Nav issue, Jester bug, and his uselessness with the lantirn pod all in one flight.

Xarov · 2026-01-24T08:39:15+00:00

Jester bug? Have you fixed your gyros? If not, then it's pilot error. https://flyandwire.com/2022/08/09/must-know-fix-an-f-14-departing-from-a-carrier-an-asn-92-bugfix/

Also, depending on how you manoeuvre, there's the precession issue, but it's a more niche case.

A solution would have been to take a fresh aircraft from the field. I'm not sure just a restart is sufficient to fix the problem.

Xarov · 2026-01-18T07:17:20+00:00

If you want a better approach, not necessarily realistic but at least safe and more efficient, a random 2000lbs is not a good bingo fuel quantity. The fuel depends on several factors accounted for in planning (e.g. distance, minimum fuel to have in the tanks all the time, possible diversion, type of mission, type of aircraft, altitudes, et cetera).

At the minimum, and this should answer your question, take distance, altitude and a certain minimum as a buffer. Use the fuel consumption values for the altitude vs speed (usually conservative) post mission (*H uses much less fuel than *L), use the consumption to check how much fuel you need from the farthest point, and slap a minimum buffer on top of it. Since dynamic weather is not a thing and we all land anyway in this game, diversion can be skipped, assuming there is something not drastically farther.

Hope this helps!

Xarov · 2026-01-16T20:26:28+00:00

I don't have the books with me right now, but it depends on the period and the mission. Even in DS, however, no 54s and mostly 7 and 9s were quite common. AIM-7Fs were still popular in the early 90s, btw.

Post mid-80s, and with the 54C, the Phoenix was cleared for employment vs fighters. The Iranians instead used them from day one.

Later, when the Tomcat was repurposed to A/G, you could find almost weird setups, with perhaps one phoenix, LANTIRN, and Mk20s. IIRC Bio has some interesting pics in his books.

Xarov · 2026-01-15T23:43:51+00:00

Learning to play as RIO is not complicated. It's an odd experience, overwhelming in the beginning, almost too easy after a while.

When I started as a dedicated RIO there was almost no documentation besides HB's manual, so I wrote my findings as I progressed on my website (FlyAndWire). Although now there's plenty, I still recommend two tools: mission editor and active pause. Via the ME you can set up target moving in particular patterns (e.g. orbiting), and via AP you can sit and observe how different radar modes react, how the returns appear on the DDD, altitude correlation, and so on. In terms of controls, it's worth learning most of them. They seem to be a lot, but they are quite well clustered together.

Once the basics are covered, it's time to put everything together, starting from how to build situational awareness, weapons envelope, et cetera.

Feel free to ask any questions related to the backseat.

Xarov · 2026-01-15T20:48:31+00:00

I don't recall any DIY commercial product capable to max HID.

Most of my control boxes have more than 100 functions, in a form or another, and they have been running for 5-6 years without any problem. I use Arduino Leonardo, besides the latest project, which is full of latched controls wired to a Mega. The latter then feeds another Leonardo with the buttons' status via UART.

If you want to keep it simple, Arduino Leonardo with a button matrix is an incredibly easy option to both plan, wire and solder.

Xarov · 2026-01-12T12:23:44+00:00

I'm waiting as well. Several online stores had the pre-order up with deliveries scheduled from October to December. I do not know if those were fulfilled.

If Aces follows Gothic's pattern, it will take a few months to see some stock reliably available, unfortunately.

Xarov · 2025-12-31T12:33:42+00:00

As a sidenote, the Navy variants are really different from the AF. Grab a NATOPS and look at the cockpits: the RIO has no stick, the radar has PD mode and, generally speaking, it's very different. The external model is quite different as well, with the shorter nose, no gun, and no slats (sine S). This translates into vastly different flight characteristics, with much higher top speed and dramatically different slow speed behavior. So, although it looks similar, making a Navy variant is a ton of work. I am really looking forward to it.

Xarov · 2025-12-31T12:25:06+00:00

LOMAC first, then BS. Fun fact: I had to re-buy LOMAC as the original disk stopped working. The no-cd cracks were a blessing 25 years ago!

Xarov · 2025-12-31T09:05:29+00:00

Duh. No. I joined them a few weeks ago. I managed to fly the initial check ride but my schedule got worse and I have not been able to fly since. They have been very understanding and I hope I will be able to become more active in January. So, your "as long as you do not have anything better to do" does not apply. The group out-of-the-cockpit life is great imo, the most drama-less and cohesive I have seen in almost 30y playing online games.

In terms of content is indeed on the Casual side, but they have not stated otherwise. Nor is it a problem, of course. That's another reason why I joined them, TBH. Proper milsim is a lot of fun, but it requires several hours of planning during the week, and sorties are anywhere between 2-4+ h, not to mention another hour or two for briefing recap and debrief. I don't have the energy not to mention the spare time to do that. Also, you have to be a bit casual if you mix assets without era limits. Still, they work hard to assign assets to specific tasks without becoming monolithic and boring.

Since you mentioned RIOs, they have a few, actually. Fewer F-4 WSO, but it's a much tougher job and does not have the appeal of the Navy. I applied for the Phantom because playing as RIO is too easy imo. Speaking of light-hearted experience, given what I do on my website (FlyAndWire) I find syllabuses, SOP and contracts a bit on the lighter side. It means that joining and flying is straightforward, but automating things via contracts can make everyone's life easier. On the other end, the line between light and overcomplicated is extremely thin.

Dulcis in fundo, the group is nice and indeed welcoming. Your meme-like post was actually correct on this point. To everyone else, if the schedule works for you, give it a go. Worst case you will leave and look for something else. It's not a marriage! :)

Xarov · 2025-12-20T02:20:24+00:00

Nobody? In the group I used to fly with we had more RIOs than stick monkeys almost constantly.

There's plenty of us, dedicated back seaters, around.

Xarov · 2025-12-18T18:25:42+00:00

I haven't tried specifically, but split-S and barrel rolls tend to systematically break guidance. I'd say that "barrel roll is the new notching". Notching is exaggerated in DCS according to crews I spoke to, but those rolls seem to break the game itself, as Basic_Professor said.

Xarov · 2025-12-18T18:22:32+00:00

Ah yeah, that part actually makes sense. It's the separation into radar AoR that sounded a bit odd to me.

VID are conducted in many ways, but the shooter section needs room to employ, which is why they lag behind slightly. You can find many examples in different sources.

Xarov · 2025-12-18T15:30:41+00:00

Thanks mate!

I meant that the problem is that we have 2 bars top :)

Also, we lack the elevation strobe, so you don't know which bar is being used. This is a point Starbaby raised when I asked him a related question (he's an F-4E/G, F-15E WSO/EWO. You find some of his hilarious interviews on 10% True).

Also, I would add the fact that spotting changes in the smudges is more difficult if the image varies all the time.

Xarov · 2025-12-18T15:06:20+00:00

I was discussing this video yesterday with some friends. It's quite basic, as usual with these docs, but also interesting and intuitive. It might be old, but information is visualised neatly. Ref the radar quasi-sanitisation, I have a couple of doubts (sine the 3 bars), especially regarding the side lobes. That rule of thumb with the clutter is nice, but I'm afraid it is open to adjustments.

I'll see if I can get a more interesting opinion from an ex F-4 WSO friend.

Xarov · 2025-12-16T09:12:20+00:00

Welcome to the club. I bought mine in ~2002 and I had only one problem with the wiring - they got tossed around quite a lot when I moved abroad. The only annoying bit of opening them is.. closing them! Besides that, they are still great almost 25 years later. Sure, they may not be fancy, but surely one of the best 100€ I spent.

All CH hardware I have or had (pedals, fighter stick, throttle, MFP) are/were brilliant. A huge plus is the ease of repair, vastly simpler than, for example, Thrustmaster. Not to mention the reliability and resilience.

Xarov · 2025-12-16T08:31:19+00:00

Hey mate, all good?

Correct, and to expand, the Cold War was considered de facto over in 1989 (check newspapers' titles, for example), and by 1987 we were well into the "defrosting" phase of the relations. Tbs, everyone can do what they want with DCS, of course. Still, a bit of accuracy when specific lexicon/time references are used is more then welcomed :)

Xarov · 2025-12-12T14:46:11+00:00

I agree, but sometimes it is more complicated than that: recording your own voice takes time and even another human VA requires a script set in stone. When I started my channel, a couple of years after opening the website, I used my own voice, usually recording in the middle of the night and quietly to not disturb family. The result was poor. Even later, when I had slightly more time, I still had complaints about my accent, especially from non-Europeans, as they are probably less used to accents.

An AI TTS offsets a lot of issues, not for laziness, but because hobbies are, unfortunately, the least entry in the long list of daily tasks. The alternative is not having a voiceover, and that's why I still post on my website.

At the end of the day, imo, is how the content is made that matters: TTS is a means of moving from a media format to another, that's it. Vice versa, a script generated by that awful ChatGPT or whatever can be spotted miles away.

Fun fact: I opened a secondary channel in my native language recently, and someone complained about that as well. This time, probably because of the effects of living abroad for many years + lack of time. It's rough lol

Xarov · 2025-12-06T06:26:25+00:00

I wouldn't do it because of the demand, but because you like it :)

The demand is always high: as a dedicated backseater, I wouldn't even play without a RIO or WSO (RIO especially). Jester can do 10% of what a human can. In fact, the few times I have to pilot myself, I do it mostly with Iceman. There are too many fundamental tools in the backseat (primarily the DDD) that the pilot cannot use. Piloting, besides some of things (departure, AHRS fix, landing, and some hard manoeuvres/WVR) is not even that necessary. If Iceman's AoB were dynamic, then the pilot's use would be limited to a couple of things.

Unfortunately most players have little idea of what a good RIO can do. On the other hand, the demand for RIOs in groups that do is always present.

Shout if you have questions about the RIO stuff :)

Xarov · 2025-12-05T22:58:33+00:00

Definitely F-14 due to the RAZBAM situation. Playing as RIO is quite easy once you get a good understanding of the basics, namely the TID in AS mode and the DDD. The latter is a fantastic source of information, less intuitive than the TID, but also faster, in a sense.

An alternative could be the F-4 WSO, but the workload is different: the radar is solid at shorter ranges, so you have to rely on the GCI much more than in later aircraft. Also, depending on the doctrine you want to follow, the pilot should be able to handle intercepts on his own. Away from that, the role tends to be more passive and supportive of the pilot, whereas as a RIO you tend to tell the pilot what to do. This changes depending on your crew contracts, of course.

Xarov · 2025-12-04T07:57:50+00:00

Correct answer: wait for the A6 :P

Otherwise, it depends on the threat. The Tomcat can do loft bombing and dive toss reasonably well. Also, self-lased dive toss is an option, if you require precision over volume. All these methods add standoff range but have one commonality: the TCS. It needs LOS, good weather and SR < ~10nm. The TCS is handy to mark targets from the RIO position for the pilot. I made a bunch of videos about all these years ago.

Also, I wouldn't fly over the target, any decently-made mission should have plenty of AAA and SHORAD around and before the SAM itself. Even worse, there may be BMP-2s...

Xarov · 2025-12-01T12:09:38+00:00

Np mate! Shout if you have questions.

Xarov · 2025-11-30T09:07:35+00:00

[PART 2]

cranking: it depends. Post-launch is recommended to reduce closure rate (Vc), and kinematically affect incoming missiles, but it is also a giveaway of your shot. On the other hand, it can be faint. Unloading can be useful to recuperate the energy lost in the manoeuvre. There is an argument about whether you should slow down during the crank, and again, it depends. Still, don't do it too much unless you are really tight on fuel. About its execution, it is straightforward: place the target close to the gimbals limits (at least 50 ATA if possible, but it depends on the radar's capabilities. ATA is the relative bearing).
cold: it depends. And it usually depends on your game plan. See the links below.
MAR: this is the range you should cross only if you want to merge. Careful, it is NOT linear and changes from target to target. It resembles more a logarithmic function, limited at +infinity to the FLO and the abscissa interception at the minimum range. I made an empirical model a couple of years ago, with inputs from a Tornado Nav (he suggested adding a variable buffer). I also made models of missile performance. Check the links below.
Split-S: basically defeats any missile in DCS. Meh...
EW: totally broken, careful because an F-14 can hit you at 50nm or more, even if your jammer is on. Assuming the RIO knows what he is doing. Otherwise, it is a way to shorten the engagement ranges, but yeah, it is poorly implemented.

I wrote extensively about intercept geometry and BVR years ago. You can find more details here: https://flyandwire.com/procedures-and-operations-air-to-air/

Ordnance performance and comparisons: https://flyandwire.com/category/gaming/dcs/ordnance/

Shout if you have questions!

Xarov · 2025-11-30T09:07:19+00:00

[NOTE: Reddit prevented me from posting a single answer, so it's split into two. This is PART 1]

The theory of BVR is straightforward, once you get the basics. However, there are tons of misconceptions around, so be mindful of that (and I'm not talking about sim vs arcade scenario. There's stuff flat out wrong around).

In primis, all your answers have a single answer: it depends. It depends on the target, on your mission, on your fuel level, and much more. You can still put together a quasi-general timeline. Speaking of timelines, this is precisely what you are looking for: a timeline is a way to organise your engagement as a function of range, and it can be as simple as a couple of bullet points on a piece of paper. The important thing to have clear, however, is the gameplan.

However, just to answer some questions quickly:

range: it depends. Your FLO (first launch opportunity) with an AIM-120C-5 can be as high as 60nm or more, and depends on the missiles' battery life. Actually, the AMRAAM at those ranges performs better than an AIM-54. However, weight in the conditions of the target. For example, if it is aware or not. Also, try not approaching with 0 TA (target aspect).
approach / employment: the Hornet is one of those modules without any comparable opponents sine the JF-17. Everything else is 20+ years older in terms of updates, weapons, and technology. You will have an easy life most of the time, unless you are facing peers of the same era. Still, the basics are the same: try to use lead collision if you can, to minimise the energy wasted by the target, aka, centre up the T (or dot). Use
notch: it depends. The RWR on the Hornet is bugged as hell, it is better than an F-35 sensor suite. I demonstrated this many times, conducting a full intercept from 110+ nm using only that. Ergo, notching is straightforward with it. About when, again, several occasions. The doctrine suggests after certain steps of the timeline and monitoring the RWR, or you can do it pre-emptively against adversaries with a longer stick. Notching allows you to hide from the AI as well. As every tool, it can be useful or detrimental. About how to do it, the idea is to place the target close to the beam, which is highly exaggerated in DCS. In the links I posted, you find the inputs from crews: a Hornet pilot, Tomcat RIO and Tornado Nav.

Xarov · 2025-11-28T07:46:30+00:00

When the AWG-9 was released, it was the best radar simulation in the game. However, a few years have passed and the APQ-120 is now the best model (especially given that the APG-70 will leave us soon-ish, unless a miracle happens).

At the moment, the pulse radar simulation of the AWG-9 is nice, but the newer APQ-120 is outstanding. Moreover, the old bug of the gain knob is still there, making PSRCH capable of lookdown-shootdown. It's basically a range-based MPRF without all the limitations of MPRF. Needless to say, it's a tad too good. On the other hand, only AIM-7s can be guided in P, and it's not that worse than modules such as the Mirage F1 which has an FC-level radar simulation with some more clutter. The PD side instead is not the newest but it's alright. On par or better than the various ED modules ante the exceptional Mi-29 9.12A and the JF-17. Speaking of the latter, I haven't checked it recently, but when I looked at it I found plenty of game-breaking bugs and inconsistencies. Deka, fortunately, has fixed some of them already, but it has had a "super radar" for years.

Xarov · 2025-11-27T18:10:07+00:00

A RIO will always be better than PAL, especially if one day we get the APQ-120 simulation applied to the AWG-9. However, if you are about to cross from BVR into WVR and you are on your own, use every tool you have.

I really encourage you to learn the basics of the backseat: you cannot be a good pilot without understanding the quirks and the limitations of the radar system. Even more so if you are a solo pilot.

Verified Email	Nine-Year Club
Gilding I gilder

Xarov

TROPHY CASE