Say thanks to @ghostdog688 :) Let's say that an AI VO video take t = 1 unit of time to complete. With human VO takes probably t=3 or 4 ut. If I were to record myself, it'd take t = 3² or 4².
The voice work is a small offering to the community. If it stops people being distracted by the AI voice, and lets people focus on the content, I’m happy to help where I can. Karon’s great to work with and I figured sometimes you have to be the change you’d wish to see.
As a solo player, i tend to leave radar in manual boresight when the target is lower than 10k ft. Jester won't pick it up anyway, and radar screen gives me unnecessary hope, gravitating my mind from actually looking around
Fun fact: IRL there were kills made in boresight and ripple-firing AIM-7. So, your tactic is actually acceptable, although a better usage of the APQ-120 would increase your flexibility.
@@FlyAndWire I mean manually locking bandit with boresight mode, rather than waiting for jester to sort out all the clutter the radar gets on low altitudes (he can't do that anyway) in search modes. And if that doesn't work, ripping a sparrow in flood mode indeed
So... you need 3 people to get the most out of your Phantom, only 1 of which gets to do fun stick monkey things =P... That's real bad news for the vast majority of the community that's stuck in single player or flies uncoordinated solo amongst others in mp. While I appreciate everything the video says (very good video, btw!), I don't _quite_ understand why some of these things need saying nor why people struggle as much as they do. There are plenty of early CW planes in DCS that are single seat and as - or less - capable as the Phantom. People have been flying and fighting them successfully until now. Yet, the Phantom, they struggle unduly with. Wondering if it's "just" the radar and them getting sucked into it/Jester, kinda as the video alludes to. Take out the radar and the Fox 1's and go pure visual with Fox 2's and I wonder if people would have more success and enjoyment out of it...
Thanks, I see your point, and I agree with most of it. Besides the fact that the front seat is more enjoyable :P As always, it depends on what you are looking for. For instance, I refuse to fly with a wingman with Jester. I prefer no wingman, as I don't want to babysit them. Same with the AIC: if only the AI is available, I change the frequency. It is too bugged to be useful. Call them "first-world problems" but again, it depends on what you are looking for :) Regarding the third-generation aircraft, the radars of the F1 and MiG-21 are either FC3-level placeholders or very outdated and overperforming. I have already talked about the AI GCI issues in another video. SA is too easy in the current servers, but it is understandable, given that they are casual. The campaign I made a couple of years ago ended up in chaos and blood since crews were solely responsible for their SA. I am looking forward to playing the updated version. ETA 2035, or ROLEX 5256000, if you prefer :S The Phantom has the best radar in DCS so far, and most fourth-generation players think they can easily move from an FFalcon to the Phantom, but that's not the case. As I said in the video, a huge switch in mentality and approach to operations is required. They probably don't understand that the controller should position them, and then they engage. The APQ-120 reminds me more of the F-8's radar, which had a range of a couple of dozen miles, IIRC, rather than the AWG-9 / AWG-10. Instead, they try to make Jester do what the hardware itself hardly can without crew cooperation (e.g. adjust geometry) and, as you said, they get distracted. To go pure FOX-2, you need to know where the targets are, and, at the moment, I don't see any way of doing this without a human controller specifically handicapped to increase realism.
@@FlyAndWire realistm is a server setting - and there are many servers to pick from. If people manage to find and fight each other on WWII servers - notably, without radars - they can manage in a CW setting, too =). Either with some sort of GCI/script, word-of-mouth or map knowledge. I might be wrong, but I don't get the impression that the big issue is _not_ being able to find people or not knowing where to go, but rather that weapons employment sucks because the radar is "useless" (read: hard to work, particularly in a pinch in a fast-moving environment). People also seem to have been swept up in romanticised propaganda, such as "Most produced and successful fighter ever", "Greatest distributor of mig parts", Pre/post Top Gun kill ratios in Nam, etc, and have built this idea in their heads that the Phantom is a competent BFM machine, when it really is not. At most, it's an interceptor, and it owes its success in Nam to multi-ship tactics and numbers, more than manoeuvrability, all of which means it's definitely _not_ the best single-ship BFM machine in the roster! Mind you, my first impression of it, when ripping it around the circle was _shockingly_ good compared to what I was expecting! Then I did a few side-by-side comparisons in formation with an F-14 with a buddy and reality set in, when the F-4 had completed three quarters of a circle by the time the Tomcat had made the full circle. So.. far more capable than I anticipated, but still a bit of a brick, comparatively. Performance, in the same regime of sustained turn, was _very_ similar to the Mirage F1, however, and people successfully fight that in all sorts of regimes... so I'm puzzled why they would struggle more with the F-4. Again, only thing I can think of is the radar being the limiting factor, more than anything else. F1 and Mig 21 definitely have easier radars, but people still successfully engage with the likes of Mig 19, Mig 15, F-5, A-4, AJS37 and F-86, all of which either have no a-a radar or very rudimentary, near-sighted ones.
@@riman8493 > If people manage to find and fight each other on WWII servers - notably, without radars - they can manage in a CW setting, too Not necessarily. I played Il2 for 6-7 years, and my signature aircraft were the Zerstörer and the A6 (I even got the bk 3.7 banned in one of the bellum wars successors. But this is another story). I used to navigate with a printed map and a goniometer. The issue here is the speed. The briefing mentioned a certain town or place, and the two sides tended to converge there. Given how long it took a He-111 to climb and get there, for example, and I remember spiralling in a corner of the map for 45 minutes to build altitude, it was hard to miss each other. However, in a CW setting, I can get to the target at M.9 or even supersonic, depending on the loadout, throw the bombs and ride home at M1.5+. You immediately see the issue here. Unless you are playing some free-for-all mess, then who cares, really. About your other points, I think the Mirages are the greatest distributors of MiG parts, but I never checked the numbers :) On a more serious note, I more or less agree with your other points, and some are the driving factors behind this video: try and help people understand the Phantom a bit better. A final note about the radars, it all depends what you expect from them. The F-4J, with its AWG-10, will be closer to the modern expectations.
@@HighAspect The thing is, there is only so much the AI can do. Take the Tomcat: you should listen and follow the RIO's instructions. How many players would do them? Not many, and that would defeat the purpose of a monumental effort code-wise. Also, the ones that complain the most about Jester are also the ones that do not know the peculiarities of the backseat at all.
The complexity and challenges presented by this unique craft truly make it an exciting and enjoyable experience. It's going to take me a lot longer to become proficient in than any other plane in DCS, and that is alright by me! I have so much fun and it is so satisfying to finally figure out each system, and I believe I am 100% getting my money's worth when I fly it. This is a great video essay and I really appreciate the work you are putting in. Also great voice-over work by Ghostdog688. I am definitely subscribing to his channel as well and will look forward to future collaborations!
Problem is not the Phantom. Mig 19 and especially Mig 21 have a pretty straigh-forward radar bcs old full-fidelity radars are simplistic compared to the last modules. I face the same problem in the F15E in BVR against the F16. The F16s Radar feels almost like an FC3 radar to me in terms of reliability. I know the F15E features arent fledged-out yet, but I can promise you flying BVR the most that even with all F15 datalink the F16 will continue ruling in BVR, like it ruled for the past 6yrs. Now imagine the Mig21s radar was as variable and detailed like the F4 Phantom.
Oh, I agree with that. The Phantom is not the problem; that's the point of the whole video. Both FFalcon and Hornet radars are poor at best. I don't remember when, but the Hornet used to update *between* TWS sweeps. Like.. how?! Better not to mention the RWR. Apparently, my silly video about making intercepts with the RWR only is still valid. These modules, and the lack of modern redfor opposition, are some of the many reasons why my favourite setting is late 70s, early 80s. There are more info around to make better modules, and the crew is still the fundamental part of the equation. But it takes some effort to get there. I have probably spent a couple of hours top in the SE. It's very well made, but I am not sure how it can suffer in BVR against a FFalcon: the sheer endurance is more than enough to give you all the separation you want. Basically, invite the FFalcons to make the same mistakes early F3 crews made when they first got the AIM-120 (there are a couple of interviews in Aircrew Interview or 10% true about it, I don't remember which ones though).
@@FlyAndWire I do like 70s 80s tech as well thats why I always say variants for the modules themselves will make a huge difference like 15A 16A and 18A. The fact that the F14 came with an A variant gave something good for redfor scenarios. Those will be more or less good oponents for upcoming Mig29 or even the Mig23. When it comes to the F16 vs F15E in DCS the superiorty is more in theory than in practise. For instance the 16s airframe is not limited it can dive to hell and keep its wings, so while notching it can evade everything. The 15E on the other hand will have its wings break if you exceed 805knts in level flight. Theres many other examples as well. Thats why on every server wichi is centered around BVR it will have the F16s on top of the scoreboard.
Why would a 90s F-14A (due to the 90s LANTIRN and 80s ALR-67) be a Redfor aircraft? Even the -95 would fly with basically only AIM-9s in any post-80s scenario: no more 54s, and there's no 7E-4 in-game. The FFalcon is a better Redfor aircraft in this regard due to its availability, and it is also easy to justify with a NATO country breaking away from the alliance, for example (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting_Falcon_operators). I'm a bit confused. I would love to see the F-15/16/18 A. It would even out scenarios for PvP players and make missions more appropriate. I see the point about the SE vs 16. I tested it up to M1.6 and it was fine, odd. Notching should be a non-issue with MPRF or STT, but we know how DCS works.
@@FlyAndWire What I meant with the F14A is the fact that the Iranians posses it. IRA F14As dont have the LANTRIN as far as I know so a server owner could make it so that it cant equip it if it was supposed to be a realistic scenario.
I understand that, but they don't have the -67 either. The -95 will be a bit closer to the alicat, but it is not out yet. Also, according to the same logic, F-4E and F-5E are redfor, and the MiG-29 is blue. This is why I never liked this approach. On a similar note, it is like having FFalcon and Hornet in an '80s server by removing some weapons. No, it does not work nor it makes any sense.
We're doing the Gen 3 tournament right now and the transition of some of these teams to convert from SATAC aircraft to Gen 3 is rough for them, to say the least.
It's not easy at all. The lack of PD plus a serious radar representation makes A/A challenging. In a sense, the crew must help the radar to see, not vice versa.
After the update, it is impossible to find instant 21 using radar on the Caucasus map if the target is flying above the ground. The interference from the ground is stronger than the signal from the plane, no matter how hard I work, nothing helps, even if the target is above me. If moment 21 is above the water, then you can see how much the gain needs to be turned up. This did not happen before the update, and targets could be found even above the ground. What’s strange about the stake map is that there are no such problems, and the target can still be found. Please check this and reply...
Pretty sure when they designed the F4, they thought the systems/radar was so good there was no need to look outside lol. Have you seen the cockpit ? Terrible visual . Now should we even discuss the rear seat ?? Lol dude has no clue what's going on 😁.
@@FlyAndWire WHAT!! I love the mig-21 they both have not such great visibility, but my point was more for the rear seat. The RIO in the f14 has a completely different idea of visibility then the f4. so back when they designed this jet I'm thinking they must have thought the back seat guy would never need to really look outside and keep his head down in instruments 100% of the time, kinda like they thought there wasn't a need for a gun, I think this thinking is all related
I have a bunch of videos already about the APQ-120, mostly controlled from the backseat. There are more in the queue. However, I think the biggest issue is the implementation of tactics, rather than the WSO tool themselves. I don't use Jester, though, since I am a dedicated backseater, and unfortunately, I can't help you with it.
@@Wheelman_PCAS And why would that be? In the Tomcat, for instance, I'd die of boredom without the DDD. The alternative is flying primarily from the backseat. Besides AHRS and a couple other things, it is entirely doable.
