LanceCriminal86

Instead of the Glove Vanes, I'd like to lobby for Victory205 recording LSO lines to judge all of our traps without mercy. All liveries will be locked except for RAG liveries from VF-101 and VF-124, and they will only be the bland line ones. Once the VictoryAI™ has seen consistent on speed on AOA 3-wires enough to legit qual you, other skins will unlock. Fly bad enough and the F-14 module locks out, and you are forced to use an alternate low-fidelity C-123 module with the only available mission being flying prank dog droppings to and from Kutaisi. If we're going to talk about changes that might actually be impactful though, how about the comments on pulling fuses for the maneuvering flaps to put the jet in a cleaner cruise/loiter configuration? Is there any truth to that in actual fleet usage or would the impact to fuel economy be minimal and we should just stop sucking at refueling?

What the "early" Tomcat is actually going to be like sounds like it's still up in the air. Though I personally want the bullet fairing as I have a love affair with the reserve squadrons that used them for a very long time, it seems that in fleet squadrons on-cruise you either saw the complete lack of the housing and just the ALQ-100/position light, or an actual TCS when they were available. I believe I had even heard sometimes the TCS were traded between squadrons/wings coming back from cruise with those going out on cruise until they were more plentiful. So then squadrons ashore would sport bullet fairings or the ALQ only setup for training, Fallon/Key West detachments, and work-ups before they went on cruise again. It would be great to have lots of options and even room for community modded TCS housings, but that depends on how the TCS pod is handled for the upcoming model reworks. If the TCS got turned into a mountable pod just like the LANTIRN, that could very well be a possibility. Perhaps then early IRST styles could be modeled for those wanting the first blocks of Tomcats, or to "pretend" for a D model use a D TCS modded in. Obviously IRST would not work but at least those really wanting to fly VF-31, VF-2, VF-213 from the 90s-00s could have some way to at least make things look right on the outside.

The most extreme distance LOD model is untextured, that's why you're seeing that. Past the first LOD the A and B share the long distance LODs, with the final being the F-14B_LOD_Distant.edm. Since it's untextured it has a roughly ghost gray color which is what makes it seem to pop. My question is what are you doing that makes you actually notice this? You have to zoom out extremely far to see this, or extremely far in at a very, very distant jet to see that transition. In any practical situation in DCS you aren't going to see that transition.

I'll have to dig it up, but now that I think of it wasn't VTAS or at least the underlying system used for the Apache's helmet tracking system?

The concept certainly was ahead of its time, and the fact they were able to get the head tracking with early IR, which is basically the same exact tech we use for head-trackers in sims now is pretty cool. I found one of the pics, take a look along the canopy rails: Like the HUD and ACLS and a few other technologies, (had it been fully adopted and added to Tomcats) I feel like it's the kind of thing someone like Victory205 would step in and tell us works way better in DCS than the real thing ever did. And then 2-3 people would argue about it with him. And I get that performance charts are important for trying to compare the general performance of aircraft. But it seems that there's more to it than what those charts show as to where the actual performance of the F-4, be it a slatted E or later N/S, in comparison to NATO jets or COMBLOC for that matter of the 70s and 80s. I know we had many secretive programs testing captured/acquired Soviet aircraft against ours, and maybe someday there will be gobs of data that could be gleaned if they ever get to see the light of day. But I think there are plenty of very good reasons the F-4s were relegated to reserve and non front-line postings over the years as Eagles, Tomcats, and Vipers continued to be built. Turn the clock back to Vietnam and wasn't the whole reason TOPGUN was created to learn and teach tactics to combat smaller and more nimble opponents, namely the Mig-17 and Mig-21? Weren't the strategies taught to focus on wingman coordination and using the Phantom's thrust in the vertical rather than turning circle? I recalled that being a big part in the shifts in kill ratios for Navy, Marine, and AF Phantoms, using the other advantages the jet possessed. And I can't recall where the heck I saw it but there was talk about the slats on the later F-4s not necessarily being a 100% win either, trading off turn rate for increased drag and less acceleration as you unload? Lots of back and forth but where are the F-4 J/N/S charts for sustained turn rates? I saw someone try to extrapolate numbers by playing with the weight of the slatted AF E models and he claimed his numbers would have the F-4S turning at the same rate as an F-14. I like the idea of the challenge that fighting newer and more nimble jets would present an F-4J/N/S (or E for those afraid of boats/swimming) pilot during the Cold War, but I also can see where having feckless AI wingmen would kill any notion of fun. So until that gets sorted out and AI start using actual FMs with stall mechanics, maybe it's better if the Phantom in any form stays down the road.

I actually have a VTAS helmet that was converted back to a "regular" helmet, and the gentleman who used it verified the VTAS system was too bulky to be comfortable and effective. It introduced a lot of extra neck strain, which was not ideal in high-g dogfights. The VTAS II didn't improve much over the I in that regard, and a lot of that is why the setup died with the Phantom. It was tested on the Tomcat and this helmet was apparently used in some of those flights with VX-4 both in Phantoms and Tomcats in the early/mid 70s, I believe following AIMVAL/ACEVAL. You can see the VTAS boxes in a few VX-4 photos that I've seen but can't seem to find right now. VTAS also died out because the AIM-9 at the time just wasn't ready for it, I believe missile performance in terms of the seeker and maneuverability just didn't match up to the ability to use the sight to get a lock during a tight circling fight. The JHMCS and AIM-9X though apparently finally brought the concept to fruition, albeit some 30-40 years after it was tested and rolled out in limited use.

But I'm talking about Phantom pilots that transitioned to the Tomcat, who are making the night and day performance statements. Including F-4 Reserve pilots who came back from a joint exercise with the AF wearing a bunch of F-15 kill markers on their old F-4N models. Yes, it's an illustration that a poorly flown Eagle could get its lunch eaten by a Phantom, but a properly flown one should have no problems beating even a very experienced Phantom every time. In this instance the Reserve squadrons happened to be stocked with experienced Navy fleet pilots, many RAG instructors and TOPGUN grads. When they transitioned to the F-14 in 1987 the feedback I have gotten is that the Tomcat changed everything, BVR and BFM. https://www.google.com/amp/s/theaviationgeekclub.com/that-time-us-navy-f-4s-scored-plenty-of-kills-against-then-brand-new-usaf-f-15s-in-mock-air-combat/ I still want an F-4, J or S. But I'm fully aware that it wasn't the tightest turning jet, even with the various slat changes.

Any of you guys also running a Virpil Tomcat stick with the currrent T50 base and 200mm curved extension? If so, how are you mounting to the floor? Not planning a full-on cockpit but I'd like to arrange something with the most important controls, and I've got some Crosswind pedals coming in so I need to find some way to get my stick at the right height but also not be so cumbersome as to keep me from being able to reach the pedals. Current setup is really ghetto and made of wood, and there's no way to get to the pedals. I've looked at some of the pre-configured sim seat frames but none have stood out so far as having a bar or plate to mount it on, plus trying to get it solidly mounted so it won't flex around.

It looks like there is a normal map, the files in the default textures zipper in the mod with the _B are all bump/normal maps. Generate a livery file and then go edit/update the livery file to overwrite those and remove the baked in letters.

Here's a couple more shots, starting at the 3:30 or so mark from VF-24 and VF-211, both AIM-7 and AIM-54C shots at 4:05:

Oh you can absolutely go to jail for divulging classified information. If the government still knows it's classified that's all it takes. It doesn't require "hard proof". Even though some portions of the Tomcat manuals apparently were cleared to declassify and release, ITAR still stood in the way of a FOIA in another thread which means that verbally or electronically divulging that information falls under the same rules. And there were portions not cleared for declassification as well that would have been redacted from the requested manuals. Until that day where ITAR or the State Dept get told to pound sand, I doubt a lot of the former RIOs or techs are going to want to divulge anything even remotely risky. I know some have even expressed that they'd love to go into it but again, not worth risking. ITAR sucks.

There would be no Phantom without the naval Phantom. To have an E but no Navy Phantom I could reverse the sentiment that it would be just as wrong to have. There's a ton of E variants and spinoffs for export, it's impossible to do an E that's one-size-fits-all. They'd have to pick one and then some specific country fans would be bummered, though I'd figure most would just slap their roundel on there and enjoy it anyways. I'm unsure I could care less about the "capabilities" or "roles" a Phantom brings to DCS. The Tomcat isn't a groundbreaker in multirole do-everything that seems to get most DCS folks all jazzed up. It's good at being a Tomcat, which is why I like it. I don't want it to be a Hornet, nor am I super sad it isn't the super late D model that's more "capable". I want a Phantom that goes on boats, has no gun, handles like ass compared to a Tomcat, and leaves borderline Soviet amounts of smoke behind it. Ideally an S as it slots in with the Tomcat, A-7E, and Tomcats Intruders. It would also fit in if anyone ever does the Midway class. You could close one eye and pretend it's a J if you restrict yourself of some loadouts maybe, and squint a bit more you could pretend it were an N or even a B for the folks that really need their VN Phantom vs Fishbed matchup. But what it also needs are more contemporary adversaries, and even if not flyable then the more reason to get that AI flight model overhaul we were promised however many years ago so we can dogfight and also have our AI be more useful wingmen, which a Phantom in the 80s would need to counter the many more nimble COMBLOC opponents it would be stacked up against. Not saying the E shouldn't be in here, I just think a Naval jet completes the flow of what they've been building out. As pointed out perhaps TrueGrit could someday bring a German F-4F that would fit in that slot?

No. B, J, N, and S were all gunless, and not seeing any indicators pods were really used at all either.

The Forrestal is not being made by ED, it's being made by Heatblur to accompany the F-14 module and will be made available to everyone in DCS.

The photo I recalled seemed to have wing fences, a feature the F-4 doesn't have, and where I'd expect to see the elevators they were not apparent.

We I'll be damned, photo from 1959 over on Seaforces.org: And the Oriskany in 1969:

Ah, almost forgot about the Savage. I know it and the Tracker were bigger but I guess I'm not thinking of them on the same scale as the A-3 or the A-5. Now I'm curious to look back and see what all operated off the Essex and Midway decks.

If you think about when they were implemented though, we didn't have many of the monster aircraft in inventory at the time. Think F9F Cougars, A-4s, A-1s. I don't believe the A-3 or A-5 had shown up, though the Phantom was used off the later Midway change. And even when the Phantom, Intruder, and other bigger stuff were adopted the Forrestal class were online and the Kitty Hawk class was on the way. But the old converted Essex carriers like Lexington and Hornet, and the Midway class were still used as attack carriers chock full of A-4s and the lighter aircraft.

Officially un-officially, yes there are more "planned" liveries. There's been a goal that each squadron that operated the A and B should have a skin or two included at a minimum. But there is no guarantee that everyone's favorite liveries can make it as "default", even as popular as the movie is. The nice thing is while fat creason, Naquaii, and the other FM/system folks work on these anticipated FM upgrades to help the Tomcat fly more accurately, it doesn't impact resources to make the Tomcat look more accurate. So while everyone is happily thrashing the Forrestal's decks more liveries are always being worked on.

... posts while having the F/A-18 as his avatar.

Why not build a bridge out of it?

Still playing with the Film Workshop reshade plugin, trying to see if I can get good replication of the Kodachrome look.

I'd bet those baffles in there would change how it sounds too compared to an F-15 or F-16, or even a Hornet....

C-130 first flight was in 1954, and KC-135 was adopted in 1956.

You have not provided any video of an F-14 shooting the gun, inside or outside. Clips of F-15E, F-15C, F-16C, and F/A-18C shooting the gun in strafing passes all sounded substantially different from each other. And even none of those passes were having the listener from the same angle, same duration of burst, nor are the guns in those jets mounted in even remotely the same way as the F-14. I know of one camcorder clip of a Tomcat doing a gun pass, with typical 80s/90s camcorder quality. And as has been pointed out before, sound is a complicated subject depending on the angle it's being heard from, the speed of the object, and the Doppler effect.