When we get a Navy Phantom it should have the VTAS helmet mounted sights

[upyr1]

https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/helmet-flying-protective-type-hgu-30p-or-vtas-i-united-states-navy/nasm_A19800073000

I don't know how common they were but it would be cool to have the VTAS helmet mounted sights 

[Aussie_Mantis]

58 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/helmet-flying-protective-type-hgu-30p-or-vtas-i-united-states-navy/nasm_A19800073000

I don't know how common they were but it would be cool to have the VTAS helmet mounted sights 

They were common-ish.

VTAS-I was exclusive to the F-4J and S. I'm not sure about the N-model ones (Model B Phantom retrofits). They synced up the AIM-9G and the radar together, much like how soviet designs sync up with the IRST slew, and that allows the radar and/or the AIM-9 to be locked.

 

The story of HMDs is a funny one- ironically enough, it wasn't one of the big powers, but actually South Africa that put them into service over Angola first. The US only really started using them in 1969 and I'm not sure if they had them in combat duty over Vietnam or not. Combined with SEAM and the AIM-9G's higher allowance for off-boresight shots than the AIM-9J, it's honestly not surprising that the USAF never pursued it.

What puzzles me more, honestly, is that the F-14 and F-15 were slated to use it and both tested with it at ACEVAL '74 with the improved VTAS-II, but neither actually ended up using it. Not sure if it was because VTAS itself was bad or because the USAF/USN saw it as unnecessary, or if Congress took a fat L from Vietnam and decided that further defence spending bad, humminah humminah, awoogah.

Edited March 7, 2023 by Aussie_Mantis

[303_Kermit]

Oh god... Yes I dream about Phantom II to have Helmet Mounted Sight. It's so childish. 

"I want lasers, and foton-torpedoes from Startrek Enterprise, and teleport, and... Phazers yes I want Phazers"

Keep in mind that some of us want rather basic F-4B Phantom II of Vietnam era, and you may be sure that if I want to have those gadgets I would fly F-16, not F-4. The point of having Phantom is flying against MiG 21. Those are the last pure dogfighters. Everything after that was armed so perfect that 99% of fights ends before head - on cross. It's a fight , but it's not that what most of us search, and wait for. Hell NO!
For some of us even '80 are ... just boring. It's just a kill, but not a fight. If you fly always "By the numbers" I mean... And we do it like that. We fly allways with TAC support, always in pairs. We intercept, shoot, go back safe. If my plane is MiG-19 it's interesting I have to fight for my kill. Sometime I loos sometime I win. If my plane is MiG-21 it's even better (especially with R-3S, and RS-2US). You have to work hard for your kill. In F-5 in AJS-37 it's a struggle, sweat and skill you bring get a kill. Not a "helmet mounted sight" F-4 is a mans plane. Don't ruin it by making just the latest version of it. Make a proper opponent for MiG-19, 21 and 23 (if someday Razzbam make it) not for MiG-29.

In '80 air combat in planes like F-15C is no more funny. It's nothing like you see in Top Gun. It's way to fast to be funny, and I'm not talking about speed. To schematic: Intercept - crank - Fox1 - chaff - F-pole manouver - chaff - Fox2+flares - disengage+flares - next intercept. Like a robot. Really not much place for own invention. It's not that you shoot someone down - he just failed to avoid your missile. Nothing to be proud of. You wasn't better. Sorry I just feel like that.

I want to struggle with missiles that aren't perfect I want to dogfight MiG-21, MiG-19 and hopefully someday MiG-17 and I wan't to feel panic and fury of my (just virtual) enemy. Not just to press a button. That's good for kids. I want to struggle to find a solution for missile lunch, or use a gun. I want to make painful mistakes and learn from them. 

I want F-4B if not possible that nothing younger than J. NO helmet mounted sights god forbid. I don't want to fight against MiG-29 in it. Neither want you.

Watch out what you wish for, cause you may get it.

With my best regards
Kermit

PS I want that: Doghfight, a true Top Gun... In the end Top Gun Miramar was created for F-4B Phantom II pilots. I want to employ and practice that knowledge. Not just "point a target" for my missiles.

 

Edited March 7, 2023 by 303_Kermit

[exhausted]

If you are going to do the Phantom right, it has to be carrier capable and it needs to be accurate. VTAS is going to be welcomed if added and if you don't want to use it, then  don't.

[303_Kermit]

58 minutes ago, exhausted said:

If you are going to do the Phantom right, it has to be carrier capable and it needs to be accurate. VTAS is going to be welcomed if added and if you don't want to use it, then  don't.

F-4B, F-4D, F-4E, F-4J, F, are highly welcomed.  S, N ... well ... After those 5  ok? You have your F-16 & F-18 full glass and high-tech. Phantom II maniacs had waited long enough for their baby.

[exhausted]

It's true: Phantom maniacs have waited too long for their carrierborn baby. Though I don't know how you reasoned a little stamped metal ring on a helmet is equal to a "full glass and high-tech" aircraft. I'm trying to stay in the confines of reason here 

[303_Kermit]

1 hour ago, exhausted said:

It's true: Phantom maniacs have waited too long for their carrierborn baby. Though I don't know how you reasoned a little stamped metal ring on a helmet is equal to a "full glass and high-tech" aircraft. I'm trying to stay in the confines of reason here 

I'm Dogfight purist. The end of Dogfight beginned in 1916 ends by III gen. full aspect Fox-2. After that It's just aerial warfare. A clash of technologies. Not man against a man, but machine against machine.

Edited March 7, 2023 by 303_Kermit

[LanceCriminal86]

17 hours ago, Aussie_Mantis said:

They were common-ish.

VTAS-I was exclusive to the F-4J and S. I'm not sure about the N-model ones (Model B Phantom retrofits). They synced up the AIM-9G and the radar together, much like how soviet designs sync up with the IRST slew, and that allows the radar and/or the AIM-9 to be locked.

 

The story of HMDs is a funny one- ironically enough, it wasn't one of the big powers, but actually South Africa that put them into service over Angola first. The US only really started using them in 1969 and I'm not sure if they had them in combat duty over Vietnam or not. Combined with SEAM and the AIM-9G's higher allowance for off-boresight shots than the AIM-9J, it's honestly not surprising that the USAF never pursued it.

What puzzles me more, honestly, is that the F-14 and F-15 were slated to use it and both tested with it at ACEVAL '74 with the improved VTAS-II, but neither actually ended up using it. Not sure if it was because VTAS itself was bad or because the USAF/USN saw it as unnecessary, or if Congress took a fat L from Vietnam and decided that further defence spending bad, humminah humminah, awoogah.

 

Yes, they did test it in ACEVAL/AIMVAL and ultimately wasn't worth the cost, weight, or complication when compared to the available acquisition modes like VSL-HI. It was a bit of acquisition gain traded for a decent bit more weight and neck strain. The lessons taken from ACEVAL/AIMVAL seemed to be more focused on killing the enemy further away with a launch and leave missile, naturally that became the AIM-120.

If VTAS does somehow get modeled, it better have neck strain also modeled in prolonged fights.

[exhausted]

1 hour ago, 303_Kermit said:

I'm Dogfight purist. The end of Dogfight beginned in 1916 ends by III gen. full aspect Fox-2. After that It's just aerial warfare. A clash of technologies. Not man against a man, but machine against machine.

 

Not sure what that means, but that's cool. Personally I see human challenges exist in any format, with little regard for technology.

[upyr1]

5 hours ago, 303_Kermit said:

Keep in mind that some of us want rather basic F-4B Phantom II of Vietnam era, and you may be sure that if I want to have those gadgets I would fly F-16, not F-4.

The VTAS was adopted in 1972 and the Navy finished installing them on F-4Js in 1973. The F-4J saw action in during the Linebacker campaigns. So you are quite literally saying you don't want Vietnam-era technology because you want Vietnam-era technology. The F-4J saw combat during the Linebacker campaigns and possibly during the tail end of Rolling Thunder. So they would be contemporary with the F-5 and MiG-21 Bis which we have. The B and C would be nice parings for the MiG-19. 

5 hours ago, 303_Kermit said:

I want to struggle with missiles that aren't perfect I want to dogfight MiG-21, MiG-19 and hopefully someday MiG-17 and I wan't to feel panic and fury of my (just virtual) enemy. Not just to press a button. That's good for kids. I want to struggle to find a solution for missile lunch, or use a gun. I want to make painful mistakes and learn from them. 

So you believe that the sidewinder was perfected in 1973? 

[upyr1]

4 hours ago, 303_Kermit said:

F-4B, F-4D, F-4E, F-4J, F, are highly welcomed.  S, N ... well ... After those 5  ok? You have your F-16 & F-18 full glass and high-tech. Phantom II maniacs had waited long enough for their baby.

You want the J but you don't want a bit of technology that was used on the J in the mig 1970s. If you are afraid of seeing an F-4 with a glass cockpit than the F would be a good one to avoid. The original F's were Es without sparrow missiles, they were the inverse of the Japanese Phantoms. The version of the F that would make the most sense to do would be a later upgrade for that reason. If you want a non-US Phantom I would select the Royal Phantoms (F-4M and F-4K) if we could legally get the data I would add the USAF G. the VTAS barely missed the Vietnam war by a few months. 

[303_Kermit]

@upyr1 I do believe that you're trying deliberately to misunderstand what I wrote. Most of your writing doesn't correlate to what I wrote. Other case is that you are wrong in many of your statements. For example you wrote "[...]  technology that was used on the J in the mig 1970s." well... lets see. Helmet mounted sight came to service together with AiM-9G, and AiM-9G came into service in USN in 1972.
The AIM-9G arrived in time to see some combat use over Southeast Asia. Relatively few were launched, achieving 14 kills. Just to see the end of Vietnam War. Truly... operations of 1972 leeding to unfortunate "Frequent Wind" in 1975... Tomcats and F-4J armed with AiM-9G. A debut of a great plane and probably great technology in rather shameful circumstances. VTAS came even later just as you wrote. Lets check that:

"In the case of VTAS, the designated operator was the pilot of a high performance aircraft and he was also already encased in a protective helmet (and oxygen mask). Figure 2 shows a later version of a helicopter helmet mounted unit that was used for some of the first flight tests of a Honeywell helmet sight system in the F-4. Although it is more compact than the unit of Figure 1, it was still too large for use in a confined area such as the F-4 cockpit with closed canopy. The protrusion of the "front porch" prevented the pilot from getting close to the canopy to look out or look back. Furthermore, in the high "g" manoeuvring environment of the F4, the added weight and forward shift of C.G. were totally unacceptable."

-It was rather new technology and not without problems. It also seems that it was rather teseted, than combat used on F-4J. See more here:
http://www.best-of-flightgear.dk/vtas.htm
http://www.best-of-flightgear.dk/vtassafe.htm

"Comparison of Statistics
Width - A measurement across the sensors is by far the best index to bulkiness of VTAS helmets for use in high performance aircraft. Extra width not only prevents the pilot from getting close to the canopy but also increases the moment of inertia of the entire assembly which shows up under high "g" loading, high roll rates and/or rapid head movements by the pilot.
Weight - The best way to visualise the overriding importance of helmet weight is to remember that an APH-6 helmet/mask combination that weighs over five pounds during straight and level flight weighs over forty pounds in an 8 "g" turn."


And... Yes - that is the sort of technology that killed an aerial dogfight as it was known from about 50 years. It's not that I can't live with Late mod. Phantom. It's not like that. It's just that the early period is much more interesting, and I want to see it first.

(Source of AiM-9G info here: http://www.military-today.com/missiles/aim_9g_sidewinder.htm#:~:text=It entered service with the US Navy in 1972.) 

Another mistake is here: "[...] If you are afraid of seeing an F-4 with a glass cockpit than the F would be a good one to avoid."
Let's see a F-4F pure glass cockpit:



PS There are other errors in your post, but it's too much work to point it out. I believe I proved my point anyway.

Edited March 8, 2023 by 303_Kermit

[Biggus]

On 3/8/2023 at 5:57 AM, 303_Kermit said:

F-4B, F-4D, F-4E, F-4J, F, are highly welcomed.  S, N ... well ... After those 5  ok? You have your F-16 & F-18 full glass and high-tech. Phantom II maniacs had waited long enough for their baby.

And anyone that likes a later Phantom isn't a real enthusiast?

Sorry, I can't agree with that.  I've used sims since the late 80s and the single greatest desire for me has been to have a late J or an S.  You can have your own desires, but there's no need to belittle or gatekeep the desires of others.

And as others have said, if you don't want to use VTAS, don't use it.  It's perfectly historically accurate to not use it, because plenty of squadrons ignored it.  It's a very limited system with only around 20 degrees of off-boresight capability on the seeker head, best used for pulling a bit of lead before a tail aspect sidewinder shot.  Worked well with Sparrows too, but the main intention was to help crews get into better parameters for a fox-2.

Edited January 10, 2024 by Biggus
Specified the 20 degrees off-boresight as being for the seeker head.

[SgtPappy]

7 hours ago, 303_Kermit said:

Oh god... Yes I dream about Phantom II to have Helmet Mounted Sight. It's so childish. 

"I want lasers, and foton-torpedoes from Startrek Enterprise, and teleport, and... Phazers yes I want Phazers"

Keep in mind that some of us want rather basic F-4B Phantom II of Vietnam era, and you may be sure that if I want to have those gadgets I would fly F-16, not F-4. The point of having Phantom is flying against MiG 21. Those are the last pure dogfighters. Everything after that was armed so perfect that 99% of fights ends before head - on cross. It's a fight , but it's not that what most of us search, and wait for. Hell NO!
For some of us even '80 are ... just boring. It's just a kill, but not a fight. If you fly always "By the numbers" I mean... And we do it like that. We fly allways with TAC support, always in pairs. We intercept, shoot, go back safe. If my plane is MiG-19 it's interesting I have to fight for my kill. Sometime I loos sometime I win. If my plane is MiG-21 it's even better (especially with R-3S, and RS-2US). You have to work hard for your kill. In F-5 in AJS-37 it's a struggle, sweat and skill you bring get a kill. Not a "helmet mounted sight" F-4 is a mans plane. Don't ruin it by making just the latest version of it. Make a proper opponent for MiG-19, 21 and 23 (if someday Razzbam make it) not for MiG-29.

In '80 air combat in planes like F-15C is no more funny. It's nothing like you see in Top Gun. It's way to fast to be funny, and I'm not talking about speed. To schematic: Intercept - crank - Fox1 - chaff - F-pole manouver - chaff - Fox2+flares - disengage+flares - next intercept. Like a robot. Really not much place for own invention. It's not that you shoot someone down - he just failed to avoid your missile. Nothing to be proud of. You wasn't better. Sorry I just feel like that.

I want to struggle with missiles that aren't perfect I want to dogfight MiG-21, MiG-19 and hopefully someday MiG-17 and I wan't to feel panic and fury of my (just virtual) enemy. Not just to press a button. That's good for kids. I want to struggle to find a solution for missile lunch, or use a gun. I want to make painful mistakes and learn from them. 

I want F-4B if not possible that nothing younger than J. NO helmet mounted sights god forbid. I don't want to fight against MiG-29 in it. Neither want you.

Watch out what you wish for, cause you may get it.

With my best regards
Kermit

PS I want that: Doghfight, a true Top Gun... In the end Top Gun Miramar was created for F-4B Phantom II pilots. I want to employ and practice that knowledge. Not just "point a target" for my missiles.

 

 

 

Sorry Kermie, this is one of the extremely rare times I'd have to agree with exhausted on this one... VTAS can be something that's disabled and you won't have to use it. I hope that it is going to be optional and that it can be removed or enforced in some servers, similar to the F/A-18 and F-16 HMD's. I'd still prefer to have the option though as it doesn't take anything away once disabled and it would be fun to try.

However, there's no reason to go on a sarcastic tirade as you responded to the original post. It's fairly disrespectful. A simple "I' don't prefer it for reasons <XYZ>." is sufficient. Everyone wants their ideal version of the jet, and VTAS happens to be one of the technologies that was around at a similar time as the F-4E we're getting so why not the F-4J get the AWG-10B and VTAS?

I also want a more dogfighting-prone environment with limited-capability missiles, but to discount anyone else's opinion with yours touted as superior is inherently illogical. Please try to be respectful.

Edited March 8, 2023 by SgtPappy

[upyr1]

1 hour ago, 303_Kermit said:

 I do believe that you're trying deliberately to misunderstand what I wrote. Most of your writing doesn't correlate to what I wrote. Other case is that you are wrong in many of your statements. For example you wrote "[...]  technology that was used on the J in the mig 1970s." well... lets see. Helmet mounted sight came to service together with AiM-9G, and AiM-9G came into service in USN in 1972.
The AIM-9G arrived in time to see some combat use over Southeast Asia. Relatively few were launched, achieving 14 kills. Just to see the end of Vietnam War. Truly... operations of 1972 leeding to unfortunate "Frequent Wind" in 1975... Tomcats and F-4J armed with AiM-9G. A debut of a great plane and probably great technology in rather shameful circumstances. VTAS came even later just as you wrote. Lets check that:

"In the case of VTAS, the designated operator was the pilot of a high performance aircraft and he was also already encased in a protective helmet (and oxygen mask). Figure 2 shows a later version of a helicopter helmet mounted unit that was used for some of the first flight tests of a Honeywell helmet sight system in the F-4. Although it is more compact than the unit of Figure 1, it was still too large for use in a confined area such as the F-4 cockpit with closed canopy. The protrusion of the "front porch" prevented the pilot from getting close to the canopy to look out or look back. Furthermore, in the high "g" manoeuvring environment of the F4, the added weight and forward shift of C.G. were totally unacceptable."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bringing up thefact the AIM-9G was used in the Linebacker Campaign  really isn't a good argument against the VTAS. I know the G was used in Vietnam- I was thinking the VTAS didn't enter service until 1973. If I'm wrong then that is more of a reason to have it. It will help differentiate the B and the J. You can give a billion and one reasons that you don't want to use them so it would be correct to make them optional 

1 hour ago, 303_Kermit said:

Another mistake is here: "[...] If you are afraid of seeing an F-4 with a glass cockpit than the F would be a good one to avoid."
Let's see a F-4F pure glass cockpit:



PS There are other errors in your post, but it's too much work to point it out. I believe I proved my point anyway.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do you know when that photo of an F-4F cockpit was taken was it an F-4F ICE? If you actually read what I wrote The very next sentence was 

2 hours ago, upyr1 said:

The original F's were Es without sparrow missiles, they were the inverse of the Japanese Phantoms. The version of the F that would make the most sense to do would be a later upgrade for that reason.

 

 

 

I was talking about the F-4F ICE upgrades that started in the 1990s and added the  AN/APG-65G radar and AIM-120  to the F-4F. So I that is why I was thinking the ICE was an F/A-18D avionics in an F-4's body. The F-4F entered service in 1971, originally they were basically F-4E's without sparrow missiles as they were mainly intended for use as strike planes. The Japanese F-4EJ on the other hand were Es that lacked air to ground capability. I don't think either the F nor the EJ would be worth having as a separate module unless the goal is to portray some late service upgrades which you clearly don't want. I think the Royal Phantoms would be more interesting since the engines will result in a different flight model. 

 

Edited March 8, 2023 by upyr1

[NotBonk]

It would be cool to see it implemented and be optional. No use fighting over whether or not it should be in there. 

[upyr1]

2 hours ago, 303_Kermit said:

And... Yes - that is the sort of technology that killed an aerial dogfight as it was known from about 50 years. It's not that I can't live with Late mod. Phantom. It's not like that. It's just that the early period is much more interesting, and I want to see it first.

 

 

 

If you don't want to use the VTAS then don't use it. I am only asking for it when we get the J because it existed in the 1970s and it is one of the lesser-known technologies. I know if at least one naval aviator who flew the F-4 in the time frame of the Linebacker Campaigns and retired in the 1990s who never saw one. I'd love to see the B and the C as well. I also want later versions as well. The point in my initial response was when you were going on about the 1980s which in my view wasn't a good argument against modeling something from the 1970s 

Edited March 8, 2023 by upyr1

[exhausted]

2 hours ago, 303_Kermit said:

@upyr1 I do believe that you're trying deliberately to misunderstand what I wrote. Most of your writing doesn't correlate to what I wrote. Other case is that you are wrong in many of your statements. For example you wrote "[...]  technology that was used on the J in the mig 1970s." well... lets see. Helmet mounted sight came to service together with AiM-9G, and AiM-9G came into service in USN in 1972.
The AIM-9G arrived in time to see some combat use over Southeast Asia. Relatively few were launched, achieving 14 kills. Just to see the end of Vietnam War. Truly... operations of 1972 leeding to unfortunate "Frequent Wind" in 1975... Tomcats and F-4J armed with AiM-9G. A debut of a great plane and probably great technology in rather shameful circumstances. VTAS came even later just as you wrote. Lets check that:

"In the case of VTAS, the designated operator was the pilot of a high performance aircraft and he was also already encased in a protective helmet (and oxygen mask). Figure 2 shows a later version of a helicopter helmet mounted unit that was used for some of the first flight tests of a Honeywell helmet sight system in the F-4. Although it is more compact than the unit of Figure 1, it was still too large for use in a confined area such as the F-4 cockpit with closed canopy. The protrusion of the "front porch" prevented the pilot from getting close to the canopy to look out or look back. Furthermore, in the high "g" manoeuvring environment of the F4, the added weight and forward shift of C.G. were totally unacceptable."

-It was rather new technology and not without problems. It also seems that it was rather teseted, than combat used on F-4J. See more here:
http://www.best-of-flightgear.dk/vtas.htm
http://www.best-of-flightgear.dk/vtassafe.htm

"Comparison of Statistics
Width - A measurement across the sensors is by far the best index to bulkiness of VTAS helmets for use in high performance aircraft. Extra width not only prevents the pilot from getting close to the canopy but also increases the moment of inertia of the entire assembly which shows up under high "g" loading, high roll rates and/or rapid head movements by the pilot.
Weight - The best way to visualise the overriding importance of helmet weight is to remember that an APH-6 helmet/mask combination that weighs over five pounds during straight and level flight weighs over forty pounds in an 8 "g" turn."


And... Yes - that is the sort of technology that killed an aerial dogfight as it was known from about 50 years. It's not that I can't live with Late mod. Phantom. It's not like that. It's just that the early period is much more interesting, and I want to see it first.

(Source of AiM-9G info here: http://www.military-today.com/missiles/aim_9g_sidewinder.htm#:~:text=It entered service with the US Navy in 1972.) 

Another mistake is here: "[...] If you are afraid of seeing an F-4 with a glass cockpit than the F would be a good one to avoid."
Let's see a F-4F pure glass cockpit:



PS There are other errors in your post, but it's too much work to point it out. I believe I proved my point anyway.

 

I don't think he misunderstood your post at all. It's clear part of his message it that the -J which we all seem to want was not frozen in its development in 1973, when the US ended its combat mission in Vietnam. The -Js flew on for a nice bit longer, often with the HMS. It's not that complicated - if you don't want a historical feature, then simply disable its use.

Edited March 8, 2023 by exhausted

[Omega417]

20 hours ago, 303_Kermit said:

Keep in mind that some of us want rather basic F-4B Phantom II of Vietnam era, and you may be sure that if I want to have those gadgets I would fly F-16, not F-4. The point of having Phantom is flying against MiG 21. Those are the last pure dogfighters.

I am fairly certain the Phantoms were supposed to be interceptors not front line dogfighters. They might have became frontline dogfighters, but the the ROE had allowed pilots to shoot sparrows at range without visually IDing targets, there probably wouldn't have been as many Vietnam Dogfights.

 

I see the VTAS the same was as the HMD in the Hornet. If you want to simulate 2000s combat, turn it on. If you want to simulate desert storm, dont. Its pretty simple.

[303_Kermit]

I suppose that none of you made an effort to actually check anything more than War Thunder website / forum? I know where these subject comes from, but please check the sources I presented you. VTAS wasn't in any way as perfect and useful as system implemented on MiG-29 or F-16. 
Most of the VTAS problems described there, are very difficult to simulate. And without them VTAS won't be presenting DCS standards. How do you want to simulate overweight, too far forward C.G. of Helm , and additional (mentioned as serious) head movement restrictions? 

Also the subject was mentioned here:

and here:

 

 

As I mentioned ... it's not like in War Thunder where every gadget "Works just fine". VTAS II wasn't apparently that genius. In the end, F-14A came without it.

I don't think it shall be implemented.

Edited March 8, 2023 by 303_Kermit

[LanceCriminal86]

Folks, things being "optional" isn't the problem here, it's the level of effort to implement in the first place whether you think you want to turn it off and on.

VTAS presents a good number of hurdles, many of which I've already run into as a collector, namely being:

1) Preserved examples for scanning/fitting/modeling/weighing

2) Photos of the helmet in use for skins, timeframe of use

3) Photos/diagrams of the complete setup including where all the wires and plugs run, where the IR boxes are and what they look like, processes for starting up/enabling VTAS, actual limitations of use, reticle, troubleshooting.

[Omega417]

14 minutes ago, LanceCriminal86 said:

Folks, things being "optional" isn't the problem here, it's the level of effort to implement in the first place whether you think you want to turn it off and on.

VTAS presents a good number of hurdles, many of which I've already run into as a collector, namely being:

1) Preserved examples for scanning/fitting/modeling/weighing

2) Photos of the helmet in use for skins, timeframe of use

3) Photos/diagrams of the complete setup including where all the wires and plugs run, where the IR boxes are and what they look like, processes for starting up/enabling VTAS, actual limitations of use, reticle, troubleshooting.

But for something like that where quite a few people just hide the pilot body, its easier to just "eyeball" it so it looks good and then correct the model as more information becomes available. I wouldn't want them to exclude something just because they couldnt find a definitive answer on how long the bracket was or exactly what shade of paint was used. That's a big point of forums to be able to post information the devs might have overlooked to help refine the product.

[exhausted]

1 hour ago, 303_Kermit said:

I suppose that none of you made an effort to actually check anything more than War Thunder website / forum? I know where these subject comes from, but please check the sources I presented you. VTAS wasn't in any way as perfect and useful as system implemented on MiG-29 or F-16. 

 

You are making the points against your original position, whether you intended to. You're entire point was that VTAS should not be added because it would turn the F-4 into a quasi-4th gen glass cockpit automaton. 

Apples to apples, you said: "I'm Dogfight purist. The end of Dogfight beginned in 1916 ends by III gen. full aspect Fox-2. After that It's just aerial warfare. A clash of technologies. Not man against a man, but machine against machine."

Now, you're admitting VTAS in its usage isn't any of those things you are trying to avoid.

You have proven that even "dogfight purists" have nothing to fear from adding the VTAS system.

[LanceCriminal86]

57 minutes ago, Omega417 said:

But for something like that where quite a few people just hide the pilot body, its easier to just "eyeball" it so it looks good and then correct the model as more information becomes available. I wouldn't want them to exclude something just because they couldnt find a definitive answer on how long the bracket was or exactly what shade of paint was used. That's a big point of forums to be able to post information the devs might have overlooked to help refine the product.

You skipped right over the core of my list, and that's the "how it works" details. That's the stuff HB needs/wants before they will implement something, for the same reasons things like PTID or "filling in the blanks" of later Tomcats isn't being done. They are not going to copy/paste ED's HMD code and throw some angle restrictions in, they want to know HOW VTAS works from the ground up, its limitations, how it is handled/managed in the cockpit, how it communicates to the AWG-10 and Sidewinder, all that jazz.

[Ramstein]

In real life there were a lot of original 1964-68 F-4's still flying well into the late 1970's. Whether or not how many were upgraded with avionics packages are not known. Guess wikipedia can help with the info.