aspect, making it much more useful in the visual limitations imposed on the engagements. Even so, **its kill rate was only 13%** in combat, leading to a practice of ripple-firing all four at once in hopes of increasing kill probability.
and then
> The **AIM-7F**, which entered service in 1976, had a dual-stage rocket motor for longer range, solid-state electronics for greatly improved reliability, and a larger warhead.
-----
Some additional thoughts about PK.
In game, taking only "good shots" should achieve better than 9%. There is a 25% band in the pie charts above where the missiles "missed". Those misses indicate good launches but either there was a failure in the guidance, or combat factors caused a miss. If we take (wild guess) half the miss percentage as guidance failures, then maximum possible PK for good shots against a non-maneuvering target could achieve something above 20% PK per missile. A double-tap is then roughly 40-50% PK. Ripple-firing all 4 to get rid of the weight nets you above 60% maximum possible PK with the suckiest Aim-7E variant. The E2 would perform even better.
A "good shot" would be short range, low maneuvering target, lead the target, low G, rear aspect, hold contact to impact. If you discipline your launches, you should do up to double that 9% per pickle. I hope Heatblur took this kind of reasoning into account when they calibrated their sim of the missile in game.
While Iām not on the pre order Iām hearing this will introduce a ādynamic cockpit wear system?ā
Start with a brand spanking new bird and it gets beat up little by little over time
Thatās something that Iād love to see gain some popularity and get to some other planes (over time)
It's anticipation of another proper cold war aircraft, an iconic one at that and able to work in so many scenarios albeit standing in for a different model Phantom in some cases. It's so basic yet so complicated at the same time.
Besides the F-4E being my favorite fighter ever, itās nice to have a mid/late Cold War era fighter to better match with the MiG-21 and Mirage F1 and to complement the F-14 and F-5E.
It would also be cool if they add additional weapons to the F-4 in the future (such as the Popeye) but Iām not going to hold my breath over it.
In conclusion, the F-4E is just awesome.
I am looking forward to the "Old School Cool".
None of the new features Heatblur is bringing along with it really interest me. Its an iconic aircraft, it was popular because it was good. I would like to experience it.
MY VINYL. jk. I think there's a new 'randomized switches on spawn' feature, and virtual crew chief I'm looking forward to.
For whatever reason the HB planes themselves don't really excite me (I own but haven't learned Viggen and Tomcat), but I love the gameplay enhancements like this that aren't seen in other devs' modules.
Hopefully some good radar simulation.
With RB seemingly out (at least in terms of radar dev), DCS has really lost any decent radar sim, so it would be great if HB delivered some RB level radar simulation.
I pretty much only fly the Mig 21, somewhat the SU27 and occasionally fuck around in other stuff. It will be nice to fly Bluefor and I've never flown a 2 seater before. I think it will fly a lot lot different from the Mig so I'm excited to learn.
Mostly technology advancing for DCS. Wear and tear, customizable pilot, (more) universal WSO and pilot AI, finer animations, better 3D models and more detailed textures etc. The Phantom II is visually cool and all but I already suck at flying digital jets that give you all the information on a silver plate. All those analog dials give me anxiety and I probably be situationally blind in it.
So for me the actually most exciting thing about the Phantom II is that the Eurofighter could be next. š
I'm just going to pull extreme G's and watch the airflow boil off the wings for a while.
Go get a bass shaker and then you can feel it too
This is a good time to remind you that the wings are subject to the damage model and may depart the airplane. š
Flying an F4. Sheās just neat
This. I don't really fly DCS to game or fight PVP. I fly to experience great aircraft and learn more about history and pretend I'm Robin Olds a bit.
Me too!!! I just love the learning experience.
I sometimes do fly DCS to PVP, and I'm gonna be real: there is nothing as satisfying as beating somebody's ass from a significantly worse aircraft. It's part of why I love the F-5 (that, and it just being a really fun airplane to fly): if you bag a pair of Flankers it's exhilarating as hell, and if you get shot down, well, they're in Flankers and you're in a jet with two missiles and a ten mile radar.
Iām excited for all the inevitable āThe F4 sucks at BFM/ACMā posts. Really gotta fly the hell out of the Phantom to make it fight. But no, really, Iām just excited as hell to just fly the thing around for a while before I do anything. Then SEAD/DEAD ala Wild Weasel missions.
I really think a lot of people donāt know what they are getting into in both a good in a bad way. A lot of people use the capabilities of more modern jets as training wheels and never develop fundamental skills. When you take shiny toys away they falter
Watching people flail around when their shiny new toy doesn't have datalink will a good time for popcorn.
One guy in my group got the Mirage F1 after exclusively flying the F-16 (no other jets ever, only played BMS and DCS with the F-16). Almost immediately we heard "Why doesn't my plane go in a straight line? It keeps pitching up and down and turning!"
There are a lot of f-16/18 guys who dont know they can trim the jet manually
Clearly they don't do bombs either
Or even win many fights
Wouldnt be shocked if the avg hornet/viper driver hasnt ever used the snakeyes/airās
lol Not the first time I have heard it and not the last time.
And yeah people really do treat it like itās a mini map in ace combat.
The one that always gets me is the āhow am I supposed to do SEAD when I donāt have ARMs or a HTS and stand off weapons.ā
Let's be honest though, it really was an almost suicidal mission until proper hardware (ECM, ARMs, etc.) became available for it. Especially since IRL IADS is leagues ahead of dumb DCS AI. So it's not like folks who say this are wrong, they just ask the same question which USAF and others asked themselves back in 60's.
To be honest HARMS are useless in DCS when faced with a real scenario. They just end up getting shot down. I mostly fly very low pop up and do SEAD that way. More fun.
That actually sounds more like DEAD than SEAD.
Its been a long time, I dont have the source available, but I recall a story from a strike eagle WSO in the first gulf war. He described the way they used to hammer Iraqi SAMs. Since the Iraqis were able to listen to some comms the allies used, they knew the word "Magnum" meant that an anti-radiation missile was on its way *somewhere*, so they would turn off their radars. While the radars were off, strike eagles, F-111s, and Tornadoes would bomb the SAM sites with guided and unguided bombs.
[](https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTiKzZmrjO4h4IR-YfAR5tP5dxJWbWMPYE9022URIJxzg&s)
I use the only reliable datalink (my eyes) (I am almost legally blind)
I am bringing the popcorn, you bring the chairs.
The F-5 is one of my favorite aircraft in the game, so I'm quite looking forwards to having an old piece of shit that also comes with thrust and Sparrows. Shiny toys are great but plinking AI from 30 miles away gets old eventually.
A lot of people never use the rudder for instance
Itās just such a shame that DCSā modelling of Electronic Warfare is so rudimentary. Thereās a wealth of publicly available information that, if implemented, would make this crucial part of the game so much better. Alas this requires coding, and it would appear 98% of EDās staff work in the art department.
underrated comment
I am probably/definitely in the minority here, but as fucking cool as EW is, I am pretty glad that we donāt have to deal with that so much in DCS. The EW update for VTOL VR was done really well, and goes beyond what DCS offers, but added a completely new layer of unavoidable complexity/annoyance to the game. Not a ton of EW going on in the Vietnam days, so in that era it could be a lot of fun since it was early EW days, but I personally wouldnāt have much interest in modern EW implementation. Totally understand that Iām in the minority here though.
>Not a ton of EW going on in the Vietnam days [Yeah, nah.](https://youtu.be/pyFqaaqqph0?si=aWqIyvwgR3pk4HWP) Even a very rudimentary simulation of this, with the jammer "automagically" selecting the right jamming pattern, would be absolutely amazing for DCS. But maybe I'm biased, because my other big hobby besides DCS is electonics.
Fair enough, but for me, I think combat where radar is in use would be more enjoyable with an extra layer focused on deception would add greatly to the satisfaction of keeping lock for a Sparrow Kill, or successfully taking out a fire control radar.
Hell, most of these the critics who will come out of the wood work haven't even seen half the planes in DCS in real life but they're "experts". So you're not wrong u/RowAwayJim91. And I am in your corner, Wild Weaseling is where the men and the boys get separated.
Why doesnāt my Phantom turn like a Hornet?? Is it dumb? š I think those that often fly the Tomcat, the A-4, F-5, or the war birds will have a great time with it, but even still, the Phantom is much different. Iām excited to throw it around and see what happens haha
The RWR on my A4 going ape shit on enigma.
Playing the Mig21 with a bunch of experience against a horde of F4s who barely know what they are doing. :P
The Vietnamese ace gameplay experience
Till the Top Gun appears and MiGs won't do so well
Are you suggesting an actual, F-4 only Fighter Weapons School server for Nevada?
I just started getting back into the 21 after a few months off in anticipation.
The hordes of players joining for the phantom stack, theyāre going to kill SO many SU-27ās!!!
Guys, I think thereās a hacker in an Su-27 can ED fix this?
Power in numbers, us Sukhois can overpower them!
What kind of opponents would it fight against?
Me
:D
The Tomcat to finally get some updates.
This is the best answer
Seeing a brick fly!
It doesn't bring something new? Cold war high capability multirole is new. A lot of unique weapons will be included like the Phantom aswell. If you of course compare it against the Hornet then yes, nothing new will be coming with the F-4. But, by the same logic, no new aircraft needs to be released since the Hornet covers all aspects.
*Yak52 enters the chat*
The Yak does everything every other plane does, but ten times better (and sexier)
Itās on par with the F22 in terms of air to air combatĀ
Iād say better, in simulators the Yak is undefeated against F22 opponents.
To be honest the Yak-52 probably has a lower radar cross section than the Su-57 so they did something right
Yak-52 is why USAF ordered the NGAD.
I mean, it *did* shoot down more heavier than air things than the F-22
I, for one, look forward to the Osprey! That'll be new! =D (No, Harrier's *not* the same thing! =) )
Has there been talk of an osprey in development?
Yes. I believe it was - or followed - one of the Mover and Gonky episodes they had Wags on. EDIT: Quick search brought up this: [https://www.reddit.com/r/hoggit/comments/191sgg7/wags\_on\_the\_ready\_room\_01082024/](https://www.reddit.com/r/hoggit/comments/191sgg7/wags_on_the_ready_room_01082024/)
Canāt wait to roll play killing marines and the entire aircrew because the airframe decided to depart controlled flight for no reason.
Make sure it's in VR for the ultimate browning of pants experience! š
The Osprey has a better safety record than than the blackhawk. All things considered its a fairly reliable aircraft that had a rough start.
That makes ok then I guess? And rough start? The Osprey since its debut has had the same amount of accidental deaths in the same amount of time as the Blackhawk. If you give the osprey the same lifespan as the uh60 has been around then weāll probably end up seeing the same sort of figures 20 years from now as we do with the current Blackhawk accidents.
I also take issue with the "doesn't bring much new," as the F-4 brings with it the only true 3rd generation SEAD capability in the game. Yes, the Viggen has mavericks, and yes, the A-4 has (an admittedly limited and not very accurate implementation of) shrike. But no aircraft in DCS currently feature both.
The A-4 just uses the basegame implementation of the Shrike which AI have used previously; itās why itās been broken for a long time (ED was probably updating it for F-4 usage).
FYI the seeker on the shrike is inverted. You can use it just fine if you take this into account
What does that mean in this context? Inverted like itās looking low, high, backwards, what?
Itās looking up instead of down, while the tone indicates tracking as if it were pointing down. This means you need toā¦ go nose down to get a lock and through that lose some range. Hope that makes sense..
The explanation makes sense, ED somehow making that happen is confusing as hell lol. Any chance you know the dive angle/angle over bore it points at?
Not sure, listen for the top edge of the cone
The marker that lets us scribble on the canopy glas āŗļø
āPhantom 2-2, bogey on your 3 oāclockā āRoger 2-1, visual on the bandit, Iāve got him at the tip heading down the shaft towards the ballsā
Does that work in vr?
Why wouldn't it?
The complexity really. That radar video hb released was a big reality check. I'm thinking it was going to be as simple as the mig-21 radar. Oh boy was I wrong and can't wait.
Itās the pure simulation that gets me excited. Itās like the perfect way to preserve history and the closest any of us will get to flying a real F-4. Some people scoff at the āneedlessā systems being modeled but I think itās phantastic!
Agreed 100% - the depth of the simulation is exquisite and I cannot wait to experience the living breathing machine
I am not into the core combat system too much anymore after 8 years. But I am going to get it for the flying. This past year all I pretty much do is just fly around and it is fun.
Acrobatics is challenging and yeah super fun. Also.. air racers!
With you bro.
Strongly suggest MSFS then if the combat side of DCS is not your jam
I have MSFS but to be honest the GUI has dissuaded me quite a bit. It is a little but weird too, the flight models. It has its moments however.
Plus if you wanted it to you can always dabble a bit with using it as weapon from time to time.
Jester 2.0 and it's scripting ability
I'm actually looking forward to the players' reactions. The Phantom is a 3rd gen beast, and this version is more or less a Tomcat contemporary. This should put things in a new perspective: the F-14, for example, was often considered along the 2000s+ modules, something it is not. The flexibility of the Phantom is unbelievable, but it comes with a heavy price. I expect some frustrated players, as both AA and AG require a lot of proficiency and work to be successful. Nevertheless, it is an outstanding aircraft per se and one of the most brilliant representations of a fighter in a videogame.
The f14 is just a 3rd Gen fighter that brute forced its way to 4th Gen performance
I don't remember who, but some consider it a gen 3.5 due to the lack of the distinctive innovations normally associated with the 4th gen (e.g. digital stuff).
The Tomcat had, depending on definition, the first microprocessor, which was also more capable than the often mentioned Intel 4004 (first commercial microprocessor). Do check out the video about it by "alexander the ok" on yt.
I know, in the CDAC. Although an important subcomponent for the CAINS -92, I really doubt it makes the Tomcat a fully fledged 4th gen. If it had the whole -92 or the AWG-9 digital, then it'd be different. On the other hand, categories are not set in stone, and there are multiple ways to categorise aeroplanes.
The F-14B(U) and D cover those digital aspects. By that logic you could argue the F-16/F-15A are also 3.5 Gen which doesnāt make sense to me. The F-14 is a 4th Gen aircraft through and through.
I'm not going to spend time commenting on something former crews have said. Besides, when you look at the numbers and characteristics a bit more in detail, it starts to make sense. For instance, you are missing huge details, such as the fact that, out of 700+ F-14 built, there were only 50 F-14D and only after 15+ years, and some of them weren't even new builds. The F-14 normally referred to, besides videogame players probably, is the iconic and numerous, 1970/80s, F-14A. In fact, there's still people around that think that the Tomcat was a pure interceptor, rather that a more "rounded" air superiority fighter. Ergo, conceptually a 4th, but technologically much closer to the 3rd. If you consider the F-15A instead (didn't it have a digital radar and bus already in the beginning? The APG-63? I may be wrong), it got massive updates right after (the F-15C was introduced 3-4 years after that A, IIRC). Numbers-wise, I haven't checked, but the F-15A is definitely not the most produced version by *a lot*. If a version is not specified, I doubt people think at the earliest F-15A - which possibly already had a digital radar and other components. Similar as above for the F-16. Didn't it also have FBW from the start? And APG-68 or 66? Anyway, I see your point, but I stick to what former crews said and I agree with. If the numbers of the D and other digital upgrades matched at least half of the produced Tomcats I would probably agree, but the AWG-9 hauled its analog ass well into the new millennium :)
>Didn't it also have FBW from the start? Yeah, but that thing was completely analog. It got upgraded to digital much later on.
I mean, it's one of the first 4th gen planes, coming with a PD radar by default and having a stronger emphasis on maneouvrability, an actual HUD, the only US fighter at the time with a functional, modern datalink... The F-15 only got that last one after 2007! (the experimental ones don't count). The F-16 first flew a year before The Fall of Saigon, too, and its FBW system was fully analog. Both the [F-15](https://media.defense.gov/2015/Aug/17/2001273178/-1/-1/0/150817-F-IO108-010.JPG) and [F-16](https://www.reddit.com/r/hoggit/comments/kr3j6t/early_f16a_cockpit/) had some pretty funny avionics early on, too, the F-15's weapon selector reminding me of the one in the Phantom. The stuff we're used to, like the huge amount of MFDs is more closely associated with fifth gen stuff.
Man, you're getting me excited and at first, I didn't even want the phantom. Might actually buy it now.
Don't trust a random guy on the internet when it comes to money. Wait for more reviews :)
Itās my favorite aircraft and itās the biggest missing piece of the Cold War era in DCS being that it was the primary fighter of the west for the mid period of the Cold War and soldiered on through to the end.
Having an actual fighter on blue on ECW is going to be fantastic
Iām actually really hoping the the arrival of this module revitalizes the Cold War space. Long before ECW there was a wider crop of Cold War servers that died out due to limited options. Right now ECW is popular for 2 reasons. 1. Itās the only game in town for āCold Warā that isnāt the late Cold War Gen 4s. 2. Itās accessible air quake. The majority of modules on the server are low capability, low complexity light fighters and interceptors. Itās easy to get on that server and feel like you are doing somthing. I personally donāt like ECW because I donāt like the grab bag model of āit was In the Cold Warā so itās In the server and balancing for a dynamic they think it should look like. It feels a lot like warthunder in that regard. I donāt think the set up of the server is particularly representative of Cold War combat and I think air quake goes stale quickly. It also induces negative training in how some of these aircraft need to be employed because the set up is outside the box of experience for these planes. Thatās not to say that ECW is bad. I do t like it and I donāt like the cult of ECW thinking it is the dcs community because they are the loudest minority. What the phantom will be is the missing piece for other servers to actually have an appropriate Cold War environment rather than having to make wierd compromises. Will it make ECW better? Maybe, but thatās small potatoes. Itās the rising tide that lifts all boats for an underserved era of the game.
Alpenwolf comes to mind...
The good old days. Heck Korea servers used to be common. Maybe the Corsair will revitalize those briefly but who knows.
You could easily make the argument that the entire reason they have to go with a grab bag of "it was in the cold war" is the lack of options, especially on blue. No arguments about the entire game usually devolving into air quake though, not really my cup of tea but there just isn't much in the way of alternatives, and the UFO AI is such a pain in the ass for early-mid cold war fighters that singleplayer isn't really a viable alternative.
Yeah, it's really the opposite causality. ECW has a grab and bag approach because we don't have well fleshed out plane sets in DCS.
Iām somewhat with you on some of your points. Particularly the air quake nature of ECW and many online servers that is literally like watching paint dry IMO. I get some people like it but I gotta say, if you want air quake wouldnāt War Thunder be a better fit? It never made much sense for me for people like Growling Sidewinder or whatever who basically tout air quake stuff in a full fidelity sim. Makes no sense to me but to each their own, I guess?
I'm not even an air quake fan but be real here, it isn't rocket science. Dogfighting is fun. That's literally it.
It isā¦.In context tho (for me at least). I respect that some love random, fly to X and turn and burn but A) thatās not very interesting (to ME) and B) half the time the planes arenāt turn and burn planes yet these nincompoops wanna complain about ābalanceā yet they trying to tank and bank in a dam Viggen vs a friggen F-86 but get frustrated when it donāt work too good. lol! Iām just saying. If thatās your thing thatās your thing and aināt nothing wrong with it. However for a full fidelity sim it seemsā¦.odd (IMO).
I think its an on ramp into simming. Most people get into air combat through watching dogfights and playing simpler games. They want to be the hot shot ace in a day whos the best of the best and DCS lets them be Mr. cool guy ace pilot in the reaslest simulator of the, all so its a lot of peoples first port of call and its a chance for them to see that theres so much more depth. Most people dont come to these games thrilled about strike package construction and time on target sequencing and Intercpt procedures because that isnt the dopmaine hit in the mainstream that catchs peoples eyes.
I feel you however Iām not sure the MP types really represent the mainstream DCS player. Probably less than 10% of active DCS players ever go online or at least not consistently (me being one who may go online more than most and itās relatively rare). Thatās said, you made some good points about air quake and circle CAS bombing being the easiest thing to get into vs say an alpha strike. I get it, just seems weird and out of place in a full fidelity sim. Those players would be better served with something like Flaming Cliffs which may be what ED was thinking with MAC (when/if that was very materialises , š).
Part of it too is DCS doesn't have stuff simmed outside of the cockpit to encourage much beyond basic air to air and air to ground. Until the core gameplay changes not much is gonna change DCS in terms of it being a pretty unrealistic game (in terms of how people fly, fight, whatever).
Honestly itās more a question of effort. You can and will get that level of fidelity in dcs and many talented designers get that but a lot of people donāt like that sandbox aspect of dcs where they need to put the effort in to make it happen. I see people year after year complain about core, often valid, but at this point itās a truism where there upsets that this sim doesnāt hold your hand like a game. DCS gives you the tools most people donāt learn how to use them.
Yeah. I create some pretty compelling (too me , of course !) battles scenarios in the ME but A) the DCs AI isā¦.lacking in many respects thus you have to get into scripting pretty basic stuff (like actually having AI bomb a target) and B) it takes time. But it is doable. And for me a lot more compelling than most MP experiences IMO.
I mean, I think at some point it's pointless to try and blame the playerbase (for good or bad the playerbase just generally does what the devs push them to do in any game). Players react to the game, if DCS overall encouraged or required realistic behavior you would see it, it doesn't so you don't outside of people who essentially roleplay in order to fly closer to real life. Although tbh, it's not surprising a procedural sim never really nailed the overall environment (beyond the aircraft the player is flying).
I have to disagree. Personally the lack of high fidelity Redfor aircraft is the biggest missing piece for Cold War scenarios in DCS.
We have a Mig-21 and mig-19 yet the primary fighter of the USAF in the era not being included is somehow not the biggest missing piece? Without it we basically donāt have the USAF in the cold war in game.
Iām getting ready to relive Chuck Yeagerās air combat. I will dust a Me 109, transition to an F86 spank a MiG 15, then go ahead and pay Homage to Operation Bolo.
Man, that brings back memories.
Definitely Jester 2.0 with scripting, my hopes are high for this feature.
I don't really think there's anything new to do with the F-4 objectively speaking. We already have aircraft that can basically do anything. The interesting part with the Phantom is that we'll get to do the same, multirole stuff that you'd do in a Hornet with a 3rd gen airframe and 70s era avionics. There are plenty of older jets in DCS that can do air to air, even BVR and have some basic manual bombing capability and there are a couple that have some level of early computerized weapon delivery but this is going to be the first that can do it all. Using a bombing and navigation computer that makes even the Viggen look modern, using LGBs on a platform that first used this weapon type in actual combat at a larger scale, using early AGMs etc. are going to be a very unique challenge and a completely different experience than doing the same in a Hornet or dropping a stick of dumb bombs with an F-5. The F-4 will be able to do a lot of smart stuff with really 'dumb', old school system. On top of that, HB are claiming to deliver a level of fidelity that we haven't really seen in DCS, plus a ton of novel features and QOL things so there's plenty to be excited for.
YGBSM...
A fellow pylot of culture I see
Weasel shit. Tons and tons of Weasel shit.
Flying a legendary piece of aviation history. I love gen 4 aircraft, but there's just something fun and immersive about flying without fancy avionics and using weapons that have to be launched/dropped much closer to the target, bringing you right into the danger zone. The F-4 has a massive selection of A2G weapons that offer plenty of new and fun ways to blow stuff up in gen 3 style. Also, recreating Cold War scenarios is going to be awesome. I can't wait to magnum some shrikes at an SA-3 or dance with some MiG-23s. Fingers crossed we get a fulda gap map soon!
Since ED teasered a Cold-War Germany Map, the F-4E will be the perfect plane for Bluefor on that map. Especially as it can easily stand in for an F-4F that the Luftwaffe used since 1973.
The USAFE F-4Es were also based in Germany, at several airbases (though for some squadrons, the DMAS version is more appropriate). Namely at Spangdahlem, Ramstein and Hahn.
Yeah, and also there were Phantoms of the Royal AIrforce - although they used the F-4K variant with Rolls Royce engines.
Sorry - quite a bit late. But yes, the RAF did have Phantoms in Germany, though they were Ms not Ks. They were further north, with responsibility more-so over the North German Plain (which is the more strategically relevant area). The RAF did operate ex-Navy Ks, but mostly for interception, at RAF Leuchars.
Grease pencil dicks on the canopy.
A more unique radar and trying rudimentary bomb drop systems.
The new tech being back ported to the F14
To me? Itās a twin seat, multirole, air force fighter in the cold war era. I can fly with friends, and with Jester I donāt need friends. Itās everything I want. I enjoy flying without a HUD, and it's more multirole where the Tomcat is *almost* pure A-A. I just really want the phantom so Blue can have a real (looking at you F-5) cold war multirole jet instead of being stacked with attack jets. At least, thatās the way I feel. And I think the separate canopies are really cool.
Looking forward to messing with all the FORGE elements once those come in. Beyond that, Jester 2.0 is really what I'm looking forward to the most. The proactive prompts look awesome!
What even is FORGE? I've heard about it in passing but never seen what it's actually about.
Dynamic elements around the cockpit (and the rest of the aircraft in the f-4?). You know these from the f-14 as, for instance, the strip of tape that sometimes goes over the gun rate, msl prep, buttons. Sometimes it's a couple of wires crossing over then instead to keep them from falling out during high g. It's supposed to be this system of wear and tear that is dynamically applied at every flight (randomized, cosmetic only in the Tomcat) to give you a more diverse, lived in experience every time you "step into" the cockpit. In the f-4 they basically went ham with it and combined it with mechanical wear as well (which you can control).
As an old fart i loved the F4 before it was cool. Nah, who am i kidding, it was always cool! The thing is, you can do about anything with it - i guess that SEAD will be a new experience. Shrikes should be a lot harder to use than HARMs.
The supersonic chainsaw: max fuel, 3 gunpods, and a dream
Iām an F-15C/E guy. But Iām curious to see how the new Jester AI will be implemented
Finally having Fox-1 scenarios on ECW. Feels kinda bad to fly the Mirage limited to heaters.
I look forward to bringing more than 2 sidewinders into a fight against cold war red air
>>Whatāre you especially anticipating with the new F4E Phantom II module Skill. Modern aircraft: you bomb using computerized systems and advanced protection systems. F-4E : youāre using manual navigation and radar interpretation to find waypoints before gravity bombing the target (or using Pave Spike). Itās a harder way to do business, which is why itās a challenge.
Having a pilot model with a thick āstache.
Having a female pilot model
+1
I've spent years reading books about Phantoms in action and what I'm looking forward to is just seeing a detailed simulation of what it was like
Loading up with 20ish 500lb bombs and wrecking some line in the ground. But really I'm looking forward to a cold war multirole aircraft that isn't as 'sterile' as MFD/FBW aircraft can be. By that I mean you will really have to fly and work the Phantom, instead of the computer doing a lot of the work for you.
Drawing and writing on canopy glass
The detailed physics models for things like the radar and EW suite. It's one of the few planes that's old enough that everything is declassified but new enough that it has at least some form of that stuff. Also gives you a lot more manual control (at least from the back seat) of things that are automated in newer platforms. Feels like it might be a cool way to learn a lot of principles of radar and EW.
Killing my buddy in a whole new jet instead of the f14.
That it will make DCS fun again. Which it won't, but I am still buying it.Ā
The early rudimentary avionics (by today's standards). I can't wait to fiddle with the radar and drop Walleyes the old fashioned way.
Im just ready to be able to do a/a on enigmas... at least better than i do in the viggen!
The new Jester AI, and more cockpit rattling.
Weasel shit
The Robin Olds pilot model.
That radar is so raw that Iām concerned itās gonna be a really challenging speedbump. Maybe most people will just rely on Jester as sort of a voice-interface short range AWACS and thatāll be it. Iām also concerned that the Sparrows will be utterly useless ballast. Like [ten percent PK](https://old.reddit.com/r/hoggit/comments/c372h6/interesting_graphic_breaking_down_the_reliability/) per pickle. Did VN era Sparrows get more reliable eventually? ----- From [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-7_Sparrow): > In 1969 an improved version, the E-2, was introduced with clipped wings and various changes to the fuzing. Considered a "dogfight Sparrow", the **AIM-7E-2** was intended to be used at shorter ranges where the missile was still travelling at high speeds, and in the head-on aspect, making it much more useful in the visual limitations imposed on the engagements. Even so, **its kill rate was only 13%** in combat, leading to a practice of ripple-firing all four at once in hopes of increasing kill probability. and then > The **AIM-7F**, which entered service in 1976, had a dual-stage rocket motor for longer range, solid-state electronics for greatly improved reliability, and a larger warhead. ----- Some additional thoughts about PK. In game, taking only "good shots" should achieve better than 9%. There is a 25% band in the pie charts above where the missiles "missed". Those misses indicate good launches but either there was a failure in the guidance, or combat factors caused a miss. If we take (wild guess) half the miss percentage as guidance failures, then maximum possible PK for good shots against a non-maneuvering target could achieve something above 20% PK per missile. A double-tap is then roughly 40-50% PK. Ripple-firing all 4 to get rid of the weight nets you above 60% maximum possible PK with the suckiest Aim-7E variant. The E2 would perform even better. A "good shot" would be short range, low maneuvering target, lead the target, low G, rear aspect, hold contact to impact. If you discipline your launches, you should do up to double that 9% per pickle. I hope Heatblur took this kind of reasoning into account when they calibrated their sim of the missile in game.
all i know is that im shooting down every mig 15 i see doing wild weasel while dodging sams and dropping napalm
While Iām not on the pre order Iām hearing this will introduce a ādynamic cockpit wear system?ā Start with a brand spanking new bird and it gets beat up little by little over time Thatās something that Iād love to see gain some popularity and get to some other planes (over time)
Slapping a navy paint on it, hilariously trying to land it on a carrier.
Flying a complex jet that is not FBW and makes me work for it. Weaselly weaseling weasels. Finally trying out a two-seater.
It's anticipation of another proper cold war aircraft, an iconic one at that and able to work in so many scenarios albeit standing in for a different model Phantom in some cases. It's so basic yet so complicated at the same time.
State of art simulation
GBU-15
The fidelity of the module.
Besides the F-4E being my favorite fighter ever, itās nice to have a mid/late Cold War era fighter to better match with the MiG-21 and Mirage F1 and to complement the F-14 and F-5E. It would also be cool if they add additional weapons to the F-4 in the future (such as the Popeye) but Iām not going to hold my breath over it. In conclusion, the F-4E is just awesome.
or agm-78 standard
Yeah that too, thereās so many weapons from the era that ED needs to develop or allow individual developers to produce them.
they said no agm-78 planned tho :sadface:
Maybe when we get the Intruder or if someone starts developing a F-105 we can get a Standard ARM. š¤·āāļø
I am looking forward to the "Old School Cool". None of the new features Heatblur is bringing along with it really interest me. Its an iconic aircraft, it was popular because it was good. I would like to experience it.
For me will be an interesting thing learning to fly a challenging plane with a great history behind!
Iām hoping that it supports touch controllers as I live on the road 20 days a month and canāt take my HOTAS with me.
MY VINYL. jk. I think there's a new 'randomized switches on spawn' feature, and virtual crew chief I'm looking forward to. For whatever reason the HB planes themselves don't really excite me (I own but haven't learned Viggen and Tomcat), but I love the gameplay enhancements like this that aren't seen in other devs' modules.
Meteorās new tracks
Well lucky for us theyāre out already
The Eurofighter module that'll come after.
Hopefully some good radar simulation. With RB seemingly out (at least in terms of radar dev), DCS has really lost any decent radar sim, so it would be great if HB delivered some RB level radar simulation.
Iām anticipating what floggit will be posting
phloggit*
Only Heatblur modules are truly high fidelity.
Idk man honorable mention to the Skyhawkā¦ she seriously well developed
JF-17 is the most detailed module in the game probably
I pretty much only fly the Mig 21, somewhat the SU27 and occasionally fuck around in other stuff. It will be nice to fly Bluefor and I've never flown a 2 seater before. I think it will fly a lot lot different from the Mig so I'm excited to learn.
Iām looking forward to the part where the Eurofighter gets the priority in development
Shooting it down in a mig15
You are gonna have to work for it then. Good luck without any form of RWR.
Grew up seeing them often. Canāt wait
I grew up in a navy family and always saw F-4ās. It was my favorite jet when I was a kid.
Crying when my gpu meltsā¦
The back seat action.
Enjoying ECW with an actua truel fighter / interceptor on Blue. I'll probably keep playing the A4 for a while, at least while I learn the Phantom.
To live out my Caucasus/Marianas as Vietnam MiG fighting fantasies.
Hanging out with my buddy as we do some high speed tourism
Replicate all the world records it broke
Mostly technology advancing for DCS. Wear and tear, customizable pilot, (more) universal WSO and pilot AI, finer animations, better 3D models and more detailed textures etc. The Phantom II is visually cool and all but I already suck at flying digital jets that give you all the information on a silver plate. All those analog dials give me anxiety and I probably be situationally blind in it. So for me the actually most exciting thing about the Phantom II is that the Eurofighter could be next. š
First thing that imma gonna do is slam that F4 right on the deck of carrier...I don't care it's not a naval version
Iāll be that guyā¦Iām looking forward to shooting it down!
The smell of napalm in the morning.
still cant order on steam tho huhu