LanceCriminal86

Drivebys elusive pylon photo Refuses to elaborate

Based on how loud the engines are I have sincere doubts someone could ever hear the wing sweep servos on a running jet, from any position. The TF-30s were more than loud enough to blow out all but the best recording equipment and most crews doubled up on ear protection. I'd even doubt much if any tactile/haptic feedback based on how demo flight videos and cockpit recordings so often have the RIO visually watching and calling out that the wings were moving to the pilot to verify their position.

I went back through some of the old Tomcat Association posts about the very topic, and only 1 jet ever put out an instrumented run @ 2.4 Mach, which was 1X (the replacement jet for the prototype that crashed). Context was a demo run for contract to prove it could hit certain numbers, but that would have been a very clean prototype jet, with all of the intake ramp positions, and without de-rated TF-30s as fleet jets later received. The prototype jets didn't even have radar or most of the production internal electronics, but rather had instrumentation collection/transmission gear for test data but quite different from the ultimate production jets. So we're talking about a much lighter, lower drag jet making those numbers, once. Anecdotes from fleet pilots, RAG instructors, Grumman pilots, and even folks at Pax River in later years was that a fleet configured A, "slick" as in no stores, was about good for 2.0 with maybe a little more room depending on how ballsy you were with fuel and getting lashes for the paint getting scorched. Most pilots that actually tried ended up in the 1.8-1.9 Mach regions before having to beeline to land. Consider fleet jets had the glove pylons on, possibly fuel tank pylons, and over time much more weight than the prototype jets. The late 90s F-14A 135-GRs we have in DCS as mentioned had more weight from the ALQ-126 jammers that were added, TCS pod, ARL-67, GPS dome and wiring for LANTIRN, and other various changes internally. The 80s ones won't be much different, maybe slightly less weight from not having ALR-67's added equipment versus the ALR-45/50 and without the GPS dome and other sundry bits needed for LANTIRN. That adds up in terms of weight and drag. And that 80s configuration still was heavier with more drag than the older block jets like -90s, and the early production jets before the engines were de-rated to prevent the compressors from coming apart(60, 65, 70 blocks). The comments about B/D jets were similar, some claiming they saw 2.0 with some room to keep going but backed off to avoid the wrath of maintainers or other repercussions. Most of those weren't fleet scenarios either, but RAG instructors or Grumman delivery/test folks on "Shakedown" flights.

There's also the EA-6As that were used by the Navy and Marines, and retained by Navy Reserves and the Marines for a decent amount of time. VAQ-209 didn't move to the EA-6B until 1990. They look like a 2-place EA-6B.

To you, sure. But doing model changes and doing them correctly involves a lot more work and shortcuts is not something they generally do. Even the changes to existing models like the F-14, minor as they may seem, take significant time to ensure they are done correctly, textures are properly updated, UVWs are updated, model arguments added/updated, etc.

AI G will need a handful of model changes beyond just slapping a skin and some weapons on it. I wouldn't mind seeing it too but it's an extra AI aircraft to have to add in the pipeline and dedicate resources to adding the G specific antennas and changes to the airframe. The gun fairing needs to be converted do add the G's sensor suite, the tail fin cap altered to add the G style antenna, and there may be some other changes along the spine to other antennas, maybe needing ARN-101. But you can quickly tell a G by the tail and chin, if HB does things they lean towards doing it right. Here's a G and E in flight together, G in foreground. As mentioned note the change to the end of the gun pod and bulbous tail antenna vs the E in the background, and at least one extra spine antenna.

At some point in the future, the base textures for the B and A should be getting updated and certain model features like the ALQ-128 jammer blisters should get added, some model corrections done, and the new pilot bodies added. Potentially those will all be coordinated around the 80s -135 and IRIAF additions but it may be done more spread out. As to the pylon areas, us rivet counters have to work back through our skins and remove the baked-in AO that leaves the shadowed area, I know Yae's been working through his and now that I have free time again I will do the same. That said, we've been waiting to see what the updates to the externals will bring as it may be more efficient to just do our updates at the same time since the A models need some alterations to the diffuse, normals, and roughmets that need to become part of the base textures on A models. With the announcement of the AI Intruder coming this summer I'd expect art stuff to be coming along soon as it sounds like the internal art resources are in full swing.

The photos are from Saratoga's 1992 cruise during an airshow visit in Belgium or the Netherlands. The jets are still fairly new though post-Gulf War and most scans of the book out there are not of the most amazing quality where you'd pick up imperfections. The cockpits as-is are going to align more with the timeframes modeled in the late 90s when LANTIRN was being added, and most of those Bs had about 10 years of heavy use, and the As just as many years if not more.

If the S gets the nod I will of course be doing VF-201 and VF-202, to go with the F-14A skins I will hopefully have perfected by then. Significant of course as VF-202 performed the last trap of an F-4 on a US Navy carrier. VMFA-112 were also at NAS Dallas with VF-201 and VF-202 as a Marine Reserve squadron, so I will naturally do their F-4Js and F-4Ss as well They were the last Marine F-4s as well, so another significant squadron/skin I'll take care of. (this from '83 or '84). They finally transitioned to F/A-18As in 1992.

I don't think I'd go that far, many Naval Aviators have lost their lives during or as a result of ACM/BFM training hops. Even the daily "norm" of the job was dangerous, accidents happened, aircraft had failures, and folks perished doing what should have been routine flights.

More logical to wait until the actual variants are decided upon and go from there. At which point an official thread will get started anyways. If the J/S end up being the chosen variants, then expect skins based on the timeframe/build first and then some circling around of other options. The J could be an early 70s J and not initial production, could be a "Super J" which straddles between J and S upgrade, or an S. There were not as many Navy squadrons that operated the S (briefly VF-74/103, 21/154, 151/161, RAG, and Reserves for a few years), but there should be a solid number of Marine squadrons and stretching even into the 90s. If a later B or N is also done, that again shifts the skin options around (such as the B in the post). Not much point starting request threads when the variant hasn't been finalized, as B/N skins on a J/S model should be more of a community skin thing.

Within DCS there's also the assumption that every module has been made to the same accuracy and standards, references, crew interviews, etc. Other module developers may choose to present their modules differently, may have limited or different access to cockpits or aircraft to scan, may choose newer aircraft with less years on them or a lower optempo of usage, or they may choose simply to make clean cockpits.

On the contrary to your first statement, it's already been stated more than once by the HB team that they didn't leave the cockpit panel scans from the museum jets "as is", they had to clean them up to the level that matched SME input on what in-use fleet jet cockpits would look like. Especially if we're talking about the late fleet As and Bs portrayed currently. At the latest they were built between the early 80s and around 1987-1988, so they've had at least 10 years of constant, heavy usage at the point they are modeled between 1996-1998. To your second statement, yes the jets being seen by the 90s had been in service for quite a while, even the jets in service in the 80s. After even a single cruise for a fresh jet they've been exposed to months of salty air and sea spray, constant operating tempo of flights, pilots and maintainers climbing in and out of cockpits, panels being removed for servicing, corrosion control checks. Even when squadrons got brand new jets before a cruise, they typically were flying them heavily during workups and carrier qual/traps, live fires, and whatever other operations the wing performed to prepare for the cruise. Even by that time, you're already putting a lot of hours on the jet with the same maintenance, checks, and high tempo of usage even if they aren't at sea yet. During the cruises, corrosion control on the outside and inside of the jet meant touchup paint after sanding, blasting, or chemically removing any oxidation or rust, and then covering it with fresh paint. The same would happen inside the cockpit as needed, and as needed cockpit labels would be touched up or redone, sometimes with paint or apparently even Dymo labels. It's tough to find good examples of the actual cockpits during the cruise, there really aren't a lot of photos out there, videos are older VHS or camcorders with not the best resolution, and most photos with film grain may be covering up scratches and imperfections that would be present. If you look at the outsides of the jet though, You can see where what were briefly brand new, glossy, hi-vis Tomcats at the start of a cruise, and they come home at the end of the cruise a patchwork of corrosion control paint. Even better, sometimes their "new" jets had already been at VF-101 or VF-124 for a year or so, getting flogged by the RAG and students. Add that extra wear and tear before they even got the jets and again, it was not really a thing that a squadron was going to depart with a perfect, as delivered Grumman factory jet, and have it be that way still even a few months into the cruise. On the count of doing mods or reworking the cockpit textures, the problem is that even with the work and labor being done to freshen up or redo labels, they're working on DDS files that have already been compressed down from the source textures, which will then again be compressed, further losing some quality. Which is a shame because I know a lot of work is going into it, but it'd probably be a lot better with uncompressed PNGs as a base to start the work on. We've had the same issue trying to help rework the engine nacelle textures, roughmets, and normals because we're not starting with the uncompressed source files and losing fidelity. The common thread I seem to see is VR. And it seems that the issues with VR are focused around 1) How the headsets handle resolution and clarity, and 2) How DCS handles and projects the textures for the headsets. Yes, VR seems to be THE way to go for these kind of flight sims for the future, same with racing and space sim/games. But the arguments about readability versus reality tell me that maybe the frustrations should go back to how the core DCS engine is doing the rendering and how it interfaces with VR headsets and GPUs. The same goes for longstanding spotting and rendering complaints, visibility from cockpits, and other elements that are trying to mimic the human eye and how we see.

There may have been some remaining parts needing conversion to PBR, namely fuel tanks. It's not forgotten, afaik there are just many things on the stove that need tending to.

And Navy aircraft aboard a carrier add not just the exposure to salty air and sea spray, rain, and sun, but a high operating tempo. It's like those car, deck, or truck bed coating tests where they do exposure and wear testing but sped up 1000% by just salt blasting the part for days and days on end or have a robot opening and slamming a door 500 times a minute. Talking to corrosion control guys and maintainers of all sorts it was an around the clock job to keep the squadron's jets up, and not every squadron, air wing, or ship had the same success depending on leadership and supply. One could maybe expect Air Force aircraft to at least have a gentler service life or maybe not as aggressive wear outside of heavy SEA combat rotations in the 60s and 70s. Of course we've had more than a few AF maintainers come through with "we'd never let our jets look like that!" but they also had a different set of circumstances, time, budget, and motivation to work off of.

Maybe try from 30-40k altitude and see if it continues?

This has been answered many times in many threads, they will ALL have leading edge slats as retrofitted through '74 on the earlier block jets. Serials from 66-69 series with those upgrades will be the initial release, and later serials from 71- onward with TISEO and DMAS will be the later release.

No, they referenced a number of jets. One was an F, but more than one US E was also referenced and checked over to make sure all the bits were right.

@VFlipmay have gotten a bit carried away with Luftwaffle Phantoms...

Considering I initiated the thread (with blessing and to have it pinned) to be the core F-4E discussion on liveries, it is a relevant point that the thread is not for B, C, D, J, N, S, K etc. jets. Up front it was said export USAF F-4E and the export Es, to include the F. Of course some G photos have been posted or asked about but the G isn't being done on the core side, plus they share the same schemes as Es but with different squadron/wing markings (and of course the external antenna differences). The purpose of *this thread* was to collect reference photos, squadrons, dates, photos of pilots/helmets, serial numbers, and names to both build core liveries to include with the module (which we continue to do), but also for those that want to do skins once the template is released. While we've already got some stuff identified for core/release skins, it's going to be that much harder now to go back through and build some ideas for other squadrons that could be done to match the earlier and later block Es, as well as good export candidates. Please do create an "Every other Phantom that's not an E/F Livery and skin idea" thread, it's a good ways off but maybe that will help keep this one focused on what it was originally focused on.

Animated visors had already been on the "things they want to do" list and mentioned in the past, NV's just going to require some more stages/changes to that. It's looking like MT as it matures can lessen the impact of all the draw calls or having to store the different iterations, so it probably won't be unlikely to see them. Bungee visor just needs a down, up, and removed anim state, and then NVG with the brackets added on in a down, up, and off state. Then mix the two appropriately with keybinds/states to set them in the sim (or potentially also in loadout), ie NVG mounted triggers visor state to off then toggling NVG in sim should animate the visuals up and down. It's really just a matter of time, probably not even an if or "wishlist" item since the HGU-55's already in the pipe. Who knows, maybe it could come along at the same time or be at least prepped since the HGU-55s going to need all that rigging anyways and there's plenty of references for the HGU-55 NVG kits. Wishlist would more be adding the NV lighting kits that were rolled to fleet squadrons somewhere after 1995 and added onto in later years as that means further art changes in the cockpit and ways to enable the lighting kit, and figuring out how it was controlled. And after all, they'll need the NV stuff for the Intruder someday since as said, they pioneered it in the late 80s with VA-65 taking the capability on a first cruise in '87 and VA-35 soon after in '89. So with the Intruder you'd need to be able to have all that modeled and ready to go. And they had modified cockpits on some aircraft as well, which for a period of time were assigned a higher MODEX in the squadron in the 52x range. Similar to the later Tomcat mods the cockpit lighting was changed to green for NVG use.

In reality you'd not be having NVGs on HGU-33s, so trying to force that for both helmet types is going to be a problem. While the HGU-55 did have kits and mounting solutions there were also the HGU-68s with a similar mount, but before them there were also other dedicated helmets designed for NVG systems and there's not going to be a way to represent all of those directly (HGU-85, HGU-66). Realistically you'd lock out NVG use with the HGU-33 helmets and the years they were still in use, plus Tomcat crews didn't start using NVGs until quite a number of years after Intruder crews pioneered it and then Hornet squadrons started utilizing them. Then you have the issue where with NVGs mounted the HGU-55's bungee visors should probably be removed as the NVG mount blocks where the visors rest. So that's a whole other animation issue to have to work out, mounting NVGs and removing visors, animating NVGs up and down, and then separately with NVGs off animating visors up and down for HGU-55 and for HGU-33. That's a lot of extra animation and model states to have to cram into the EDM and load/store and then display. http://www.flightgear.dk/mountnvg.htm

Yes, in order for most any optic or lit display to work with night vision, it needs to be very dim as the whole purpose of an NVG is to amplify light. On infantry weapons, any riflescopes, red dots, holographic sights such as the Aimpoint family or Eotechs, if you set them to the NV settings (on the versions that are designed to be NV compatible) the reticles will be almost invisible in normal light. But under night vision they should look okay without too much bloom. The same principle would apply to any HUDs, MFDs, and button back-lighting. The other issue is that NVGs aren't really set up for autofocusing at different planes like our eyes are. The ANVIS and Cat's Eyes family of NV were designed for aviation use and may have been intended to be more forgiving about near and far focus, but the common PVS-14 used during the War on Terror years typically was set for distances more relevant for infantry use. One thing that was invented was a sort of quick-focus lever for NV monocles that would allow a user to quickly go from near-plane when they needed to read maps, notes, signs, check weapons, work on wounds, etc. and flipping the other way for a longer focal plane to see distance clearly. I've been chatting with some of the Intruder folks who first brought the capability to the fleet in the late 80s, so that's actually a question I may ask them about whether the old Cat's Eyes and ANVIS setups were set to focus the cockpit controls or outside the jet to see terrain, tanking, etc. I'm almost certain the existing F-14 modules don't represent any of the specific mods made to F-14 As and Bs in the mid-late 90s, so while you can use NVG in the cockpit you're experiencing it closer to what crews in the early-mid 90s did when they first started adapting that capability. That in turn is where the special HSD/VDI filters and lighting kits came up, and I believe at least for the B UPGRADE and D jets their HUDs may have had that super low setting for NV, but I'd have to ask some folks. I might have some later 'A' folks I could ask too about it and see what they recall on the old original HUD.

Night vision was in use with F-14s during the 90s and 00s, yes. In later years there were lighting modification kits performed in the cockpit, which are not modeled, that replaced or added an alternative flood lighting and some other possible changes that aren't 100% clear as there's not a ton of documents for it.

There's been no plans or intent stated or released to go down the rabbit holes of adding more to the export F-4Es other than some bonus pilot models for one or two nationalities. They've stated they're not going to model deeper into the EJ, Kurnass, Terminator, F-4F, etc. past skins and pilots. Doing so would open a whole Pandora's Box of "well you did Israel, what about the Japanese Phantoms? Turkish? Greek?", and the list goes on. They've already said many times about how the F-14 blew up as they added more desires and "bonus" functions, and that they didn't want the F-4 to turn into the same. They've been pretty tight so far on keeping to the USAF configurations for the mid-70s updates of the early blocks, and the 70s-80s updated late blocks (71- and on) with TISEO, DMAS, etc.