Biggus

You're correct. Went back and checked. Grey matter isn't what it used to be!

If DCS had an Il-2 BoX-like campaign or career structure with real depth, then I'd be completely onboard with environmental variables. But I don't think we're going to be at that point for a long time. Besides, how ever bad the missiles were, the radar on the J prior to the solid-state upgrades was far and away the weakest link in the whole chain. You might only get a handful of sorties before it was deadlined. That's one small contributing part of the numbers of kills with Sidewinders vs Sparrows for the Navy. Here's another random tidbit. The AWG-10 had eight different frequencies that could be used. Not cockpit-selectable. The average squadron had roughly twelve Phantoms. So there was always a good chance that every time you launched a four-ship, at least two of those jets would have their radars transmitting and receiving on the same frequency. You can probably guess that this is not an optimal situation.

Really looking forward to the F-8 too! Speaking of the groove @Bremspropeller, the case 1 recovery is nigh on identical to the Hornet and the Tomcat with one critical exception - ball call is at 1.5nm. Unfortunately in DCS, the centred ball is always perfectly on glideslope, but in reality the further out you entered the groove, the less informative the ball was. You could be quite high or low with that centred ball.

Some random J thoughts and old man ramblings: There were a few variants of upgraded J models. Obviously the S is the end-point, but there were two others that were sometimes known as Super Js. The first was a very limited update program around 1975, with smokeless engines and AWG-10A radars (and very little documentation, I have only gathered snippets from crews in Phantom-oriented social media). I believe that there were enough for two squadrons (and vaguely recall maybe VF-191 being one of the first users). The second Super J variant was just the early hard-wing S. The RAF F-4J was quite similar to the second Super J, and it would be quite an interesting variant to have, with the Skyflash being an exceptionally capable missile when it was introduced. VTAS was a game changer but not necessarily in the way that we would consider today after having experienced it in the Viper or Hornet. While you could certainly use it similarly to slave the radar and send a fox-1 (keep in mind you've got a 20 degree limit off bore), the biggest benefit was that you could pull lead on a bandit and then back off the G to within the limits of the D/G/H sidewinders. There's an enormous caveat to VTAS though, and that's helmet weight. While the actual increase in weight was not what you would consider enormous, when you load it up at 6.5G, the additional mass was often unwelcome. A few comments in this thread have mentioned that weaponry is a little different and that it was (along with better training) part of the formula for success in the later stages of the Vietnam war, and I want to elaborate a little bit on what I've been able to piece together regarding what was in use at various times at sea. Starting with fox-1s, you have the AIM-7E (which predated the introduction of the J), the AIM-7E-2 around 1969 and the AIM-7F from around 1978. Not terribly different from the USAF although I've had a harder time finding evidence that suggests -7Fs were on USAF birds that early. The -7Fs seem to have gone to Eagle squadrons, with the Phantoms mostly continuing with -E variants into the mid 1980s. At no point was the AIM-7M integrated with any F-4s in US service, Navy or Air Force. For fox-2s, the J entered service while the AIM-9D was in production. AIM-9Bs may have been in limited use, but by 1971, you'd expect to see AIM-9Ds and -Gs (very similar to the D but with SEAM which was a bit of a game changer). The G would go on to serve with the RAF for quite a few years (with their own modifications) and was a mainstay of the RAF and RN Phantom squadrons until there were greater quantities of Ls available in the mid-80s. Mid to late 1972, the first AIM-9Hs started to arrive. These were, in practical terms, -9Gs with solid state electronics, faster tracking rate and more powerful actuators. The combination of better training, better missiles and better understanding of the parameters in which they worked enabled the USN to achieve something like a 48% PK in 1972. Around 1979-1980, the AIM-9L started to appear on pylons on F-4Js at sea. Around 1983ish, the M was introduced. It's very hard to look at pictures and differentiate between an L and an M, but given the in-production date of 1981 and the fact that the USN was very quick to provide the best available weapons to it's fleet defenders, I think it's fairly safe to conclude that the very last cruises of Phantoms at sea would have included the M. Regardless, if you discount the M and compare it to the USAF equivalents, the USN had an all aspect fox-2 nearly a full decade before the USAF. The USAF used the E, J, N and P on their Phantoms for the most part, although in the run up to the Gulf war, they finally received an all-aspect Sidewinder. That may have been the AIM-9L/M, or it may have been a late P variant. Here's an RF-4C in 1992 with an L/M. Foreign users often had -9Ls hanging from Echo launch rails from the early to mid 1980s though. Fuel management is another interesting thing around the boat. Maximum recovery weight is 40,000lbs. Aircraft basic weight (including oils, unusable fuel and crew) for a J is listed as 31,785lb. An empty McDonnell centreline tank, two AIM-7E-2s and four AIM-9Hs with pylons and launchers weigh in at 2,531lb. There are probably some additional things not included in this calculation, but we'll keep things simple. You will have around about 5684lb in margin for fuel. In a Tomcat, that's not very concerning. In a Phantom, that fuel is going to go quite quickly. At 25,000ft and 0.64M, you'll be burning around 6200lb/hr. It's not hideous, considering the age of the J79. Once you enter the break though, you'll be burning enough to have maybe three passes at recovery before you're heading for the KA-3B (Heatblur plz). And the F-4S is worse! It's basic weight is a full 1,000lb more. It will be very exciting to come home in the dark when you're landing on a carrier! There's also CoG and vaccuum related issues to consider with fuel loads, and I'm looking forward to seeing how HB model it all. I'm really looking forward to seeing how this module develops, regardless of which variants end up as full modules. But I'd be shocked if the J wasn't one of them.

I'm pretty sure a client track from GAW would probably be as useful as a single player track, ie practically useless. I don't know for sure, because I've never managed to open one of those tracks without experiencing a crash. Once I set my dedi server box back up, I'd be happy to host a mission here in Australia and send the track files in. But it would be nice to find an easier option that we can gather data with now vs in a few weeks when I finally get my act together.

This bit makes it somewhat difficult to provide data for high ping related issues. I wonder if the 104th guys or the Hoggit admins might be willing and able to help with some of their server tracks?

While we're at it, would it be possible to change the position of the Jester wheel and the eyeball lantirn mode circles? The current position makes it very hard to use the bottom half of the eyeball direction circle wearing glasses. I end up with my focal point being above my glasses, and I'm quite near sighted so I struggle to use the current interface.

Js also ended up with the 7F and 9M. The 7F and the 9L were in service on Js while Js were still at sea. For me, the biggest benefit for the S is getting a second radio.

@Sergey_Pe Thanks for the response and the suggestion of an STM32. I've got one in my stash waiting for a project, and I think you're right, it's a better choice for this job. I'm redesigning my PCB now.

I've built boards with MMJoy2 before successfully, but I'm about to create a slightly more complex board and although I've found fragments of helpful information, I still have a few questions before I send my PCB to the manufacturer. The first question: Can I connect encoders to shift registers? And if I can, do they still need diodes? My second question comes from some confusion as the only example schematic I've seen only includes the Pro Micro and an MCP3008, and in that diagram, the D-OUT for the MCP3008 is connected to the MISO pin. Is D-OUT intended to be shared with the MISO pin for the shift registers? I don't think it is, but I'd really like to get a second opinion. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

I suspect they'll start with a J because of the Forrestal. Js served on the Forrestal until 1981-82. There were actually Js operating in the Med during the first Sidra incident. A Super J would be nice but I don't think they ever went to sea.

I'd love a Midway but I think it's a bit much to ask, considering the effort and time that went into the Forrestal. A Midway would certainly give the S model more longevity at sea for historical scenarios.

I had this feeling an announcement was coming. The effort going into the Forrestal for what was implied to be more than the Tomcat and Intruder, the unnamed module on the Trello, the work that HB has put into the AI RIO. I'm excitedly awaiting what I will assume will be an F-4J and possibly an S following the E, but I'll be buying everything HB puts out. Even if that includes an RF-4. I couldn't be more thrilled that it's HB doing it.

It's gotten quite a bit worse for me this patch, although I did take a bit of time off during the one prior. Occasionally the box will stay on the screen. Hitting one of the view keys seems to get rid of it.

I certainly see EGIW from time to time with full mil on touchdown. I suspect that the call is sometimes being made a fraction of a second earlier than it should. It's certainly better than it used to be though.

I have the same issue at gamma 2.2. Actually the front seat radio display is probably the more frustrating of the things that have this problem. I'd love something like a toggle to shade areas under the mouse, like a reverse flashlight.

Yup, no issues with trim here. What I do have an issue with is that if you aren't quite within the parameters for the alt hold to engage, pressing the NWS button to engage it seems to generate a pitch-down moment.

Thank you for not only the skins, but the time and effort and skill and attention to detail that you put into them! Is there any chance that you could create a single file with all your skins? I know it would be quite large, but it would be significantly more convenient.

Yeah, I'm seeing a pitch down on any failed attempt to engage alt hold AP.

My system isn't that different. 3070, 32GB of 3600mhz ram and a 5800x. I agree that the carrier performance is probably in need of some tweaking. That tiny stutter is literally at the worst possible time. If it happened literally a second, maybe 1.5s later it would be much less noticeable as the plane hits the deck and decelerates (although it'd still be annoying with bolters and touch and go stuff).

I experience this pretty regularly. It's almost like there's a LOD change when it happens.

LSO callouts for the Tomcat are still wrong.

It's beautiful. The smoke really adds atmosphere when you're recovering. LSO telling me I'm slow when I'm on-speed. I assume it's an ED problem, and a very old and frustrating one at that.

I've seen it for the last few months. Steps to reproduce. 1. Join MP server. 2. Select Hornet slot, start and launch for mission as per usual. 3. Die. 4. Respawn. At this point, I generally find myself attached to the cat with chocks in place and there is nothing to do but re-slot. Admittedly I haven't tried it in the current OB patch, but prior to that it was a pretty regular occurrence for myself and many I fly with.

I'd agree that most of the first hand accounts of head-on Sparrow shots I've read lead me to believe that they are somewhat underperforming in terms of range. They might just be a bit better in terms of seeker performance in DCS than they are in reality though. I'd assume it will be looked at by ED at some point.