Biggus

I'm not sure how Link 4 equipment not being on every carrier calls into question whether F-4Js received AN/ASW-25s at production. October 1965 being the first combat deployment of the Link 4/4A system on the Kitty Hawk. VF-213 was also aboard with their F-4Gs equipped with AN/ASW-21s. Up until this point though, fighter control relied on voice communication between controller and fighter. If we're talking about Vietnam, there were a number of controlling agencies that a fighter may have been subordinate to, both shipboard and airborne. Voice communications appear to have remained the primary method of fighter control throughout the service life of the F-4J, despite the availability of the datalink.

I'd have expected to see some notes in the 1972 tactical manual regarding Js that had not been fitted with it during production if it was added later. Everything I've yet come across states that it was part of the baseline J and later retrofitted to the B. GIven that the G had been in operational testing for some time before 1966, I would be surprised if this were not the case.

Introduction was earlier, I believe that the Js rolled off the production line with the AN/ASW-25 and it was retrofitted to most of the remaining Bs relatively quickly.

@kksnowbear and @LucShep, this has given me a lot to think about. I'm open to running my system from one of the SATA drives. I guess I need to look at my system holistically to make a decision as to which direction I should go. I feel like I'm learning a lot from this conversation.

Thanks for the response, @LucShep. My board can only accommodate a single M.2 device. I currently have DCS on a pair of SATA3 SSDs (main folder on one, savegames on the other). I think I'll find a DRAM-equipped drive.

Thanks @Marshallman. I assume you mean that the Crucial P3 is noticably faster? That's a good sign, it's one of the drives I'm considering.

Tacview is quite a stutter-generator for my system, which is also a 5800X. Might be something to look at.

I'm currently shopping around to replace my main drive, a 500GB m.2 Samsung 860 Evo. It's on a B450 motherboard so I don't really require more than PCIE 3.0 but I'm considering building a fresh system in a year or so, so I'm looking at PCIE 4 and 5 drives in the hopes that I can do a little future proofing for once.. One thing I've noticed is that there is a reasonable price difference between m.2 drives with DRAM and drives without. I'm curious as to whether the DRAM-less drives are problematic for DCS. I've seen at least one Hoggit post regarding a DRAM-less drive being the cause of one user's stutters, but these drives are so widespread that I'm wondering whether that was an outlier. So can I get away with buying a DRAM-less drive as my main system drive which also has a DCS install on it?

The other thing that the J is great for is variety. Pre-DECM Js up until 1975ish, DECM-equipped Js from late 1972. You've got super Js with smokeless motors and AWG-10As from 1975, you've got J/Ss that are effectively S models that haven't yet received the slat kits from around 1979 til 1983, you've got the F-4J (UK) with it's own different systems up until January 1991. All of them offer meaningful points of difference that would be relevant to us in DCS. While an S would be my dream rendition, I can acknowledge that it's probably not a viable choice if HB continue their trend of including a couple of variants in each module.

Cobra mentioned that the J was the main contender a few months ago on Discord, but that the decision was not yet firm.

There are also accounts of pilots that loved VTAS. Being able to slew the radar quickly without needing to coordinate with the RIO, being able to pull lead so that you can take a few seconds to ease up on the G for an in-parameters sidewinder launch, etc. Hell, just knowing where your seeker is looking is a big deal. Focusing on the weight of the helmet in a Phantom is going to be silly if we're going to end up fighting MiG-17s that can sustain near infinite 6G turns with no pilot fatigue.

I have the same issue, haven't really found a solution yet.

I ended up using this for my panels. It's not perfect, but it's better than nothing and doesn't look too out of place.

Had this happen last night. I was not able to resolve it and ended up respawning. I'll grab a track next time it happens.

Modelling human factors penalties should be a sim-wide undertaking if it's going to be done at all. Not just helmet weight, but also the weight of control forces and the effect of weight and effort over time. I'd like to see it done, but it's a pretty large can of worms.

I've got a 35 inch 3440x1440 monitor and it's been great. There's another option but it is somewhat less common - 3440x1600. You get more vertical screen space, which would be enormously helpful in DCS.

Hopefully this helps with your other questions.

I'll buy every F-4. No question. If HB releases a new Phantom module, I'm opening my wallet immediately.

Phantom goes through fewer head gaskets though.

I'm assuming @deep is correct and there's a performance issue that cannot be reasonably addressed without switching to synthetic scenery. I voted to switch on the assumption that there's a performance blocker that cannot be addressed without the change.

Thanks @Horns. The only time I've ever seen this alternate seasonal phenomena before was in the lead up to the Tomcat. And yes, it's been a really weird Spring for me too. I'm a few hundred km east of Melbourne and it has been alternating between extreme wintery weather one week and the next it's like the height of summer. The only way I know it's Spring is that my hayfever is probably the worst it's ever been! Anyway, where Phantom?

lmfao Dammit @Zabuzard! To be entirely fair, this project has helped me grasp how exasperating and arduous modelling the Phantom must be for you guys and my hat is off to you.

I'm going to ask what I think is probably a stupid question, but doesn't Northern Hemisphere Winter start on December 1 and finish at midnight on the last day of February? I'm in Australia, our Summer starts on the 1st of December. On March 1st, Autumn begins.

@Raisuli Yeah, that's the smart way to go about it - multi-module flexibility makes it much more usable in general. I'm following more of a 'work with what I've got, in a form factor that I can live with' philosophy, although it's very much intended for the Phantom. My outer panels are squared off, instead of following the cockpit wall in the real thing. A flaps switch that is relatively close to the right spot, but rotated 90 degrees and built into a franken-panel. A sim-functions panel instead of a steps position panel. Small switches instead of correctly sized ones, I'm sure you get the idea. I think it should work for other modules reasonably well too as you've quite rightly pointed out that there is plenty of overlap. But a well sorted multi-module pit is probably nirvana. The F-4 subforum needs a dedicated cockpit building thread, because the one in the Tomcat subforum is really inspirational.

Phantom pit-building right now is really hard. Until we get the DSCG bird in our hangars (or at least have more detailed in-game footage), there's too many variables for many of the front seat panels to be sure I'm modelling the correct version of each panel. The AFCS one is pretty safe and doesn't appear to have changed much aside from getting an extra position on the 'engage' switch for 'CMPT STR', and the one with the rudder trim is also relatively consistent. But everything else seems to have a massive range of variations. That panel to the left of the throttle in @Zabuzard's screenshot is the first time I've seen that particular variation. I've seen APU-related switches there instead of the APS-107/APQ-120 switches, and I'm sure on one I've seen the generator master switches there. The fuel panel seems to have been the most common one, it's identical to the one in the F-4G manual. And then I'm sure the DMAS one is going to be different again!