Jump to content

Voyager

Members
  • Posts

    400
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Voyager

  1. 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

    • Like 2
  2. 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... 

  3. 4 hours ago, randomTOTEN said:

    So while removing wheel chocks 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.🙄

     

    Um, not sliding off the deck is quite central to carrier operations. Not sure sure what you are on about. 

    2 hours ago, speed-of-heat said:

    Stop trolling

    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... 

  4. 1 hour ago, randomTOTEN said:

    And when you ran a scenario in Jane's F/A-18E Super Hornet, did it instruct you to lift the guard of this switch, turn it on, and view the spin recovery symbology on the DDI's, before resetting the switch and continuing the scenario?

    And that it was important to accomplish this step because it was a cue for the ground crew to pull the chocks?

     

    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... 

  5. 9 hours ago, randomTOTEN said:

    Or the manual.

    Or the checklist.

     

    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. 

  6. 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. 

  7. 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. 

  8. 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

    1. crank the left engine until it's at 3000 psi,
    2. turn off the starter crank,
    3. then turn the transfer pump on
    4. Then turn the pump back off 
    5. 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

  9. 3 hours ago, exhausted said:

    That's fine, there's even demand for DCS: I-16 and Yak-52. I would never suggest there is no audience for those choices. I'll be skipping the F-4E, but if we ever see a proper naval variant then I'll jump on it. 

    Well, the Air Force flew the F-4Gs after the Cold War, but that's not the version we are getting. I am not sure the F-4Es survived in service after 1991, except as target drones. Marine F-4Ss made it to 1992, and surely would have had a role in any Cold War scenario involving Europe. I would even say there is no exact science since even retired birds continue flying, such as the F-117s.

    Now, I can't really be sure of Heatblur's motives, but I would think that lack of anticipation that there would be such a preference for carrier capable F-4s would likely be the biggest reason. Who really knows?

    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... 

    • Like 2
  10. On 11/21/2023 at 6:27 PM, Vampyre said:

    The Marines of VMFA-323 and VMFA-531 flying off the Coral Sea in support of Operation Eagle Claw might take issue to being called ridiculous. They were flying F-4N Phantoms as the primary fleet defense of the USS Coral Sea. They were augmenting CVW-8's VF-41 and VF-84 flying F-14A's off of USS Nimitz. 

    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. 

    • Like 3
  11. 56 minutes ago, exhausted said:

    You could add a carrier group to any map with 90 miles of water from the coast, and you missed Syria, Marianas and upcoming Kola.

     

    22 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

    Don't forget Sinai. Carriers have definitely operated off the Syrian coast (in fact, two of them are there right now, ready to do just that), while Kola is definitely as much a place for US and Soviet fleets to slug it out as it is for land based operations. Marianas map is mostly water, too, and needless to say US carriers make regular visits to them. We have no shortage of places to put naval aviation to work.

    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?

    • Like 1
  12. On 11/14/2023 at 10:20 AM, exhausted said:

    Our map sizes are fine for the task -- the Marines and Navy operate both from land and sea. Yankee Station was 90 miles off the coast. The Marine base at Da Nang was 90 miles from the border and housed half a dozen F-4 squadrons (Bs and Js). 

    I'm not sure where you are going with that track, especially since Heatblur is most known for bringing the F-14 to DCS. 

    Yankee station doesn't exist in DCS, and there are no plans to implement it any time soon. 

    Given the current map set, the only place I can see the Navy versions having any near combat history would be the Nevada Test and Training Range. 

    And the whole idea that the F-4 wasn't a 'bomb truck' is just silly. The first version MD tried to sell to the Navy was the AH; a literal bomb truck. The Navy decided it had good enough attackers they didn't bite, so MD reconfigured it, and reconfigured it, and reconfigured it until the Navy bit on a Fleet Defender variant of it.

    But it was always designed as a multi-role modular fighter. That's the whole reason they even had the long nose ready to mount a gun in it. Heck, the AH-1 version had four 20mm Colt cannons, before the Navy decided it didn't need guns in its fleet defender. There is no such thing as a pure F-4: its genius is that it's a psycho lego-kit of a plane before that was even a thing. 

    Which is also why I suspect we will see more variants once the F-4E takes off: the plane was built to be reconfigured, so the more configurations are modeled, the easier it will be to model more configurations. And unlike the F-14, the US State Department hasn't made a job out of hunting down every possible scrap of information on it and destroying it. 

    • Like 3
  13. 9 hours ago, Zabuzard said:

    The plain minimal cold start, provided everything is working as expected and in the default state, is indeed quite simple and mostly just:

    • external air (or starter cartridges)
    • external power (or battery)
    • start engine
    • throttle out of idle
    • generator on

    At that point, you can pretty much already taxi around. Ofc you might in practice also want to setup some other systems and give the WSO time to do the INS alignment.

    Other systems you might want to setup include:

    • lights
    • volumes
    • radio, intercom
    • VOR
    • oxygen
    • AFCS (autopilot system, ...)
    • countermeasures

    And for the WSO it would roughly be:

    • radar
    • laser code
    • INS
    • weapon computer
    • nav system
    • IFF and ECM

     

    My last (and first) experience with the F-4 was in Jane's Wings over Vietnam. And I remember have *no clue* what was going on in the cockpit. It was just a wall of dials and gauges and scopes that I had no clue what they did or how they worked.

    And I'd been flying sims since the Battlehawks 1942 and Jane's US Navy Fighters, so it was a real shock stepping into a plane I simply did not understand anything in. 

    It's definitely a weird feeling coming back to it after all this time, and discovering in some ways it is simpler than even a WWII bird. 

    Looking forward to finally being able to really learn this jet. 

    • Like 1
  14. On 11/7/2023 at 6:12 AM, Bremspropeller said:

    Neither the 21bis, nor the F-4E are the initial design iterations of the jets. Those would be the MiG-21F and F4H-1.

    The F4H-1 was designed to defend the carrier in anyweather and dropping some dumb bombs onto the target when neccessity arose. The -21F was essentially a MiG-19 with an engine that wouldn't explode every time you looked at it the wrong way. Well, not quite, as the R-11 also had it's fair share of teething troubles that needed resolving.

    [...]

    So, the version that was first ordered was configured for all weather fleet defense, but it turns out the Phantom had a pretty wild development cycle. 

    Joe Baugher had a good write up on his page: McDonnell YF4H-1 Phantom II
    http://joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/f4_1.html

    Essentially, MD was trying to build a better F3H Demon as an unsolicited proposal and ended up doing a very modular design so they could cover as many bases as possible. And pretty much every configuration they put together ended up being a mission it did. 

    Honestly, it could easily have ended up as an Me-210 like disaster, so it's really impressive the design team was actually able to pull off a successful multi-role aircraft to the degree that they did. 

  15. @Dragon1-1 The Tomcat is definitely more complex, because it has the cross pumps, the avionics that need to be turned on on the ground and the wing control computer to mess up. 

    And, as I recall, you're supposed to disconnect the ground air supply once the first engine is up too. 

    Edit: forgot you also have to set the brakes mode and whether you're in a ground or naval config too. 

  16. Been watching some F-4 start up procedures in YouTube, and it seems really simple: crew chief applies external air and power, open the fuel to the left engine, turn on the igniter, turn on the engine starter, wait until it's on, turn off the starter and igniter, turn on the left generator, rinse and repeat for the right engine, send off the ground crew, then turn on lights and avionics you need. 

     

    Is it really that simple? Or are there steps that aren't being modeled in most simulated versions of it? 

    • Like 1
  17. 7 hours ago, randomTOTEN said:

    define heavy weather

    That's a good question. What was defined as "heavy weather" at the time? I know there planes lost because of bad weather (ref Lucky), but that doesn't say what that means. 

    7 hours ago, grafspee said:

    They just did not perform any ops with low visibility, they could encounter some bad visibility during mission but planes weren't equipped with any system which allow to land w/o seeing runway.

    So they didn't plan Ops during bad weather, so if bad weather rolled in after the squadron was airborne, how was that handled? Divert to another airfield? Did they have limits on what was too much, or was it more local judgement? 

  18. So, how did the WWII air forces handle heavy weather moving in? I don't think the P-47 or any of the big bombers have ILS type systems. I have seen jokes about the P-47's low visibility landing process being 'throw a brick out the window and fly in formation with it' and I know RS Johnson's second P-47 (Lucky) crashed while another pilot was operating it in bad weather, so it sounds like heavy weather operations were a thing. 

    Question is, how did they do it? Did pilots try to run everything with just VFR flight rules, or did they have any sort of tools to find the runway? Or did they just divert if they didn't have enough visibility? 

  19. So what are the typical flight profiles for F-14 vs F-15E strike missions? 

    From what I can tell, the F-14 can strike targets but does not really have a self-escort capability. It seems to have good self-defense capabilities, but it really looks like it needs someone else to open the door. 

    Meanwhile the Strike Eagle has much more BVR capacity in a strike mission, but it seems to have much more trouble if things go to the merge, and from watching some YouTube flights, it really seems like you spend a lot of time configuring and programming things on the ground.

    So it sort of sounds to me like the F-14 has less overall capability, but can go from zero to airborne much faster? 

  20. I recall one of the design requirements for the F-14 was to replace the F-4 including an escort/dogfight configuration using 4xAIM-7 and 4xAIM-9 missiles. 

    As I understand it, it was considerably lighter than the Phoenix loadouts, as it didn't use the weapon rails. But I gather the time to remove the rails, and the utility of a active seeker missile meant they usually uses 2xAIM-54, 3xAIM-7 and 2xAIM-9 loadouts. 

    Was the Sparrow+Sidewinder only loadout ever used? And if so what was it used for in practice? 

×
×
  • Create New...