Thats exactly the point I tried to make. It was not able to make any use out of it. I never said it has a Pulse Doppler mode I just stated that it is a Pulse Radar and they had tools and methods to Filter through the clutter in order to engage with AIM-7. I dont know why you are searching for a Pulse Doppler Mode so relentlessly when it does not exist. And nobody cares about it. This topic is about the overwhelmingly bad radar modeling on the F-4E and F-4EJ that makes it very hard to engage with AIM-7.
The F-4E is one of my most flown jets. Not only is it doing fine in the radar department (you likely lack the knowledge to use it, using radar is not simply point nose at enemy and get lock) but it’s also one of the best 11.3 if not the best 11.3 jet in the game. Kinda only really competing with J-7E.
I literally get LOOK DOWN attacks CURRENTLY as is, even though that shouldn’t really be possible.
you know PD radar didnt exist (in a useable form) yet when the f4E was built right?
Did they change something since I played the F-4EJ 3 days ago? I really try hard and I can tell you that I have huge problems getting a lock on with AIM-7 or even keeping that lock. As soon as clutter comes into view even on the horizon line, I lose lock. If my enemy is locked on and he rises up instead of diving, there is no trouble bringing that AIM-7 in good use. Is there a way to use a designation cursor on that radar screen I did not find out how by now? That would make it possible to manually select the contact on the radar screen to lock on. Cue controlls only move the dish from one side to the other.
regards.
You’re trolling aren’t you?
I know and we are not talking about PD radars here. AN/APQ 120 is a Pulse Radar not a PD Radar.
No…
It’s just a matter of general good use that ensures stronger locks
DCS is a game, not a source.
Please dont talk about stuff you seem not to have a deeper understanding of. DCS overall is a simulation Platform and not a Game. It is not comparable with War Thunders Paper Planes with Point and Click action.
I dont expect War Thunder will turn into a DCS light but I expect authentic depiction of instruments including radar screens when a so called Game like War Thunder provides a Simulation mode.
And I also highly expect authenticity when I have to pay for it the same price (Japan F-4EJ) as if I buy a Game or a DCS Module.
Regarding your so-called Game DCS:
In DCS you buy a module and commit to it. In Order to fly the F-4E or any other Airframe in DCS you have to Study its manual and system documentation in Order to operate it.
Its Modules e.g. Airplanes are deeply simulated. Even the fuel flow and oil pressure under certain influences and flight altitude is simulated. In order to develop such a Module you have to work by the rules. Such Rules indicate that no Module is made without official data and sources from the military. If the documents are still classified for public eyes, you are allowed to simulate the functions of a described system but not allowed to document it in an manual for the customer how it operates in detail. Because of this rules, both parties try to meet in the middle. If they can not simulate the F-16C Block 70 in Detail because its the recent model, they try to go for Block 50 CCIP upgrade version from 2007. Less restrictions more Fidelity or maybe Study level. That said, you will at least see what the Pilot would see IRL and work the tech as the Pilot would IRL. Every Module is made together with subject matter experts (Pilots, Weapon System Officers, Ground Crew, Deck Crew active and former). It is mostly watched by the US Military and approved or denied by them. Each module and its Tech level needs the approvel. That was a Major discussion when development for the F-16C Module was announced. A recent model was planned but only Block 50 of 2007 was approved.
Same goes for the Russian military aviation modules. It took years to get the approvel for upgrade 1 of the KA-50 Black Shark (I love this Module) and now we have Upgrade 2. Meaning: Newest weaponry and sensor tech for the KA-50.
In an online session you will meet at least one active Pilot, crew man or service member. Mostly US and UK some from France and Denmark. Depends if you visit MilSim Servers e.g. Buddy Spike / Growling Sidewinder / Shadow Reapers or not. Dynamic Campaign PVE and PVPVE is Preferred, area of operations is IRAQ, Syria and Afghanistan and of course the Caucasus map that is part of DCS from start.
Heatblur (One of the module developers of DCS besides Eagle Dynamics) who made the F-14A and B Simulation (what became the best Simulated Airplane known to date, even Microsoft Ordered them to make a version of its F-14 Module for FS2025) reached Study level Simulation beyond High Fidelity. They now have active EF-2000 Pilots and Ground Service Members in their Developer Team and Work on the Eurofighter Module. Some of them flew the F-4 Phantom II and worked closely together with additional subject matter experts on the newly arrived F-4E Phantom II Module. How the AN/APQ 120 has looked like on a screen, how it had been operated and what its capabilities have been is completely simulated and represented in that module. If a former F-4 Pilot would test this module and claim it is wrong or looks not authentic, the module would not be worth a penny. But since they have the Know How, Staff and SME you can be sure that expectations from enthusiasts and hardcore fans alike are met.
------------------------------------------------
So to answer to your post. Yes, if there is no public documentation available and none describing or depicting an AN/APQ 120 in detail, I look for a source that is a former Pilot/WSO or works with a former Pilot/WSO that can explain or show to me in any form, how the AN/APQ 120 has looked like and was operated. In that case we talk about the developers from Heatblur and their Simulation of the AN/APQ 120 Pulse Radar of their F-4E Phantom II Module. This is more insight than other developers can get or have.
For your consideration: Two very informative and well done preview Videos of the F-4E Module before it was released.
Regards.
In this game, you’re not paying for meticulously designed virtual equipment. The developers deliberately exploit the game’s addictiveness to squeeze more money out of you. And sometimes the amounts can be absolutely staggering. Meanwhile, quality is far from their top priority. Moreover, the equipment you’ve purchased can be seriously nerfed, and there’s nothing you can do about it. So rest assured — you’re unlikely to ever see any radar fixes, and writing detailed bug reports with tons of sources is literally a complete waste of time. I honestly don’t understand why people bother with it.
1 Like
Yes I learned that the hard way. Thank you. It seems they are not interested to work on something they already have thrown out to the public. So be assured, the F-4EJ was the last investment I did. Everything else I try to obtain via a nice Patron, ingame sells for Gaijin Coins and reinvestment of those Coins.
So, have they actually modeled IR missile seekers now or are flares still just a % chance to defeat the incoming fence post?
Have they added enough vehicles to accurately simulate any major non-fictional theatre or are players still using reskinned Fw190As as A6M Zero lookalikes?
Do RWRs still point in the EXACT direction of the enemy radar, instead of having a little ‘error’ like they should?
Are piston engines still pretty much oven timers when it comes to using WEP, suddenly grenading themselves if you exceed your time limit by a few seconds?
No, DCS is a game. This is even more obvious by their recent announcement of the F-35, for which everything is classified and they WILL make up performance figures.
At least WT actually bothers simulating radars, IR seekers, flares, and engine temperatures.
1 Like
IR Missile seekers by ED (For DCS World) are modelled in terms of warhead function and seeking capabilities. Same goes for individually modelled IR Missiles by Module developers. Advancements by different version of Missile are considered too. e.g. Radar supported vs. non-radar supported delivery of Magic II Infrared Missile. Several version of Flares and their size are added now too. DCS is trying to further improve on it.
Can not tell, don’t fly WW2 planes in DCS. I am flying Cold War, Vietnam Era and Modern Era Jets. Mirage 2000, F-14B, A-10C and KA-50 to be precise.
For me they never pointed in the exact direction. But this is based on the Module development and not DCS itself. RWR gives me a approx direction.
For us everything is classified yes. ED and some Module Developers have their feet in the door when it comes to classified information. Like I explained earlier. As long as you dont provide classified data to the customer, there is no problem. F-35 will be an very early development version and not a final version. Eurofighter Typhoon Tranche 4 and 5 (recent tech) is highly classified too. But for displaying and simuating accurately every detail of Tranche 3 they have the approval. F-35 development is a similar deal. F-35 is Block 5 and 6 Upgrade status now. I Expect we will receive something like Block 3F or similar. Everything else would be nonsense.
F-35 is nothing for me. I am looking forward to the Flogger - Mig23MLA release.
Wasn’t it canceled due to that conflict with the third-party developer?
You can’t accurately simulate any theatre in those time periods either, as there’s almost no aircraft there. Even if we narrow it down to ONLY early cold war, there’s no F-100, no Hunter, no Venom, no CL-13, no F-84F, no Mystere, no CF-100, no MiG-17. I know I’m missing a few but that’s okay, so is DCS.
Actually, we could pick pretty much any year in which planes existed and DCS would still be lacking.
Yes there is, you’re indirectly providing classified data to ANYONE since they can just get it from the game. I could, with some effort, go make an MER chart for this F-35 which would be classified info otherwise.
If it is in-line with real performance, I just got my hands on classified info that I should NOT have. If its not, then ED is just making stuff up and it’s not an accurate simulator (and never was).
See you in 2030.
Thats why they can not go for the up to date version of the F-35. Never possible. Block 3F if they are lucky. Block 3F is lacking the performance compared to the newest version Block 5 and now Upgrade to Block 6. ED is a small family driven company with passion. They love what they do and they try to stay true to their promises. The Most work they do goes directly into DCS World working on AI for dynamic campaign, new graphic improvement, physics simulation and so on. All with approx 130 ppl in their team. Without the other Module Developers DCS would be very empty. And if they start to bring out modules, claiming to be detailed and authentic without delivering, they are gone. They would not risk it.
Yes RAZBAM has an argue with ED because RAZBAM is making the F-15E Module and ED announced their F-15C. But that is not a problem for the other modules like Mig23. F-100 Super Sabre comes this year btw.
Cold War era is the most played in MilSim so far. Even Heatblur provides an MilSim server for it. DCS has the most Modules for it. Thanks to Heatblur we have Viggen, F4E, F-14, A-4 for the Cold War Era. Mig21, Mig19, Mig17 (Announced), Mig-15, Mirage F1 and Mi24 Hind are there too and Mig-23 will make a great addition. I hope we will get more Eastern Tech in the near future. A few Iranian and Israeli Air Modules are announced too.
Regarding the future of both Worlds DCS and War Thunder, I hope the very best. There are too few Games / Simulations out there to compare. And IL2 Sturmovik is WW2 only except their WW1 spin-off.
regards.
the difference between the 2 kinds of radar is that pd ignores ground clutter and locks targets easier, dumbo
btw they were right DCS is not a source that will be accepted except for use as a general reference to something but it still needs additional sources
1 Like