Andrew8604

Alright, I see in a NATOPS F-14B Flight Manual - August 2001 that what you are saying is correct and how it works in the F-14A/B in DCS matches the NATOPS manual exactly. However, that does not explain why I saw what I saw so many, many times in the night sky near Miramar. Maybe something changed. Maybe the F-14s were reworked sometime in the late 80s or 90s to make it as described in this 2001 NATOPS manual. Maybe in the late 70s and early 80s, the Anti-Collision lights switch "ON" did NOT disable the flasher for the position lights. Or maybe there simply was no Anti-Collision Lights switch and all lights were considered POSITION lights. And POSITION lights to FLASH, flashed them all together. I'll have to try to get a 1981 or 1979 F-14A NATOPS manual and see what it says. I know this is very minor stuff. But having seen so many back in those days, how could I have seen it wrong? I have two animated GIF files attached. The one where all lights flash together is what I'm SURE I saw in those days. The other GIF shows what it should look like according to the NATOPS manual. (I added a picture to clarify which lights on the plane and the orientation I'm talking about. The orientation of lights when viewed from port side, abeam.) Yes, the left vertical fin white light has a red lens! I'm triggered!! That'll get fixed? That's about as minor as can get. But it may as well be fixed. Thanks, you all.

I remember observing many F-14A's at night around NAS Miramar (in San Diego) in the late-1970's through mid-1980's and the Position Lights and Anti-Collision Lights always flashed in unison. Can anyone confirm? Can anyone verify that maybe that was not the case anymore by the 1990's or 2000's? I don't think that turning on the Anti-Collision Lights should force the Position Lights to steady. Position Lights being the wingtip and wing-root navigation lights, as well as the left vertical tail's trailing-edge white position light. Anti-Collision Lights being the right vertical tail's trailing-edge red light, left vertical tail's leading-edge red light and the under-nose red light. The only change to make this so, in this DCS module, would be that when Position Lights are set to FLASH and Anti-Collision Lights are ON (which always flash when on) that they all flash in unison (together and at the same rate). All other behaviors of the Exterior Lighting should be fine, as is. The F-4N/S Phantom II had the same light behavior. All position and anti-collision lights could flash in unison, and that's usually how I observed them during the same time period...although it did not have wing root lights, as its wings didn't have variable sweep, of course. The F-4 did not have an under-nose red light but had a semi-flush mounted white "fuselage" light under each engine air intake body.

F-4B -- The original, classic Phantom II. 649 were built. Some were converted to F-4N in the 1970's. The first version we get is the last (US) land-based, fighter-bomber model, the F-4E (the F-4G being specialized to SEAD). I'd say the next should be a Naval version. I'll take any. But I'd hope for the "B". Although, I'm sure most people will want the "J" because they always seem to want the last model or most modernized model...and at that, many will want the F-4S (upgraded F-4J). And after that, back to a land-based model, again, and I'd say the F-4D, this time...or the F-4C. USAF in Vietnam: F-4C's shot down 40 MiGs. F-4D's shot down 42 MiGs. F-4E's only shot down 20 (although their deployment time was more limited). However, 370 USAF F-4 Phantoms were lost in combat in Vietnam, only 33 to MiGs (307 to AAA!!). The US Navy F-4B and J Phantoms shot down 40 MiGs and lost 73 Phantoms, but only 7 to air-to-air. The "big nosed" Phantoms did the bulk of the work in Vietnam. And if you give us the HMS Ark Royal (R09) along with it, I'll take the F-4K (or FG.1, I think it was).

Will the Forrestal be added to Supercarrier so that it can have animated deck crews? I would really like to see the Essex Class carriers added, too. Even though they are not supercarriers. Just the 6 Essex class carriers from the 1960's with angled flight deck and steam catapults: group A - Intrepid, Ticonderoga and Hancock; group B - Bon Homme Richard, Oriskany and Shangri-La. Each group could use the same 3D model with different hull numbers. The upcoming F-8J Crusader and A-7E Corsair II will utilize the Essex class ships, as well as the community A-4E Skyhawk.

It looks like the Nevada map covers an area of about 350nm x 350nm (650km x 650km), but not all of that is full detail and trees are sparse. However, there's a lot of detail in Las Vegas. A Vietnam map (I think) would need to cover about 660nm x 530nm, (1222km x 981km) and that excludes most of South Vietnam and Cambodia. But like Nevada, not all of that should be full detail. Only Hanoi would be the large, high detail city, but as it was in about 1972, not 2022. This would include most of Hainan Island, but not being a subject of the map, would only be satellite imagery over moderately detailed terrain...just so it would be seen from carriers at Yankee Station. High detail of a 200nm x 150nm area around Hanoi. (370km x 278km) About two high detailed 150nm x 150nm areas along the coast to the southeast, which should cover Da Nang and Chu Lai airbases. (278km x 278km) Much of the trees are solid tree canopy, 75-150 feet above the ground, I think. Maybe there's a way to model that without drawing thousands of individual trees and their trunks. In low-detail areas, it could be just flat satellite imagery over medium detail terrain, I guess. Vast areas you would normally fly over at high altitude. You would only be expected to fly low-level, jet, prop or helicopter over the high-detail areas. 50nm (93km) radius detailed area around Dien Bien Phu in the northwest...maybe? Not sure it's worth it, though. 30nm (55km) radius detail areas around each of the Thai airbases of: Udorn, Nakhon Phanom, Ubon, Korat and Takhli. The flight from Takhli AB to Thud Ridge (Hanoi) is about 500nm (925km) each way! ...and about 470nm from Korat AB. Those were the F-105 bases (and later F-4E bases, I believe). That should give plenty of room to tank-up with KC-135A's along the way. Could you fly F-16C's on such missions? Of course! ...and F-18C's and anything else that can make it...I wouldn't try it with the I-16, though. But carrier-based aircraft from Yankee Station only had to go about 260nm. I'd say only satellite photo details of Bangkok, if it's on the map at all. I think this might just work, without being bigger than Syria or South Atlantic on the hard drive. This image would be the approximate size of the map, however, only areas outlined by blue boxes and circles would be the high-detail areas. And this is just my quick estimate of it. Maybe some of the high-detail areas could be even smaller.

That was an awesome video. Would love to operate the A-4E from that. As well as the F-8J, when we get it. Even the A-7E could be made able to operate from it. (The A-7A&B operated from some Essex-class carriers.) I would suggest two versions of the angled-deck, steam catapult Essex-class ships of the 60's and 70's. There were only seven of them. First group: Intrepid CVA-11, Ticonderoga CVA-14, and Hancock CVA-19. These 3 had the starboard deck-edge elevator farther aft. Second group: Lexington CVA-16, Bon Homme Richard CVA-31, Oriskany CVA-34 & Shangri-La CVA-38. These 4 had the starboard deck-edge elevator more forward, close to the island. (There were more Essex-class ships that had angled flight decks, but they did not have steam catapults and heavier arresting gear for jets. They were called CVS for anti-submarine by the 1960's.) I think those were the major differences. So, two models in DCS should be sufficient with different hull numbers and names on the stern. And then AI versions of the KA-3B Skywarrior and A-4E with 2-300gal external tanks and a centerline buddy refueling store to serve as tankers. And an AI version of the E-1A Tracer (AEW in place of the E-2D) and the SH-2 Seasprite helicopter. Maybe a Farragut or Leahy-class guided missile destroyer and a FRAM modified Gearing or Sumner-class destroyer as escorts.

I guess you're saying AAA is near perfect in performance in DCS, when in reality it wouldn't seem to be so. I would agree with that. Even optically aimed, 12.7mm or 14.5mm machine guns on the top of a turret of a T-55 tank in DCS seems to always be aimed with the exact amount of lead and elevation to hit any aircraft within range that's on a steady flight path...even looking into the sun or being rattled by nearby exploding munitions. That does NOT seem very realistic. When you look at the tracers coming at you from one of these, it is a nice, clean arc right into you. Only if you are changing your flight path at the time do they miss. Seems like in reality, that stream of tracers should be quite dispersed and mostly off target. I have hand-aimed the M2, 50-cal machine gun mounted on a HMMWV in DCS and fired several thousand rounds at low-level aircraft making strafing runs nearby and have never been able to put even one round on an aircraft. Maybe I just suck at gunnery, or maybe that's reality. Or do the machine guns on the T-55 tank have precision, highly accurate range-finding, lead-computing sights? It seems like AI in DCS has no "human error" and electro-mechanical imperfection/lack-of-precision factored into it. When a Mk-82 detonates on the ground 100 meters away, and you have your upper body exposed, trying to aim and controllably fire a 12.7mm machine gun at a passing aircraft, do you think you might at least flinch a little and spoil your aim, if not be knocked aside by the pressure wave and forced to stop firing...and maybe not recover to fire any more for several seconds, if not minutes? If doing the same thing and then cluster munitions start popping off 100 meters away, are you going to hold your concentration and sustain accurate lead and elevation as you fire the machine gun at an aircraft? I think the reality is that 99% of people would stop firing and duck and cover. I think this needs to be factored into AI air defense. This would allow for effective air defense suppression. You don't have to kill them, just make them duck for a moment while your fellow pilots make their bomb runs. Now, radar-directed guns would be less likely to be "suppressed", unless the gun mounts are open and being hand loaded...in which case they should be forced to cease fire or reduce firing rate for a period of time. But how to "code" this human error and mechanical error in DCS without bogging down the computing power... Maybe the guns could have two levels of accuracy. One for normal operation, and a greatly reduced accuracy for when munitions are hitting the ground in an effective vicinity. And then a 3rd state where operation is suspended when damage or near damage is being taken by the gunners. Also, could there be a diagram released illustrating the "as simulated" blast and shrapnel effects range rings of various munitions in DCS. I'm not sure they're all realistic or consistent. For instance, I recently dropped M117, 750-lb GP bombs from the F-86F (latest DCS release version) and they left a "visual" crater that looked more like a small BBQ fire pit than a bomb crater. A single small "crater" from two bombs that hit together. I do realize visual effects and simulated impact on ground assets are two different things. But sometimes it seems like you can do more damage to your own plane with a dropped bomb than to an unarmored vehicle that's 10 times closer to the blast.

I think ED should produce this module. The F-100D is a development from the F-86 Sabre. It even uses a version of the same A-4 gunsight. I'm sure there are other commonalities, even though it is an entirely changed airframe and engine, of course. The F-100 was the world's first fighter capable of supersonic speed in level flight. The MiG-19 was a close second (I believe). We already have the MiG-19 module in DCS. How about the F-100? The F-100 flew combat missions over Vietnam from 1964 to 1971. I believe the type flew more missions over Vietnam than any other fighter, 360,283 combat sorties. More sorties than were flown by 15,000 P-51 Mustangs in WWII...and we have the P-51D in DCS. 1,274 F-100D's were built. Its four M39 20mm revolver cannons (like the pair in the F-5E) have a combined rate of fire close to that of the M61 Vulcan. It's a gun fighter, but like the F-86F, it can carry AIM-9 Sidewinders, too. Mostly, it's a fighter-bomber, though. It's similar to the F-86F and F-5E, sure, but it is a historical aircraft that played a larger role than the F-5E. But unlike the F-86F and F-5E, the F-100D can refuel in flight. And I think it would be fun to fly in DCS. I think the version to choose should be the same as that at the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum in Washington, DC. North American F-100D Super Sabre | Smithsonian Institution (si.edu)

Zeno's Flight Shop Videos F-105 DVD has F-105D/F Flight Manual...or at least the Pilot's Handbook. There's quite a bit of info in there. But maybe not enough to accurately reconstruct the flight model. They'll just have to do the best they can with feedback from real F-105 pilots. Republic F-105 Thunderchiefs Go to War DVD: Three films with 858 page F-105 Flight Handbook (zenosflightshop.com) I'd like the F-105D single-seat version. Don't bother with the Wild Weasel "G" version, at least not initially.

While I would love to have a B-52, it is a long range aircraft. Most of the maps are kind of small for it. In the Nevada map, a typical mission might be to take off from Nellis, fly around the perimeter of the map 1 to 10 times and drop 66 M117 750-lb bombs on a target (B-52D), then 1 to 10 times more around the map and land back at Nellis. How do you put bombs on target? There's no optical bombsight, is there? I think it was done with a radar bombing system, right? Not real accurate, but you're going to lay down a line of destruction. You just have to have that line cross the target area. Well, there are quite a number of other missions and weapons loads for it, I know. The other thing is can you "single pilot" it? It would be awesome for multicrew, but could you get 4 to 7 crew to stay joined to a single aircraft for hours at a time? Although, it could probably have 1 to 6 "Jesters" aboard to do the duties. "Tail gunner to navigator, are we there yet?" It would be cool!! I just don't expect it to happen, though. For a heavy aircraft in DCS, none would be better than the B-52, except maybe the B-1B. I'd pay $300 for a B-52 module that was at least as well done as the F-86F or F-5E. I just don't see it happening before 2030, if ever. I'd rather have an F-100D Super Sabre and F-105D Thunderchief before that, preferably within the next few years...I wish. F-4E (and F-4B or J), A-7E, F-15E and F-8J are for-sure buys for me when they come out. For a bomber, I'd be happy with an A-6E Intruder...and it can land on a carrier! Or a KA-3B Skywarrior...which can also land on a carrier...even an Essex-class carrier!

Towed KS-19 100mm and S-60 57mm AAA mounts linked with SON 9 "Fire Can" radar direction. Vietnam era.

I think concentrate mainly on a Vietnam map of around 1968 or 1972. I am not at all against your idea, though.

I still think a Vietnam Map would be best for next. I know it would be a large area, but parts of it would just have to be at lower detail levels where the action is typically not. It's also the classic theater for the upcoming F-4E Phantom II (as well as F-4B, C, D and J.) The A-7E, F-8J, A-6E and A-4E-C would all fit well there. The MiG-21bis and MiG-19P would be okay there, too. What is needed then is the F-105D, A-1H or J and F-100D, and MiG-17 (Isn't the MiG-17 essentially a stretched MiG-15 with a more swept wing and an afterburning engine? The cockpit and gun armament are probably mostly the same). And a few AI aircraft: KC-135A, KA-3B, RA-5C (static), HH-3E and SH-3E. The HH-3E Jolly Green might be a good one to be multicrew flyable, though. Of course, more modern aircraft could be used in various scenarios. Question is, can a map be made that is about 650 NM across by 570 NM north to south (14-30' N to 23-30' N and 99-30' E to 111-00' E)? If the whole thing was detailed, I reckon not. But can parts of it be very detailed and other parts low detail? Such as the way NAS China Lake and NAS Fallon are now on the Nevada Map? Areas that will not see action can be low detail. Much of the areas of Thailand might be low detail because they will typically be overflown at high altitude. What makes it so large are the airbases in Thailand. Takhli and Khorat are way down in the southwest corner. But definitely exclude Bangkok from the map. Too much detail would have to go into that. So, no B-52 base at U Tapao...and none of the area south of Chu Lai. The other bases would be Udorn, Ubon, and Nakon Phanom, I think. Along the coast would be Da Nang and Chu Lai. Most of the detailed areas would be nearly all of North Vietnam and eastern portions of Laos. The Hanoi area circa 1968, not today...the whole map would be circa 1968...which should work for the whole period of 1964 to 1975. Offshore would be Yankee Station where the carriers and their escort ships would be stationed...something like a Forrestal and a "CVA" Essex with maybe a "CVS" Essex as escort and about 8-10 destroyers and cruisers as escorts. That might include a cruiser and destroyer up north to provide radar coverage. I think a Vietnam Map would be the best, most classic area until global scenery comes around. The jets could really stretch their legs...most missions would usually require in-flight refueling. And until an F-100 Super Sabre and A-1 Skyraider are made, the F-86F and P-47D could fill in. This map would have no desert and no snow, but lots of humidity to make the jets show vapor over the wings much of the time at low levels. And visible shock waves around bomb bursts. Also, try to include towering cumulous clouds, and associated cloud layers high and low.

I did indeed mean this to be a reference to Blazing Saddles! LOL "All we have to do is build an exact replica of the town of Rock Ridge". You see, an exact replica of the town of Vegas...well, sort of. "And then they'll think it's the real Vegas, but we'll know it's the fake Vegas." I was just having fun with it all. The talk of the fake signs just hit my funny bone. BTW, the great Governor William J. Le Petomane was named after a French entertainer, Joseph Pujol (1890s), aka "Le Petomane", or "the fart maniac", who could legendarily break wind at will...apparently without crapping his pants. He was a farteur or fartiste. Look it up on Wikipedia. LOL

This is the winner, right here! Wow! Outstanding, P-51D OMT!! My aim is to make a generic cockpit "tub" so I can mount flight control hardware and switch boxes and then using VR see if I can use it for multiple aircraft. It won't be a 1-to-1 location match with the VR cockpit, but as long as I know most of the switches' locations by touch, I think it will work.

Maybe there could be a mod for that. To give the option of randomly, every 25-100 hours of time in the sim, one of a couple dozen strange lights or crafts might be seen in that vicinity...if you are there to see it. Or randomly placed within 30nm radius of any point you specify in a mission. Maybe spawn at 90,000' and dive to 500' AGL at Mach 8. Hover and/or do various possible maneuvers. Maybe emit beams or lights, maybe illuminate the ground, momentarily. React to you with evasive maneuvers if you get within a couple miles. Give you about 15-30 seconds and bug out, vertically, at Mach 8 again. Or bug out immediately if you launch or fire anything at it, or even just lock on to it. Subtle things, though, nothing gawdy or blatant. Although sometimes the objects might show up in multiples or formations.

It's a fake! You've been suckered in! Weren't you suspicious when you paid your dime at the Le Petomane Toll Booth in the middle of the desert on your way in to town?

Darkdiz, how has this worked out? I want to connect two Windows 10 PC's within my LAN so that my son and I can fly together in DCS. Can it be done without a dedicated server? I have a 3rd fairly fast PC that could be a dedicated server if needed to be. But I don't know how to get two copies of DCS playing together without using an online server. Do you know? Sounds like you might be trying to do the same thing? Does each PC need to have its own unique DCS account? If I want to fly as two crewmembers in an F-14, does each PC need its own purchased copy of the F-14?

I agree. It should be considerably more forward. And they are not the correct font. And the anchors are missing. But I think it is still a 'work in progress'. Also, I don't know what the structure feature is called, but you can see a horizontal line marking different angles of the hull right below the numbers of the photo. But the model does not seem to possess that line. So, the shape may be wrong, too. If I may criticize...keeping in mind that I have contributed zero ships.

Pilot: either "Topper" or "Wash Out" Guy-in-back: "Dead Meat" ...because you guys are undoubtedly going to get him killed!

As to WHEN it might come out as Early Access: I would hope for a response from HB such as... They are aiming for October 2022. If they encounter difficulties with development, it could slip to as far out as April 2023 or more. If everything goes well, possibly even September 2022. And that they will TRY to give us an update the last week of every month, until then. Even if to say, "Progress continues."...with a picture of some part of the aircraft to keep us pacified. Something like that. Just my guessing/example here, I know nothing about the actual timeline!! But if they tell us something like this, then we'd know from the start what time period we're looking at and even the chance it could take significantly longer. And if it is going to be ready in July, just keep telling us October and then surprise us! Thanks, HB!

A-4E - Check MiG-17 - on the way...? A-6E (close enough) - on the way A-7E (close enough) - on the way F-8J - on the way All we need then is a Thud, a Hun, and a Spad. (F-105D, F-100D, A-1H) -- and a Jolly Green (HH-3)

Thanks! I did. I edited the first post. Is it good now or have I ruined it? Or should I just "hide" the whole topic? Is this of any use to anyone, or just a distraction, or garbage?

True. How do I rename it? Or, I'm fine with having it removed, entirely from here. I've copied my last post of positive comments on the mod in a single post on the Community A-4E 2.0 thread. This is the last I'm going to post here.

I was most definitely out of date!! Dang! I guess I kept looking at: Community A-4E Project | The Community Repo for A-4E-C and its Official Submods (heclak.github.io) ....and kept seeing version 1.4. I thought work on the A-4E-C had reached its end. I think that page needs to be updated!! I have version 2.0.0 now. Wow! This is one sweet mod, now! I've discovered a lot! Radios work. It seems, not always, but often, you need to set the correct UHF comm frequency to get a response. Good. You can program the Channels and use them, too. Flight Model: Feels much more fluid and properly limited, now. The clean A-4E is a scooter! Start hanging things under the wings and it really drags down. Even a pair of Sidewinders is a drag. I think this is realistic, though. And yet you can hang 12 Mk-82's underneath and still fly reasonably well. That's a 6,000 lb load on an ~11,000 lb aircraft! (not including internal fuel). In-flight refueling: You can refuel from the KC-130 and S-3B Tanker (probably the KC-135 with the 'basket', too). It seems like you must have the tanker's UHF frequency set on your comm radio to communicate with the tanker...which makes sense. It sure would be nice to have an (AI) A-4E-C Tanker that would carry the refueling store on the centerline and 300-gallon tanks on pylons 2 & 4 (and no pylons carried at stations 1 & 5). Would also be nice to have an (AI) KA-6D Tanker (carrying five 300-gallon tanks) and KA-3B Tanker in DCS. An (AI) A-1J Skyraider with external tanks and external refueling store would be nice, too. (And an (AI) Grumman E-1B Tracer as the AWACS). Throw in an angled-deck Essex carrier and this would be all set for Yankee Station...but those other planes are outside this mod, I know. Carrier Landings: I can make approaches to carriers now and get the FLOLS to appear and LSO to comment on my landings (not sure if that comes from having Supercarrier module). Although, the LSO's lateral guidance seems to be off-center for the Melbourne II and Clemenceau carriers. But if I ignore that, and ignore the "wave-off, wave-off", I can catch a wire practically every time on Clemenceau (but not on Melbourne). No more exploding!! I haven't found the correct version of the Hermes carrier that has arresting wires, yet. APC: The automatic power compensator (auto-throttle) works very well and makes carrier approaches much easier. I set elevator trim for 6-deg., full flaps, gear down, hook down and engage the APC. You have to hold the nose up quite high in attitude (realistic). For those like me who are addicted to HUDs with velocity vectors, if you set the A-4's bomb sight to about 164 mil, the center of the sight is a pretty good indicator of where you're going in this landing configuration. If you're high on the ball, hold the site about 5-10 mil below the end of the carrier deck and vice versa for being low. The APC will take care of the throttle, and you'll make a controlled correction. I can make nice, slow, stabilized approaches this way. Radar: Awesome! Far, far improved over the one in ver1.4!! It actually 'paints' recognizable terrain now. It paints the ships at sea and buildings on land, too. Unfortunately, it does not paint aircraft. It "should" be able to, within range. It wouldn't track or lock on any targets, but it should show those with sufficient radar cross-section...which can help in locating wingmen or tankers. However, that may be a problem to implement, I don't know. Bombing computer: I used to have a hard time getting on the right dive angle, speed and release altitude at the calculated mil-setting on the bomb sight before. Now, with the bomb computer, you set the sight at 0-mils and the Weapon Mode selector at CMPTR. And set the radar to GRND mode. Put the bombsight on the target at greater than 30-deg dive, press-and-hold the bomb release button and start a gradual pull-up. The bombs release automatically at the required time. In combination with the intervalometer, I can lay 6 Mk-82's down a row of targets pretty easily, now. I'm not sure it works on ships at sea, though. And I do all this in VR with a Rift S headset. I know it says, "No plans to make any other versions of the Skyhawk", but an A-4B (Argentina A-4P) is going to be almost needed. It should be able to use the same flight model, I think. I'm not sure what all is in a flight model. Different engine, J65-W-16, close to the same thrust (800 lbs less), but higher specific fuel consumption, I believe. Smaller engine intakes. Shorter nose and only 3 stores stations. Same wing. Same 20mm guns. Same landing gear. Same canopy and cockpit, bit with different instruments. No radar. No doppler drift/groundspeed indicator. Older navigation computer, but same functions (I think). It might not have the APC, either. No bombing computer. Much simpler weapons panel. No avionics hump. But it has a windshield wiper! ...and the US Navy used this version as a fighter in the 1960's to defend ASW carriers! It could still scoot and carry a couple Sidewinders. I think it should be a future project once the A-4E has maxed out. And as for a future mod? How about the KA-3B Skywarrior? No ejection seats! Would pretty much only use it as a tanker, but it would be cool to fly around in. Or else, the A-1J Skyraider?