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.
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!
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.
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
It would be cool if they made a belt that goes around your chest and you have to expand against it with sufficient force in order to not black out from g-forces.
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.
I am not sure I understand. Grammar schools are not a thing in my country. I attended a technical institute. My English is mostly self-taught, so not particularly good. Obv the narrator is Scottish (Ghostdog), but he is not the one who wrote the script. - Karon
ROFL sure. Tell me you don't do anything related to law or science, and you don't know where 30% or more of your language comes from (assuming it is English), or you don't use abbreviations or words such as "i.e.", "e.g.", "c.v.", "consensus", "major", "super", et cetera. Heck, you don't know the etymology of the months. On top of that, it is still the official language of the Vatican and is still commonly studied. Most lyceums (or gymnasiums? Not sure which is the most appropriate translation) where I am from have Latin as a mandatory topic. Also, breaking news, the world is round, and not everyone has the same background or speaks the same language. If you are a native of a romance language (indirectly, English as well), chances are you use plenty of Latin without even realising it. Lastly, here is a fitting example since this is an aviation channel. Check interviews or books with British crews. New pilots are routinely called "ab initio". A quick Ctrl+F shows: - "Gledhill, David; Keeble, Philip. Per Ardua: Training an RAF Phantom Crew" shows that "ab initio" is used 7 times. - "Wilson, Tug. Confessions of a Flying Instructor: Teaching the RAF's Fighter Pilots" used it as well. - "Jefford, C.G.. Observers and Navigators: And Other Non-Pilot Aircrew in the RFC, RNAS and RAF" used it 44 (!) times. Should I continue?
Thank you. I understand that, but this is how I speak and write. I don't have the time or will to relearn. Also, I would argue that English, especially Simplified English (US') is full of jargon, words and colloquialisms that are made up and/or hard to grasp for non-natives such as myself. E.g. the first time I heard "y'all", I thought the person was saying some sort of "yo" - except it made no sense in the context of the sentence. At least Latin is used, albeit often unknowingly, and it is part of the core of the English language.
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.
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.
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
![DCS F-4E Air-to-Air V: Sync-Z-Turn [Essential]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/J0T3Fw12TMs/mqdefault.jpg)
![DCS F-4E Air-to-Air V: Sync-Z-Turn [Essential]](/img/tr.png)
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
Excellent content, I'm glad you're doing voice overs now, I know it's more time consuming but the difference it makes is huge.
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.
@@ghostdog688 That's awesome stuff, lovely to see some collaboration in the community. Thanks guys!
Pleasure working with you Karon, happy to keep it going if it allows folks to focus less on the AI voice work and more on the content.
Very happy there's now a real voice over, I hope it continues for future videos!
Great video in general too!
Glad you liked it. Say thanks to @ghostdog688 :)
Made a surprisingly big difference having the V/O. Good video Karon!
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!
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.
I would love to have the British Ferranti radar or the Navy AWG-10.
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
Great info!
It would be cool if they made a belt that goes around your chest and you have to expand against it with sufficient force in order to not black out from g-forces.
GodSEND. Thank you so much man 🙏
Great content!
First! Thanks Fly and Wire for these videos!
Interesting about how reliable the PTT lock is… because jester drops those so easily…
To be fair, "holding a lock" is fully automatic. There is nothing Jester can do here. If you drop a lock, its on the pilot.
Really in need of some good WSO /Jester guides
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.
@@FlyAndWiregreat! I mostly have interest in multi crew specifically wso. I’ve watched all your recent videos and they’re eye opening. Thanks!
I cringe about swapping seats
@@HighAspect it’s great in single player on active pause or autopilot for familiarization but it’s cringey in MP
@@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.
Really good video. But why do you feel the need to tell everyone you went to a Grammar School?
I am not sure I understand. Grammar schools are not a thing in my country. I attended a technical institute. My English is mostly self-taught, so not particularly good.
Obv the narrator is Scottish (Ghostdog), but he is not the one who wrote the script.
- Karon
@ overuse of Latin: a dead language
ROFL sure. Tell me you don't do anything related to law or science, and you don't know where 30% or more of your language comes from (assuming it is English), or you don't use abbreviations or words such as "i.e.", "e.g.", "c.v.", "consensus", "major", "super", et cetera. Heck, you don't know the etymology of the months. On top of that, it is still the official language of the Vatican and is still commonly studied. Most lyceums (or gymnasiums? Not sure which is the most appropriate translation) where I am from have Latin as a mandatory topic.
Also, breaking news, the world is round, and not everyone has the same background or speaks the same language. If you are a native of a romance language (indirectly, English as well), chances are you use plenty of Latin without even realising it.
Lastly, here is a fitting example since this is an aviation channel. Check interviews or books with British crews. New pilots are routinely called "ab initio". A quick Ctrl+F shows:
- "Gledhill, David; Keeble, Philip. Per Ardua: Training an RAF Phantom Crew" shows that "ab initio" is used 7 times.
- "Wilson, Tug. Confessions of a Flying Instructor: Teaching the RAF's Fighter Pilots" used it as well.
- "Jefford, C.G.. Observers and Navigators: And Other Non-Pilot Aircrew in the RFC, RNAS and RAF" used it 44 (!) times.
Should I continue?
@ I am simply making the point that while the content is extremely good, the language is unnecessarily inaccessible.
Thank you. I understand that, but this is how I speak and write. I don't have the time or will to relearn.
Also, I would argue that English, especially Simplified English (US') is full of jargon, words and colloquialisms that are made up and/or hard to grasp for non-natives such as myself. E.g. the first time I heard "y'all", I thought the person was saying some sort of "yo" - except it made no sense in the context of the sentence.
At least Latin is used, albeit often unknowingly, and it is part of the core of the English language.
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.
HB needs to really continue to improve jester
@@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.
I suck at air to air...
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.
Normalise having Scottish voice actors :D
Upgrade to F-15.
The F-15 is a fantastic aircraft, but it is personally boring and one of the most overrated aircraft in history.
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 😁.
For your own mental sanity, never step in a MiG-21 :D
@@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
@@fastfed F-4 was more of an interceptor than anything else, hence the radar. same with mig21, except F-4 is slightly better
I appreciate the effort, but AI was much clearer and easier to understand. Please try to read the script slower and work on pronunciation.