Voyager

Hey, he got it in the basket! Better than I can do...

Reading the recent March 16th update, and noticed the mention that the F-4 is fully multi-threaded. With all the new CPU architectures being released or on the horizon, I was wondering if there was a good idea of which sort of layout would play best with the F-4? Is the module expected to run better with a high thread count, or would a 7800X3D or Zen 5 X3D be expected to run better, even with only 8 cores, 16 threads? Have a 5800X3D which has been keeping up, but thinking about rebuilding my PC's backbone after Zen 5 releases, so wondering how things are architected. Thank you, Harry Voyager

When I say the "Why didn't we tell you earlier?" what immediately ran through me head was: "We're ready to ship? Sweet! Wait, what do you mean it stopped working? It was running Wednesday. It passed the full regression test. What did we change?" "Don't worry, I think I know what happened. We can test it once the build is done. It'll be a could hours." 2 hours later... "What do you mean the compile failed?" Out of curiosity, did you all manage to find a compiler error too in all of this. Sounds like that's just about all that's needed for the full software hat-trick...

I do wonder what the gap is? I know most of ED's models support things like LeapMotion, while I don't know of any of the 3rd party ones who do. I'm just wonder what's going on with the interface there?

Um, not sliding off the deck is quite central to carrier operations. Not sure sure what you are on about. It is, or at least was a real bug. I haven't actually checked to see if that's been fixed, because it's generally easier to start off by telling the chief, place the wheel chocks, chief, remove the wheel chocks, instead of waiting until your ready to taxi and discovering the plane is glued down. Especially when any given flight may by summarily ended by a 2-year old who's discovers the cut-off detent gets daddy's attention...

Then they should probably fix the bug where if you start chocked, you need to tell the ground crew to place the chick before they can robe the chocks, otherwise you've got invisible chocks gluing you to the ground before they worry about the generator test switch then. That was a really short mission, and a long investigation before I figured that one out...

I wonder if one could use the F-4E with an air-start as a placeholder for Naval versions in a Falklands what if? Then update with a carrier capable version whenever one comes out?

Meh. Jane's F/A-18E Super Hornet didn't model the Spin Recovery switch, and just glossed over it in the manual with a "not used in practice" despite the switch being quite live (if safety wired off) and able to do... things... when flipped in the real plane.

I think we also have to recognize that the P3D PMDG 737 and DCS HB F-14 fill fundamentally different roles. The PMDG 737 is about training pilot procedures and normal operating flight. It would, for example, never include the departure of an engine in flight; simulating and managing that scope of catastrophic failure has never been in its scope, and the core framework simply does not support it. An over-hard landing or tail-strike is cued as black screen/plane dead. By contrast, DCS is a simulation that does encompass large explosive objects attempting to interact with your air frame on a routine basis, is extremely perverse aerodynamic conditions, as well as the dealing with the aftermath of when your air frame interacts with things it ought not too. So even in a study level sim, there are trades of what is and is not simulated. I suspect an aircraft with both the full P3D and DCS level of modeling would push the $150USD mark. Afterall, the PMDG 737 is $99 and does not include any of the structural modeling we see here. I'd have to check, but I'd doubt it even bothers to simulate spins. Why would they when I'd expect the plane would exceed it's g-limit and shed a wing or tail on the first or second turn? Meanwhile, the HB/IFT F-14 for MSFS is apparently one of the most realistically handling fast jets in the sim, and at the level of systems modeling quite comparable to what we've got in DCS, it's only a $35 dollar aircraft. (And given DC Designs F-4 was a $38 plane, I do think HB/IFT are probably under charging somewhat, but not that far.) So while the BIT tests are part of the F-14's operation, they are also a relatively minor part compared to the aircraft's central missions of carrier operations, fleet defence interceptor, air superiority fighter, strike aircraft, forward air control platform and others. That's why things have to be prioritized according to the aims of the sim it is part of.

"Why yes I want to climb into a phone booth with a Korean Era turn fighter. Wait, was that a bad idea?"

I think in terms of aerodynamic handling qualities, it will be harder, but in terms of systems it will be simpler. Sort of like the F-14. I've flown a lot of WWI/WWII things like rudder on wing drop was basically instinctive for me, while trying to figure out and fight the electronics in a modern fighter, I'm not even sure how to turn on the F/A-18C much less how to get it off the ground.

In the full procedures, I notice that you disable the hydraulic transfer pump before starting the engines, but in the full list, after the right engine is started, you crank the left engine until it's at 3000 psi, turn off the starter crank, then turn the transfer pump on Then turn the pump back off And go through the normal left engine start-up What I don't get is, why do you do that? Is this to test the transfer pump? And if so, what are you even looking for it to do? Thank you, Harry Voyager

F-4G has the same, and worse, issues that the F-14D has: classification and sensitivity. And because it was ewar against Russian SAM systems, it requires digging into not just highly sensitive US ewar information, but highly sensitive Russian radar system parameters. Any plan that gets the CIA and the GRU showing up on your doorstep is a bad plan...

The Marines weren't flying for Iran. F-4E's were. So it would be ridiculous for the Iranian Air Force to be flying Marine planes, which is exactly what would happen if the only flyables version of the F-4 Phantom was the Navy variant.

But did they operate F-4B's or had they largely upgraded to F-14's and Hornets by then? I suspect by the time we were getting deeply embroiled in the Middle East, the Navy F-4 was mostly a bomb truck. And when did the F-4 have a likelihood of going hot in the Marianas? The Phantom FG.1 could have seen action in the Falklands, but it used Spey engines, and had a different cross section and different aerodynamics because of it. Finally, all of those areas had heavy F-4E action. How ridiculous would it be to do a carrier launched strike on Iran, and the opfor only have access to Navy F-4 varients?