Biggus

Yeah, I'm wanting to hear this story, because it doesn't align with my understanding. The EC-121 and WV-2 definitely used IFF systems, they were equipped with the QRC-248 which was able to interrogate Warsaw Pact transponders. This was in use a few years before Combat Tree was installed in Phantoms.

I stumbled upon this from the 1F-4E-1. I'm not sure how this would translate into the DCS startup options. I'd assume a check box in the mission editor for a pre-scramble alignment.

Not a noob question at all, I've had a hard time finding it out too. I'm inclined to believe it's the AN/ARC-159. It was used on the F-4J and S, and it's description is quite similar. 20 preset channels (225.0-399.95), an aux receiver with 18 channels (265.0-284.9). Here's part of the F-4G manual from 1979, which should be the same as the E. Sorry I'm not actually able to give you a definitive answer, but I'm sure someone will be able to tell us.

One thing that I consider more important than improvements to the ATC interaction is a revision and expansion of the AWACS interaction system. AWACS should be providing picture information as it currently does (but should be provided simultaneously on VHF and UHF) to everyone on it's advisory frequency. This is working reasonably well for the most part. But this is quite rudimentary and doesn't provide adequate situational awareness for pilots in platforms lacking modern datalinks. Players intending to perform air-to-air roles should be able to check in with the AWACS similar to a JTAC check in, and then be passed onto another frequency for specific tasking by an AI controller in the E-3/E-2/A-50/etc. Players should then receive more detailed information relating to their tasking, with greater frequency. If there are multiple tasks that may be available, perhaps the controller can prioritise threats or even leave it up to the player choose the tasking they wish to commit to. Unfulfilled tasks might prompt the AWACS to request the assistance of other players on the main AWACS frequency (and possibly on a designated common frequency, or on guard if the threat is serious enough). GCI stations should be able to provide similar tasking. But this only addresses airborne threats. So I propose something akin to the Hillsboro Airborne Battlefield Command and Control Centre EC-130s in Vietnam. An entity where strike/recon/logistics pilots can check in and request taskings. Where do these taskings come from? You could keep it very simple and have it do the ground equivalent of the current airborne early warning system where this entity just provides bullseye references for known ground targets Better though would be if you could have ground forces report to the ABCCC when they are in contact with the enemy. If the unit in contact lacks a JTAC/TACP capability, the ABCCC creates an AFAC task to support the ground unit and assigns a radio frequency to the AFAC. This AFAC could be human or AI. Ideally, the AFAC would be in a plaform that is able to talk to the ground unit for greater detail about where the enemy is, but that might not always be possible due to radio incompatibility. Given that we have some great AFAC platforms coming to the sim, I think some investment in the AFAC experience is warranted. Strike pilots could now check in with the ABCCC, be tasked with providing CAS and be referred to a frequency and location where they can be briefed and directed by the JTAC/AFAC. If a CAS tasking isn't being taken by anyone currently checked in, the ABCCC could ask over a common frequency for any available strikers to come to the rescue. Logistics pilots may also be tasked to perform dustoffs, resupply missions, etc. Then you could tie it all together. Have the AWACS and ABCCC communicate with each other. AWACS detects a SAM launch from somewhere it hasn't seen them before, so it tells the ABCCC and ABCCC creates a recon/SEAD/DEAD tasking. A JTAC sees previously undetected aircraft and relays this to ABCCC, who in turn tells AWACS, and AWACS creates a new tasking in response. A friendly CAP flight dies, AWACS asks ABCCC to create an SAR tasking, which in turn creates a new AFAC task. There would need to be a way to handle cases where players disconnect mid-task or accept a task and then don't attempt to fulfill it, cases where tasks are generated but there are not enough assets available to perform the task, or cases where current tasks are suddenly made lesser priority by the appearance of a new threat or situation, but I'm sure these would be surmountable. This is all pretty huge. It would certainly add a bit of dynamism to missions, and it leaves players with the option to either ignore it outright or continue using AWACS much the same as it is today if they were conducting their own self-directed missions. There are probably huge holes in this, but it was something I've been thinking about for a few weeks now.

I recall something similar to a stored heading alignment being available. It will still likely take a few minutes to warm up though.

Can't do a reasonable Vietnam War map without including Cambodia, Laos, both South and North Vietnam, some parts of Thailand and probably some of China unless you're happy skip the more interesting and significant campaigns of the air war. That's a truly massive area, and even if we have destructible foliage tomorrow without any performance penalty, it's going to be a long time before commonly available consumer hardware will be able to run it adequately.

It's a great set of pedals. I've actually removed the damper from mine. There's a little bit of slack in the tension on my damper and it doesn't quite return to centre even at the lowest settings and with lots of preload on the spring. I'll eventually rebuild the damper to fix it, but for now I'm just enjoying the precision of these pedals.

After flashing the microcontroller, yes. But you'll need to have diodes for each switch to avoid ghost presses, and doing it like this severely limits your number of inputs. Spend some time reading the wiki and working out how you want to configure your hardware. I generally prefer to use shift registers but a diode matrix is fine too. I'd strongly suggest switching to an STM32 and using Freejoy though. MMJoy2 is no longer in active development and can be quite confusing to configure. I liked using it, but Freejoy is vastly more intuitive and the developer is generally active on the forums for another WW2-centric sim.

It's important to differentiate between models when discussing the IRST chin pod. The J left the factory without it. There is one image I am aware of where an F-4J has a radome from a B/N with the chin pod, and that's the VX-4 jet wearing the bicentennial livery. The B left the factory with the chin pod. The N retained it until retirement. From around 1967, it housed antennas related to the Shoehorn mod. At no point did they use the smooth J radome in any widespread fashion. I've never seen any evidence of a B nor an N with the smooth radome. It's possible that a test bird somewhere had one at some time like the VX-4 J, but as a rule it seems to have not happened. The C and the D are interesting in that they have a greater variety of radomes in actual service. The C initially retained the B's radome. My understanding is that the USAF desired smooth radomes and these became available very late in production (likely in preparation for production of the J to commence). Early Ds continued to leave the factory without the chin pod until the USAF realised that they would need to install RHAW gear, at which point a chin pod was reintroduced. The USAF chin pods would change a bit over the subsequent years. My understanding is that in the late 1980s, some USAF squadrons were able to procure J radomes from AMARC, so there's a real mix of possible radomes for late Cs and Ds. On a slightly different topic, perhaps we should have some other threads for Phantoms that aren't F-4Es? It would be nice for this one to be cleaned up a bit so that skinners don't need to wade through pages of irrelevant images for the long nose birds.

You're lucky. I'm still cockeyed in the game. I really hope they make this tool work properly with OpenXR soon.

You should probably ask in the home cockpits subforum. But yes, that should work with MMJoy2.

I can understand that perhaps the OP could have been a bit more descriptive, but I also completely understand his frustration. It's an extremely old bug, and it appears that no progress has been made toward fixing it. For now, the work around is to change slots before respawning. The last bug report ended up being locked a year ago after merging threads.

Yes, my eyes are looking in two different places when zooming in. I was able to tune this out with SVR and the alignment tool, but it doesn't work for OXR. It's not fisheye. If I focus on the flight path marker, the deviation is too great for my brain to correlate it into a single FPM. Instead, I have the left eye looking at an FPM low and left and the right eye looking at one that is very high and quite a distance to the right.

Worn gimbal. Mine did the same. If it sat in the twisted position, it would output some roll. Eventually I replaced it with a WarBRD base, an expensive decision I do not regret in the slightest.

I think the alignment tool will need to be updated for OpenXR. Hoping it'll happen soon, because the alignment for me is horrendous.

Same guy talking about the difference slats made in exercises against CF-5As. I'm inclined to say '81 at the earliest. It's a pity that nobody had small handheld devices with high resolution cameras in their pockets in the 1980s. Is this a good thread to speculate about the Link 4 implementation in the J/N/S? Tactical manual has a pretty good description of how it looked in the cockpit, much like a mostly text version of the Mirage 2000's TAF, but with a steering dot inserted into the radar video.

The N had VTAS. VF-41 and VF-84 used the system on their 1975 Med cruise. You're assumptions I wouldn't. I've got an account of a guy in VMFA-235 using it with the F-4S. Others are less specific but if they're talking about using it with a -9L, it's going to be late in the career of the Phantom. The hard part is finding photographs.

It could well have been a Marines thing. Given that it required repeated applications of dessicant, I can imagine that shipboard maintenance could have been quite painful. I'll keep my eyes out for pics.

Perhaps one day DCS will be at a point where in a dynamic campaign, the way you treat your equipment will have consequences for further missions. Along with some factoring for the environment the campaign is taking place in. Add in some proper squadron or air wing management and it'll be an incredible experience. I live in hope.

Worked well with everything from the AIM-9D through to at least the -9L and probably -9M on the heater front (22 degree off boresight due to missile gimbal limits) and all the Sparrows that were ever loaded onto a 1972ish- onward Navy Phantom. I believe it was usable to around 60 degrees when slaving the radar to the helmet. I'm not so sure I'd agree with @LanceCriminal86 that it was gone that quickly, I've seen plenty of stories of it being used well into the 80s. It looked very much to me like something that some squadrons made good use of and other squadrons practically deleted it.

Thank you so much, @NotBonk!

Assuming to know where other people's knowledge originates is disrespectful and rude. Despite the F-14 not implementing it, F-4S squadrons were using the system well into the 1980s because it was useful despite the limitations and rather difficult serviceability. I'm sure that Heatblur will be able to find a way to simulate the system, warts and all. And again, using it would be completely optional.

That's very helpful, thanks @NotBonk.

And anyone that likes a later Phantom isn't a real enthusiast? Sorry, I can't agree with that. I've used sims since the late 80s and the single greatest desire for me has been to have a late J or an S. You can have your own desires, but there's no need to belittle or gatekeep the desires of others. And as others have said, if you don't want to use VTAS, don't use it. It's perfectly historically accurate to not use it, because plenty of squadrons ignored it. It's a very limited system with only around 20 degrees of off-boresight capability on the seeker head, best used for pulling a bit of lead before a tail aspect sidewinder shot. Worked well with Sparrows too, but the main intention was to help crews get into better parameters for a fox-2.

@Diesel_Thunder, you've been enormously helpful. I've got yet another request, with absolutely zero sense of urgency about it: Could you please get some images of the assembly with the flaps switch? Thanks to your pictures in the other thread, I've got plenty to work with now. It is massively appreciated.