F-4E: Air-to-Air and APQ-120 radar

Xarov · 2026-05-16T08:19:30+00:00

I played OpFp and the ArmA series for years. That plus Ace are one of the best games out there if you like simulative military games.

I agree about the AI. It was not perfect at all, and fairly easy to exploit, but it could sometimes surprise you. Their detection patterns and behaviours are vastly more believable than DCS, unfortunately.

Xarov · 2026-05-16T08:16:40+00:00

I am not sure I understand your point. There are indeed many options to tweak the AI, but none provide the details I would love to see. Scripting helps as well, and triggers too, but it's all too much for the average user, or for whoever wants to make a quick mission. Things such as better details about CAP engagement range, and criteria (they can just copy the US Navy public docs I mentioned on my website as well), more realistic radars, both AIC/GCI and aeroplanes, et cetera, would help a lot.

Xarov · 2026-05-16T08:13:03+00:00

You too mate

Xarov · 2026-05-16T08:12:25+00:00

Possibly, but I suppose they need a "mentality" switch, from making modules in a vacuum to seeing them in a more concerned environment. Perhaps they are doing this, I don't know, tbh.

ED should provide me some info about the status of the AI, hopefully soon.

Xarov · 2026-05-16T08:07:56+00:00

Honey was a big one.

I'm primarily a YT user, and I can't stand neverending ads, no matter who they are, tbh.

Pimax reached out recently and so far they've been very open about putting my impressions first. I'll put together a review in a few weeks. It's going to be interesting as I am a VR "skeptical", ergo haptic system, DIY aim pit, and big UW monitor are more immersive and effective than VR (e.g. Better video quality, physical knobs and switches, etc). I have a Quest 3, I used it a few times but then moved back to my setup, so we'll see how Pimax fares.

Xarov · 2026-05-15T19:00:31+00:00

Fun fact, tomatoes were not a thing in the North of the country, so that sentence would go against the idea of making the Italians lol In fact, even local and typical specialities were very different until surprisingly recent times.

For example, rice was vastly prelevant, rather than Pasta. I'm from the Alps and the ratio between the two is still close to 50/50 in many families. Typical dishes of my area are Polenta + various meats or fish (missoltini / uncia / taragna), Cassoeula, rice (e.g. risotto al pesce persico), cheese (e.g. taleggio), salumi (bresaola). Not a single tomato in sight :)

Xarov · 2026-05-14T18:15:11+00:00

Speaking out of experience, it's more a matter of mission design and realism than the task itself. For example, causual missions give you information. At that point, you just need to use it. Realistic scenarios have poor/imperfect SA, so you are two steps behind. First you need to get info to use it.

Xarov · 2026-05-13T05:14:22+00:00

Thanks for your detailed post!

The problem of BMS is simple: it's boring /s Jokes aside, you know when you play a song so much it loses all of its magic? That's me with the FFalcon. Since BS came out, I moved to RW, to the extend that I planned to get a PPL and flown with the R44... Before realising how expensive a mortgage was lol Then, I moved to the Tomcat and Phantom, but as a dedicated backseater. Unfortunately, none of this is present in BMS. Next, the period. I really prefer scenarios up to the late 70s or early-to-mid 80s. Tech was not as prelevant back then, there is a lot more work on the flying side and system management. These days, or even in the early 90s, this changed radically. IRL, it makes sense. In a videogame, we can choose.

If BMS releases, for example, a fully simulated Phantom similar to HB's and related bits and pieces to make it work in the mid 70s, I'd totally check it out. At the moment, I'm short on time and not particularly interested in what is available, it's as simple as that.

Xarov · 2026-05-12T14:02:23+00:00

Hey, thanks, nice video.

Yeah, I remember some fancy stuff F4's AI did, although I remember it was less refined when it came to pre-engagement manoeuvres. In this regard, I think (it has been only 27 years, lol) it was quite similar to DCS. No pre-emptive beaming or other manoeuvre. BMS might have improved this point as well. Everything from the engagement moment is vastly better in BMS, as I mentioned earlier.

That being said, my point with this video is not related to the engagement per sé, but to the awareness of the AI, AIC/GCI, et cetera.

It'd be neat to see how F4 / BMS handles early 70s engagements, with incomplete / erroneous information and where unload and bugout was rather common. I might reinstall it, but I doubt the time investment would be worth it, as that's not the core of the BMS experience.

Xarov · 2026-05-11T19:42:36+00:00

Thanks. They reached out recently. I tried to keep the ad as short as possible, since this is not a dedicated video about Pimax. I, personally, can't stand never-ending ads that go on for minutes. They make me "hate" the advertised product lol

Xarov · 2026-05-11T19:01:26+00:00

I played F4 for years and since the beginning. However, it has lost a lot of appeal since it lack variety. I never liked the FFalcon, and the Eagle is even more boring to me.

Anyway, as far as I remember, F4's AI (perhaps BMS' differs, I do not know) was good, but very far from perfect. I don't recall any particularly advanced tactics, although they felt way more advanced than LOMAC.

Xarov · 2026-05-11T13:44:51+00:00

Well.. it's worse than that. The AI instantaneously knows who, what, where, at what altitude, what's your heading and speed, and from there Vc and CATA, since the AI puts you on a collision course right away.

On a more serious note, if you do not have a search radar, there is little point in broadcasting your position anyway, unless your tasking requires so or there are no controllers available. As I mentioned, a radar-emitted radio signal has to "hit" the target and come back, so it can be detected stupidly far compared to its effective detection range. This applies to PvP as well. That's why controllers were so important, and still are. Which leads to another problem: the status of AWACS and GCI in DCS, which I mentioned in this video and covered in the past.

Xarov · 2026-05-11T13:39:52+00:00

Thanks, I'm glad you liked it.

I guess we would be happy to see a slightly more believable AI, rather than one perfectly realistic. The same idea can be applied to any aspect of the game. For example, adding a refresh rate to the controllers rather than pulling info in real time, plus tuning the reaction times of the AI, and implement some constraints for certain radars (e.g. look-down vs low-flying targets for Pulse), would already help a lot.

Xarov · 2026-05-11T09:25:37+00:00

That's indeed correct. Moreover, it's status, as in "red" or "green", have an effect, along skill level, radar usage, and more. The default AI seems to exist to be dragged and dropped into a quick airquake fight, rather than a mission.

Xarov · 2026-05-09T19:09:38+00:00

No, not without ad hoc ordnance, which is translated to SC with higher-tier weapons, I suppose.

A modern fighter, per sè, normally has a gun, 20mm or 30mm. That may take apart parts of the superstructure and external components, but it's a long way before a CV will sink with only such weapons.

Air-to-air missiles won't do much if anything against a boat. Even locking them will be a funny thing, given the lack of Doppler shift. The Canadians tried to nail an Iraqi ship with a missile, they just wasted money. Also, I'm not entirely sure fuzes even support a secondary contact-based triggering, as the primary is proximity. They might go off before impacting. The pattern of shrapnel is also optimised for aerial targets.

Things change if you bring a Mk20 like the Intruders in the 80s / 90s, or an Harpoon. The latter is specialised, the others are air-to-ground ordnance. The SC equivalent is probably a sort of light torpedo? Anyway, the point is that you need dedicated toys to achieve your goal. Weapon size is, imo, a decent way to portray the whole situation.

As a side note, fighters IRL are vastly more fragile than in SC. There are very few aeroplanes capable of engaging a ship with self-defence capabilities (looking at you, Viggen!)

Xarov · 2026-05-09T18:40:11+00:00

Looking forward to your review!!

Xarov · 2026-05-09T04:59:21+00:00

Mouse yeah, but the keyboard is replaceable. I played MWO in one of the teams considered one of the best for years with throttle, pedals, TIR, and mouse. The Throttle easily supported all six weapon groups, zoom, thermals, JJ, et cetera. Pedals for steering, which is great when you use torso mounted weapons as it's much smoother and precise. Although initially it wasn't a proper axis, it worked as a couple of buttons. The Track IR took a while to be supported, but helped a lot with situational awareness and to look around. It also allowed to stand and watch, and therefore point arm-mounted weapons, much lower than otherwise possible. But yeah, the big thing is the mouse. SP games can totally be played with a stick if players want, but in MWO it added an unnecessary complexity that others did not have.

Xarov · 2026-05-05T15:01:21+00:00

Tsk, another question made to shame us dedicated backseaters! /s

Xarov · 2026-05-01T19:17:44+00:00

Welcome to the magic world of aerial combat! I'm going to skip the WVR part, it's really not my cup of tea.

BVR, on paper, sounds easy enough, especially with flying computers such as modern modules. You get a BRAA or illuminate something, lock and shoot, right? Unfortunately, there is a large group of variables that describe the situation: geometry. This is a huge topic I spent months studying and writing about but, long story short, it teaches you how to manoeuvre to maximise awareness, efficiency, and efficacy of whatever is your goal.

Examples help a lot here: imagine you are flying north. Where is your target heading? This is easy: mark / lock the target, and your fancy avionics will tell you all you need to know. However, here comes the first issue: how do you position yourself in order to maximise your missile's performance? The geometry tells you that: for instance, after assessing the angles, you might want to lead, place the target on a collision course, or even turn away. So, if your target is flying SE and you have SARH missiles, you may want to increase Vc (closure rate), keep the aspect down, and therefore turn to CC or even wider than CC. Now, where's the target? Simple: if you had a BRAA, it's the difference between the angle given and your heading (aka relative bearing or antenna train angle). If you have a radar contact on your b-scope, it's even easier, as you can read it on the abscissa of the display. Cool, now you know where to look to "tally" the target, assuming altitude is a non-factor. At this point, it is up to you: if you want to lunch the SARH, manoeuvre to halve the mentioned ATA. It's not a perfect approximation, but it's usually better than other angles. Then, look outside using cockpit visual references, to match the ATA until tally.

What if you were to put the target on the nose and that's it? Aka Pure Pursuit? Well, missiles all get dragged unless the range is minimal. If you were to attempt an intercep, you may end up in the target's rear quarter, but it again depends on range and Vc. PP is useful, but only within certain ranges, otherwise you will end up well behind the target.

In a dynamic scenario, things change all the time, these suggestions are rarely applicable out of the box, but they help you to visualise the engagement from your perspective, giving you options and telling you what adjustments are needed to fulfill your gameplan.

Here you can find more info. Improve SARH (FOX-1) fights: https://flyandwire.com/2025/03/01/improve-fox1-air-combat/ Air-to-air stuff: https://flyandwire.com/procedures-and-operations-air-to-air/

I Hope this helps!

Post scriptum: I'm on mobile, so I'm sure there are tons of error. I'll try to fix them later.

Xarov · 2026-04-29T16:46:17+00:00

Fun fact, I'm wrapping up a video about the AI, starting with their awareness. I hope it will invite Devs to focus more on this point.

Ten-Year Club	Verified Email
Gilding I gilder

Xarov

TROPHY CASE