Dragon1-1

The way I see it, the F-14 manual format is much superior. For one, it has more than 30 lines of text per page. The F-4 one looks like it was made to be read on mobile. I suppose it could be useful for those who use knee-mounted tablets, but for me, it just makes it annoying to read. Even the actual dash-1 is better on that account. The website isn't great, either. Let's just say that it takes about a third of my screen space... the left third. On very wide screens, there are ergonomic arguments for leaving big margins on the sides (like this forum does). For that configuration, there are none. The fundamental problem with the website, though, is that it's heavy. All those fancy "user-friendly" features pull away performance on an already heavyweight module. Vintage radars that show ground returns are expensive in DCS, and the Phantom really doesn't need another resource hog, especially given its detailed systems simulation. While I suppose the whole HBUI idea was needed for Jester and bombing calculator anyway, there's a reason why in gaming, such things are usually written in C++. Somehow, PDFs are perfectly adequate for the glass cockpit jets, and yet here we ended up with an in-sim web browser seemingly for the sole purpose of explaining a pretty straightforward steam gauge jet from the 70s. Maybe some people like it, but to me, it seems that the sheer complexity of the system and its performance demands are disproportionate to the gains it provides. Usually, the point at which you say "what this thing needs is an integrated web browser" tends to be the point at which feature creep had well and truly gotten out of hand. How about exporting to a format that allows you to do basic postprocessing, and then exporting to PDF? It's fairly obvious that the current solution has issues, and they are caused by the automated PDF converter being dumb. The obvious solution is, use the dumb converter to generate something that's close enough, and then fix the things it can't do by hand, or even by a script that would, for instance, fix the chapter links and add page numbers in a section-subsection-page format. Yes, it's more work, but that could be the only way to fix the issues. One more thing. To me, it seems that the technical part of the Phantom is very complete, with only a few missing features. The manual has massive sections on mission planning, training missions, modding, liveries, etc., which are of no concern to a pilot trying to find an AAR checklist before he burns his last 700lbs of gas. The vast majority of the part of the manual most useful in flight will not change. So why not put that part into a nifty, F-14 style PDF manual, spend a few hours formatting it right, and leave it alone until something is actually added to the jet itself that merits modifying it. Sure, it's more work, but it's not going to happen often, and always come with a DCS update, anyway. The remainder, no doubt subject to many more changes, corrections and updates than the "what does this button do" part, might stay on the website for all I care, since I'm unlikely to be reading a livery making tutorial mid-flight.

Just something that I found rather immersion-breaking about the IFF system. Jester will run an IFF check on a bogey, and will immediately, with full confidence, announce it's a bandit, should the check fail. An IRL WSO would never do that without additional information such as an AWACS "declare" call, positive Combat Tree return or a VID (on later aircraft, NCTR print or datalink info would also work). A positive IFF check confirms its a friendly, but lack thereof might be from a friendly with no IFF (busted, forgot to turn it on, never had it in first place due to being a single engine Cessna...), a civilian who blundered into the wrong place, a large enough bird, or, just perhaps, an actual bandit. Sure enough, the check sometimes does fail on friendlies in DCS, underlining the point, it's not just a realism gripe. A bogey that doesn't respond to a Model 4 interrogation is still a bogey. In any case, I'd request Jester be a little less trusting with the Phantom's IFF.

What does the Chrome API have to do with a PDF document? Can't you just do this the old fashioned way, instead of faffing about with Chrome? I've made nice looking documents in Microsoft Word (admittedly, without hyperlinks, but with tables), and every other module has a manual with tables that are not cut off and internal links that work. The real problem seems to be that you wanted to be really fancy with the documentation, and ended up with a lot of extra bugs for no added value. Looking at Github, you built a whole project, with IDEs, elaborate hierarchy, a Github repo for that matter, all for an... instruction manual. While I'm aware writing docs is a big job, and it is useful to organize it in some manner, I think at least some of the dev time that went into this Rube Goldberg contraption could have been spent elsewhere. Especially since looking at how the document is structured, its formatting looks less complex than that of the original 70s era Dash-1 (which, admittedly, features some fancy things that work well in print but are a PITA on a computer). I'm not especially fond of Google Docs, but if you want to make this a collaborative project, that looks like a more appropriate tool. 1000 pages seem like a lot until you realize the formatting gives it only about 30 lines of text per page, and that's without pictures.

It has to be a '69 vintage J. Otherwise, Reflected wouldn't have an accurate Navy Phantom to put into MiG Killers, and then where would we be?

That's what I'd expect, given that noise jamming is rather simple to implement. However, we'd need to verify whether earlier pods in the series had it. ALQ-101 was the predecessor of the -119 that we have, so I'd expect the later version to have a broadly similar functionality.

The PDF manual appears to be trying to open some kind of HTML files instead, which are nowhere to be found: file:///home/runner/work/f-4e-manual/f-4e-manual/book/html/intro/introduction.html It seems instead of linking to different parts of the PDF, it links to HTML files used to create it, or it would, if I was on the creator's PC. I'm not, so the links go nowhere. They should link to other pages of the PDF manual instead. Also, the table of contents and page numbers of the PDF manual could use improvement. Right now, between the link issue and the fact TOC only has section numbers and not page numbers (and inline references use section-subsection-page format not present anywhere...), the only way to find something is CTRL-F. The PDF is not unusable, but it's definitely not up to par even with the F-14. It might be easier to update a webpage, but for the users, it's easier to read a PDF.

The good news is, HB is supposedly working on Jester controlling the TGP, so even if it's not in on release, you'll probably be able to add the Pave Spike commands soon.

"Nails" is the word for an RWR indication. "Contact" is the one for radar.

There's some sort of handle under there, those positions are probably detents. That said, I haven't seen actual pics of the mechanism. Judging from the fact nothing is jutting out in any position, it's probably a slider.

Implementing MV into the library would solve the problem with DRM, but honestly, it's all getting decrypted and loaded into RAM at the end of the day. No way around it, and there's no way of securing the RAM other than running the graphics on a remote server and streaming the image. That is not really feasible for DCS. Given that, how about, instead of trying to do the impossible, doing just enough due diligence to satisfy the lawyers, while minimizing the impact on the community? Nobody's going to care if the lock on the door is crap if there's a massive, permanently open loading ramp right beside it. Nobody here is out to steal the models, people just want to make quality liveries.

They are a "super thing" IRL, too. Hunting helos in a fast jet is hard. If you're flying a lower tech fighter like the Phantom, it's super-hard. Helos fly low, slow, are hard to see, and don't produce much heat. At J-CATCH, Cobras routinely took out (with guns!) F-15s before Eaglejets even saw them. If you have a good radar, Sparrows or AMRAAMs are your best bet, but if you don't, the helo will most likely disappear into ground clutter. Helo hunting combines the worst parts of ground pounding and air to air, especially if the terrain is rough and they can terrain mask. Yeah, in a campaign, you better hope the creator remembered this, and wasn't going with the old "helos are easy, helpless targets" thing from old games. In the Tomcat, I always ended up nailing them with the gun, which due to it being mounted at an upwards angle, led to me flying under the Hind I just shot the tail off of. However, if the crew knows you're coming (and AI usually does), this is extremely risky.

Helos are difficult targets for heaters. Their turbine exhaust is colder, and they tend to have IR suppressors specifically to reduce it further. A heater can see a helo, but if it starts dumping flares, they're much brighter than the fuselage and even the exhaust.

Well, a realistic mission would take that into account. In fact, in such situation, without point of origin criteria (which is to say, AWACS saying "that guy just took off from a hostile airfield"), VID could become the only reliable form of IFF, and even then, you'd have to get close enough to make out the roundels. Poland didn't send its MiG-29s to at least one of the Balkan conflicts (IIRC, Allied Force), because they were also used by OPFOR, and it would probably lead to some cowboy shooting them down. Relying solely on Mode 4 IFF would be a huge gamble, one switch in wrong position at the wrong time (specifically, A/B code selector when flying at night), and may suddenly find yourself tagged as a bandit. Also note that Soviet doctrine of strict GCI control would have had advantages in such situation, since the GCI likely knows which contacts are its own fighters. At night especially, it could even force NATO to adopt a similar doctrine at least with regards to any hardware shared with the enemy.

Was it ever allowed on our Phantom? And if so, it is planned? Just felt like dropping 3000lbs of Freedom in one convenient package. GBU-9 was the HOBOS version, and the GBU-11 had the Paveway I LGB kit. Not sure if they were ever deployed, but if the Phantom could carry them, that'd make them the biggest guided munitions in DCS (at least in absence of the GBU-28).

I think it's just a bug. Most DCS warbird engines are modeled correctly, like in the 190, the Mossie, or the Spit. As long as you don't blow the temp limits, you can stay in WEP however long you want. In the end, engine temperature should be the primary limiting factor for WEP, the engine can handle the mechanical stresses just fine (in fact, all WWII engines were overbuilt by modern standards, no simulations to shave off every "unnecessary" bit of metal back then), but the cooling system can't necessarily dissipate the heat generated when operating that way. Overheating should be the primary reason for engine failures in WEP, and it won't happen at all in some conditions. That said, we should remember one thing: to use water injection, the P-47 has a water tank. When the tank no longer has any water in it, the engine will knock in WEP. Same with MW50 in the 109. In both cases, this should wreck the motor in short order. Realistically, those aircraft should be able to run WEP as long as the relevant fluid tank lasts.

Well, the RWR in Western aircraft, including the Viper and Hornet, very much can tell they're locked onto by a Mirage 2000. So can another Mirage. This is only a problem when both the enemy and friendlies have the same kind of fighters, which isn't the case very often IRL. Radar can be used to saddle up on your flight leader or to fly a loose trail formation, but hearing the RWR wail all the time could be annoying, so it's probably better not to do this too much.

With the Durendal, a high speed, low alt pass with CCIP can be an option. You can also try a high angle popup attack with CCIP. One nice thing about this technique is that you don't have to worry about interval, just figure out how many pairs you want to drop (unless you have very few bombs, it's more reliable to drop in pairs for this), then place each pair "by hand" during the pass. By dragging the pipper across the runway you can hit multiple points in one pass and poke a nice pattern of holes in it.

One small bit of feedback: could you change the wording of the F-10 option for advancing the mission, based on whether it'll move to the next task or RTB? I've had this problem with 2vUnk, the messages got me thinking selecting "move on" would activate another variation on the problem, but it went to RTB instead. If this was indicated in the radio menu, it'd be an easier call.

That is not how it works. The people you're talking about are greedy. There's no such thing as "don't need to collect another dollar anymore" for them. If one of them got all the money in the universe, he'd still want more. That's the sort of people we're talking about. There's no secret, malevolent cabal running the world, just a bunch of shysters who got lucky with the stock market lottery, and with ruthlessly exploiting people more intellectually capable (but more scrupulous and introverted) than them. They're also the ones they have power over in first place. They're the ones who make their money have value (we're on fiat currencies, remember?). With no people, power and money cease to exist. Fun fact: many of those ultra-rich are actually pronatalists (more people, bigger labor supply, labor gets cheaper, more money). Your conclusion makes no sense. You probably arrived at it because your sources are poorly chosen. The media, particularly news stories, are designed to make you read them and keep reading others, because it makes them money. If you are not trained to separate the real information from attempts to manipulate you, your conclusions will be wrong. So maybe stop doing your own research, if you don't have the training, scientific rigor and access to journals required to do this properly. In truth, the super-rich are hostages to poor masses, and they pour incredible amount of resources into convincing them that it isn't so. The only ones pushing for rapid reduction of humanity are the bleeding hearts who had humanized Earth so much they think it's "suffering" because of humanity's exploitation of it. While such eco-extremists are gaining traction in some circles, they're actually opposed to the elites (although to be fair, they're opposed to most people).

ED mentioned they want to improve on that at some point, but I guess just having different visuals for the older pods would be fine for now. All the pods I mentioned were used in Vietnam, except the newer variants of ALQ-101, so it'd be great if you could get them all modeled at least visually. It'll be good to have for later, especially when ED decides to improve jamming. The way jammers worked in Vietnam is pretty well documented, since it was mostly simple noise jamming, either to disrupt radar or missile guidance signals specifically for the SA-2. Of course, there's also the problem that we don't have the right SA-2 (or an appropriate Fan Song to go with it).

Honestly, I doubt it's true for people actually at the top. There are movements which advocate for drastic population reductions (mostly on account of "Earth can't support that many" theory), but as far as people in power go, Hanlon's Razor is in effect. Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity. Conscription was floated in the UK because the old farts have noticed young people had enough of their idiocy and figured the best way to fix it was to indoctrinate them to be "patriotic" (as opposed to, you know, not acting like idiots). People in power mostly care about two things: staying in power and getting rich. Russia didn't have to "agree" to anything for MAD to work. It's simple as that, they'd nuke US cities in retaliation for US nuking anything on Russian soil, or attempting to degrade their nuclear capabilities. That's why we can assume they would do a countervalue strike. Also, before you start putting too much into things not working due to Russian corruption, check the map of Ukraine. However decrepit is their kit, clearly enough of it is functional. That's ultimately what MAD is about. It doesn't matter if you get hit by 4500 nukes or 45000, you'll be just as dead. Sure, the US vastly exceeds Russia in nuclear capabilities... but it doesn't matter. Again, your argument boils down to "my pile of rubble is slightly less radioactive than yours, so I won". Name them? Aegis Ashore, maybe (a grand total of two batteries, in Poland and Romania, at that)? I was talking strategic ABMs, as defined by the ABM treaty. Right now, this capability has only been shown by the SM-3 on the US side, and that missile is mounted on ships, most of which are not in position to use it against ICBMs flying over the Arctic. Russia's sole example is the A-235 protecting Moscow, and even if it works perfectly, it's unlikely to be enough. For the purposes of Russia/US nuclear exchange, the US side has no ABM protection, and for Russia-Europe, Poland's sole battery (Romanian one is too far south) wouldn't help a whole lot. No, tactical ABMs don't count. You're never going to take out enough individual MIRVs with THAAD batteries, or the S-400 for that matter. So better just forget about them, they're not in the same class. That's how Russia said they interpreted it. As you said, it's propaganda, and everyone knows that. Russia is raving about "The West" acting as Ukraine's puppetmaster, but what it really wants is for Western countries to normalize relations with it. Putin is hoping that the war will be over, he'll keep his gains, and it'll be back to business as usual. Sadly, he's quite probably right as far as the likes of Germany or Slovakia are concerned, no matter how much Poland and Ukraine will ring the alarm bell. We've been through this before. Yeah, because Poland was so successfully defended against unprepared German forces. As for the Brits, they were stuck on their island after Dunkirk, getting the crap bombed out of them, their army was out of its good gear, and in no position to strike back for the foreseeable future. Had the US not become involved in Europe, they would have stayed there a lot longer. Germany was doomed by its decision to take on the Soviets, and by its complete ineptitude at actually doing so before they got their act together (see: getting bogged down at Stalingrad and Leningrad just because of who they were named after). And no, while the formal text of the Tripartite Pact was indeed a defensive alliance, in practice, Japan (and to some extent Italy) pretty much roped Hitler into declaring war on the US. He was actually reasonably sympathetic to both Americans (in fact, he loved Winnetou books so much he declared Apaches to be Aryans, which seriously ticked them off) and Brits. Before WWII, the sympathy was quite mutual in some circles, too. Raising the bar is still kind of a big deal. Also, it's worth noting that besides Russia (with caveats I already mentioned), of the nuclear powers only Israel has been seriously attacked, and then, mostly by irregular forces which can't be effectively targeted by nukes, anyway. Of actual countries, only Iran has hit it, and that strike was intended as a political statement, not to inflict damage. Also worth mentioning that Israel's threshold for nuclear deterrence is a lot higher due to them pretending to pretend to be a non-nuclear country (it's also essentially a dependent US territory). So clearly, having nukes works better than not having them.

Well, then the course is clear: we need those other pods. AFAIK, the early ALQs were simple noise jammers, there were also "special" variants that used all four antennas specifically to jam SA-2 guidance signals. As far as I could find, the -71 was 90W, the -72 upped that to 100W, and the -87 was 160W. Also, they had to be used in pairs (either on a single aircraft or on two in one flight): one with "even" antennas, and the other with "odd" antennas. From what I gathered, the bands would be separated into even and odd ones so that the pod doesn't essentially jam itself. The ALQ-101 was a deception jammer, and it had a lot of versions. The very late one with long body and a gondola is an "all-band" version, presumably equivalent to a long body ALQ-119. Earlier versions without a gondola would be more limited, and the first version with the short body was probably limited to jamming high band radars.

Do they work with our F-5? Using real tables in DCS should be possible, but isn't always (though it's not like you need to be very accurate with LGBs).

Look up counterforce and countervalue strikes. What you're describing is a counterforce strike. MAD is based on the idea of mutual countervalue strikes. In fact, lack of reliability of Russia's arsenal would be an incentive to focus on countervalue strikes. Because of the threat of counterforce strikes, nuclear weapons would be fired all at once. With 30 minutes between US and Russia, you're not going to take out very many of their nukes before they clear their silos. Subs are another matter, but their primary role is second strike capability, meaning if one side can somehow get a drop on the other, the other can still hit it from beyond the grave. As for effective self-defense systems, in the West, they don't exist. In Russia, they're deployed around Moscow, and it's questionable just how good they are. ABMs are tightly regulated because they are capable of shifting the balance that underpins MAD. There's been progress in that area, mostly due to smaller ballistic missiles being around and in heavy use, but intercepting an ICBM RV with a Patriot is not going to happen (and even then, I doubt the Moscow system can prevent every single hit). You're confusing two different things. Openness was to ensure that both sides are adhering to the treaty (notice that Japan was able to think it could win because it worked its way around Washington Naval Treaty, which filled a similar role) and that they know, roughly, where they stand. At the same time, actual details are heavily classified, and actual launch policy is kept a closely guarded secret. Nukes are meant to create a war that definitely can't be won. Even with a nuclear force that's superior in every possible aspect, if the enemy has the minimum number of nukes needed to flatten your major cities, you simply can't win. "My pile of rubble is slightly less radioactive than yours" is not much of a victory. The nice thing about MAD is diminishing returns, because every nuke past that minimum number is effectively redundant. 4300 warheads is easily in "more than enough" territory. You're also wrong about Germany. Them losing WWII has nothing to do with them underestimating their enemies and everything to do with their internal politics and ideology basically crippling their own war strategy. Even then, had they disregarded the treaty with Japan instead of declaring war on the US, WWII could have turned out very differently (doesn't mean they'd have won, that'd require them not to make a bunch of other bad decisions). Ukrainians invaded Russian land, not "The West". They called Russia's bluff in this case, not us. We didn't do anything (admittedly, this includes not bullying Ukraine into abandoning the plan). It was their call to make, of course, and consequences would've been theirs to bear. Despite Russian propaganda, they're not a puppet state. It's also important that a largely inconsequential, rural piece of land had been taken, one that Russia seems to be convinced they'll be able to take back. Was there, say, an ICBM silo on that piece of land, we'd be looking at a very different conversation. Ukraine is not an existential threat to Russia, and their incursion can only ever hurt their pride. If it was a purely conventional war, Polish troops would've been having a victory parade on the Red Square by now (or having a standoff with the Chinese from across the Urals). And yes, sometimes, when fighting a nuclear state, the only option is to either be conquered or destroyed. All allies that could help you can send you weapons, but won't intervene on your behalf, because nukes. At most, you can hope to keep fighting on your own ground long enough for the aggressor to give up (Vietnam lasted a decade, Ukraine barely three years so far). For weaker countries, the answer is, get nukes of your own, or get in bed with someone who has them. North Korea understands it. Iran doesn't like this, but they also understand. So do both India and Pakistan. NATO countries understand this, and Ukraine does now, too (which is why it's trying so hard to get into NATO). Some are already starting to see nonproliferation efforts as a cynical attempt to keep countries off the "don't bomb, ever" list. It's getting kind of hard to argue against that view.

Was the runway paved, or just the taxiways? Soviets were no strangers to rough field operations. Most Soviet aircraft, especially civilian ones, could use dirt runways, because that's all you get in most "airports" in Russian Far East. Whatever the case, the locals probably stole the plates as soon as the Soviets moved out.