exhausted

We need a Kyushu to Taiwan map with coastal PRC!

not to mention the B was designed to be equipped with the AIM-9 and the C had been designed to be equipped with the AIM-4. The D had to be modified later to accept the AIM-9s at the behest of some influential USAF personalities. Makes me wonder though, since the F-104 was already being equipped with the AIM-9 before the USAF even adopted the F-4. But then you have to remember the budget wars and bureaucracy.

I believe the Spey was a low bypass turbofan, but the J-79 is still in the turbojet class. I believe there could have been a difference in speed based on the optimization of each design; namely, Wiki says the top speed in the Spey was lower because of the compressor outlet temperatures... could this mean the materials in the Spey were the limiting factor?

This is getting a little ridiculous. Sorry if I've upset you, but I intend to ignore your provocations and I'd appreciate it if you ignored me going forward. If things change and cool down, then maybe we can have some exchanges that don't risk being blown out of proportion. I will continue to voice my opinion about the F-4J/S and my doubts about the F-4E. I'd appreciate if you don't let it ruin your day.

So the big obvious answer here is this is the developer forum, so it's the appropriate place to give feedback. I'm not calling other posters out and I am not crossing lines. You are supposed to be able to get along in a forum, and avoid discussions that agitate you. Since I'm not here to egg you on, I'll just stick with criticizing the Phantom. I'm a huge fan of the Phantom, but the -E is not interesting or compatible with Naval operations. The Phantom has and will always be a naval jet to many people. I even knew a couple old J-79 mechs. Like many who get shouted down and drowned out, we want a Phantom that'll land on a boat and do what it was designed to do in the first place.

Please remember that agreeing with Heatblur's choice doesn't make you superior, and acting like it does will not stop people from disagreeing with you. A forum is a forum. I think of the Navy Phantoms as purebreds, with legitimate bombing capability but without all the other bumps and baggage of the -E. The Marines and Navy used their Phantoms to good effect with the kit they had. As I'm far from the only one here disappointed with choice of the most underpowered and overweight version of the Phantom, I shouldn't be worried about being singled out.

Yes I get that documentation could be a problem, although not more of a problem than releasing a P-51 onto a modern Crimean map, or planning a Eurofighter Typhoon, but I get it. Just because I'm not excited about the -E doesn't mean I want to detract from the rest. The -E is a poor representation of a fighter built from the ground up to land on a carrier, before being butchered into an air force bomb mule. And if we are going to get the bomb mule version, then the more updated variants make more sense all around.

Makes more sense for DCS than a 1970s F-4E

The question is whether a Harrier should snap roll into 10 rotations at 700 degrees per second, with no energy lost in the rotations.

Ha, no what I mean is if you jink with bombs, you go into a violent snap roll with no explanation from physics as we know it.

sounds nice

I can understand your concern about artifacts. But, like you I am also very familiar with how turbines work - they were my life for years on end. Yet, I know I cannot tell you what an Olympus, F404, J-79 or a Jumo 004 is supposed to sound like. These are quintessential engines that have unique signatures, just like the Pegasus. I can tell you what the Pegasus is supposed to sound like, and we are probably <95% of the way there in DCS. However, if there are issues with artifacts or mediocre wavs then I understand that concern as well.

The cockpit noises in the DCD and the IRL video sound nothing alike. Just a question: but if your experience on judging jet engine noises is living next to an airport, then you are listening to jet noises from a distance and from the outside. How exactly does that equate to knowing what it should sound like inside a Harrier, with a helmet and insulated communication gear covering your ears? Those videos are not what a pilot would hear. You can't hear the comms and the warning indicators without the communication equipment. And if you have the communication gear on, then you can't hear the raw noise presented in the videos. Please forgive me if I seem overly rude, but could you imagine how disappointing it would be for real pilots and maintainers with Harrier experience to hear the sounds changed to suit the tastes of someone whose experience is listening to assorted planes fly away in the distance?

OK. I'm not attacking you. I remember the pitch of the Pegasus motors having small changes at similar power settings. The Pegasus has a few digital modules that make regular adjustments to the performance output of the engine, including regulating fuel flow. I spent literally hours and hours next to Harriers revving up their engines until the nozzles turned transparent-red. The idling always struck me as a little 'wavvy', so not to beat a dead horse, but the current sounds are pretty accurate. That being said, there are some things that could be perfected. For one, the chatter of the first stage LPC could be modeled so that when you start the motor, you hear the blades bumping into each other. The 23 blades of the LPC first stage have small gaps and a bit of wiggle in them, so you hear them chatter when the engine turns at low speeds.

we are talking like 720 degree snap rolls though... I highly doubt this is realistic. If you want to see what we mean, then try a snap roll to evade a missile when you have a few bombs under the wings

I was a jet engine mechanic on the Pegasus and I can tell you the F402 sounds rather whiny until you rev it up. The sounds in the original post sound wimpier than what we have and quite different than the real thing. I spent very little time in the cockpit, and even then it was only at idle. The sounds we have now are pretty good to my recollection. What's your recollection telling you?

This doesn't sound like much better than a Harrier recorded with a mic from 2006 point and shoot. I feel like this since that's what I used to record several Harriers while having worked on them for a few years. This would be a serious downgrade, in my humble opinion.

Any chance for VMFA-333?

submitted as FVK

Hey I might be interested

IIRC the Harrier uses 0.4 sec, or 1.4 sec, whereas the Hornet uses altitude control burst.

Can you fix the Skiramp bug with the Su-25?

After testing several aircraft with the skiramp objects, I found the Su-25 is incompatible. The problem is the Su-25 tends tries to go through the skiramp objects and gets destroyed. This is different than aircraft that are not suited for the skiramps, because they tend to suffer from tailstrikes and landing gear destruction. Once again, the Su-25 does not even try to go up the ramp, but rather through the ramp.

Nobody's time is being wasted.

I will try it today to see if I can duplicate