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

[Omega417]

30 minutes ago, LanceCriminal86 said:

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.

I couldn't say how it works, I haven't done any research into the device. But this is all speculation. Until a dev comes out and gives a definitive answer about it we wont know until its here. This is also for the naval variant so years out.

[303_Kermit]

2 hours ago, Omega417 said:

But this is all speculation.

We try hard to look for facts.

[Biggus]

6 hours 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. 
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.

 

Assuming to know where other people's knowledge originates is disrespectful and rude.

Despite the F-14 not implementing it, F-4S squadrons were using the system well into the 1980s because it was useful despite the limitations and rather difficult serviceability.  I'm sure that Heatblur will be able to find a way to simulate the system, warts and all.

And again, using it would be completely optional.

[upyr1]

6 hours 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. 
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? 

 

I've done more than check war thunder, I first learned about the VTAS on the google F-4 group (it used to be on yahoo) I know there are challenges to simulating it - I'd like to see what heat blur can do. I might add that the current state of VR you are dealing with something bulky and pushes is awkward to wear. We aren't pulling Gs when we play DCS. If heatblur thinks it would be too difficult that will be their call. The system also was hooked to a late 1960s/ early 1970s missile its going to be challenging to use 

5 hours ago, Ramstein said:

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.

 

I used to know a guy who flew the B model during Linebacker I. I hope to have both the B and the J navy module(s) The S and N would be awesome too. Heck as you can tell from my profile pic I'm excited about the Phantom 

[exhausted]

8 hours ago, LanceCriminal86 said:

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.

ED isn't developing the F-4, Heatblur is. Heatblur is also developing the Eurofighter which has much less publicly available info. Heatblur can certainly model the VTAS.

Edited March 9, 2023 by exhausted

[NotBonk]

31 minutes ago, exhausted said:

 Heatblur is also developing the Eurofighter which has much less publicly available.

 

This has nothing to do with the conversation

 

32 minutes ago, exhausted said:

Heatblur can certainly model the VTAS.

 

 And this is an assumption. Do they have the capability, probably, will they? Who knows, strange/little known/different configurations are a coin toss, just be happy we’re getting a Phantom.

[exhausted]

3 minutes ago, NotBonk said:

This has nothing to do with the conversation

 

 And this is an assumption. Do they have the capability, probably, will they? Who knows, strange/little known/different configurations are a coin toss, just be happy we’re getting a Phantom.

Yes, it has everything to do with the point made that, because Heatblur does not have ALL the information on something, they won't model it. That is far from the truth, as we have entire modules with no public information being developed. And, we're only talking about a minor feature that people care about. 

[sparrow88]

On 3/7/2023 at 9:14 PM, 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.

 

You realise that for truly human vs human confrontation you should do combat sports? Warfare was always about utilizing machines since first ape learned how to bash other ape with a stick and stone.

[Omega417]

16 hours ago, 303_Kermit said:

We try hard to look for facts.

What facts are you getting from a developer who has been radio silent?

[Aussie_Mantis]

On 3/8/2023 at 5:12 AM, 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 

Funny, I know I haven't been waiting for one. Nice to see that I'm being represented by someone else's blanket statement again.

On 3/8/2023 at 6:29 AM, LanceCriminal86 said:

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.

Heard from a navy pilot that he preferred to just *not* use the VTAS system because it felt like he was trying to give himself neck sprain and early onset arthritis. That set weighed a ton. TrackIR with a heavy headset can get taxing for some people, so I don't think flicking around a 3-5kg helmet around with a doo-dad in front of your eye would be terribly good.

 

ANy reports you ahve from ACEVAL/AIMVAL?

[RevampedGrunt]

5 hours ago, Aussie_Mantis said:

Funny, I know I haven't been waiting for one. Nice to see that I'm being represented by someone else's blanket statement again.

Of course, those of us who prefer the USAF Phantoms should be disregarded since we're obviously too OP for those Navy guys. The E deserves as much love as the naval phantoms, it was the second model I learned about after the B/C variants and they were based at my nearest air base when they were in their prime (even though I missed them flying there by the time I was born). 

[exhausted]

6 hours ago, Aussie_Mantis said:

Funny, I know I haven't been waiting for one. Nice to see that I'm being represented by someone else's blanket statement again.

Heard from a navy pilot that he preferred to just *not* use the VTAS system because it felt like he was trying to give himself neck sprain and early onset arthritis. That set weighed a ton. TrackIR with a heavy headset can get taxing for some people, so I don't think flicking around a 3-5kg helmet around with a doo-dad in front of your eye would be terribly good.

 

ANy reports you ahve from ACEVAL/AIMVAL?

Why do you think I was talking about you? You're entitled to your opinion, and so is anyone else who is anticipating a carrierborne Phantom. Wouldn't mind if we stayed on topic please.

[NotBonk]

Why are these forums more hostile than a CoD lobby

[LanceCriminal86]

6 hours ago, Aussie_Mantis said:

Funny, I know I haven't been waiting for one. Nice to see that I'm being represented by someone else's blanket statement again.

Heard from a navy pilot that he preferred to just *not* use the VTAS system because it felt like he was trying to give himself neck sprain and early onset arthritis. That set weighed a ton. TrackIR with a heavy headset can get taxing for some people, so I don't think flicking around a 3-5kg helmet around with a doo-dad in front of your eye would be terribly good.

 

ANy reports you ahve from ACEVAL/AIMVAL?

Feedback I'm seeing from Phantom pilots was VTAS again being potentially great, WHEN it worked, which from the maintainer and crew inputs often it wasn't. Feedback about it adding a whole new list of things to down a jet before the flight or the system being INOP. The trackers in the cockpit often had issues and required protective coatings and such to frequently be replaced, wiring hassles, the helmet sensors being somewhat fragile. Basically by the end of the 70s the Navy crews weren't using it anymore on Ns/Js/Ss, maybe the Marines did a little longer but it sounded like they ditched it too due to upkeep vs benefits. A paper on head tracking helmets, particularly Honeywell systems like VTAS, mirror the Navy divesting interest by 1979. So whoever said VTAS was getting use well into the 80s, cruise photos and personal accounts seem to show that not to be the case. VTAS boxes were left in the jets as you can see them on the canopy rails, but no VTAS helmets present at all in the 80s cruises. They either converted the helmets back to a traditional configuration or went with replacement APH-6s or HGU-33s. One of my two helmets from the PMTC/Pt. Mugu is a VTAS I with a standard single visor APH-6 housing fitted. The guy that wore it in the backseat said it was noticeably more difficult to keep his head up during maneuvers when he rode with VX-4, and very fatiguing. VTAS II are exceedingly rare to find on the collector side, and stand out pretty sharply in photos due to their offset visor housing knobs.

I did find out that there is a "manual" of sorts out there for use of the VTAS in the Phantom II, but it appears to be exceedingly rare and not looking good to be able to find a copy. It might be able to fill in some of the blanks that would be missing from any F-4J/N/S manuals, but have to actually acquire one first to get it scanned.

As to ACEVAL/AIMVAL, nothing I can share openly but "Roger, ball!.." covers a lot of the pre-event training and then lessons learned from the event. It sounds like somewhere out there is a report from one of the big T&E departments in the DoD that discusses the major flaws of the test itself being the scenarios and ROEs. It essentially forced a slanted result because of how the scenarios were being run, allowing the pilots to "game" the system to get wins because they didn't actually have to defend an objective or deny the enemy, not to mention the numbers of aircraft involved didn't really reflect realistic scenarios. Plus they were all seasoned pilots, and they also had full knowledge about their adversaries as they had trained together. And probably because the takeaway that was chosen from ACEVAL/AIMVAL was "we need longer range fire/forget missiles" due to high attrition and 1:1 kill exchanges in the testing, which also killed AGILE (that could actually have made VTAS worth it), it seems to be why VTAS was skipped on the F-14 and phased out of F-4 use.

[303_Kermit]

23 hours ago, Biggus said:

Assuming to know where other people's knowledge originates is disrespectful and rude.

Being old comes somehow together with being unnecessary rude. I'm sorry. I usually do my best to be as polite as I can.

@sparrow88

Quote

You realise that for truly human vs human confrontation you should do combat sports? 

That is tricky to reply. Whatever I write I'll be  either cocky and smug, or just big mouth . Funny thing is that most combat sports teach to be humble about it. Would you please excuse me if I try to stay that way?

With my best regards & an apology for off topic
Kermit

Edited March 9, 2023 by 303_Kermit

[Ramstein]

like I said, 1979 many of the F-4's were not upgraded with the helmet stuff.. some of the aircraft had limited upgraded from the early Phantoms. We had the ZULU aircraft on alert for the East German Border. 10 minutes out from launch. Aim-7 and Aim-9 were standard hot load. 

[Aussie_Mantis]

On 3/10/2023 at 5:22 AM, RevampedGrunt said:

Of course, those of us who prefer the USAF Phantoms should be disregarded since we're obviously too OP for those Navy guys. The E deserves as much love as the naval phantoms, it was the second model I learned about after the B/C variants and they were based at my nearest air base when they were in their prime (even though I missed them flying there by the time I was born). 

Silly Grunt! The F-4E is the worst Phantom ever built!!! Don't you know that the USAF F-4E could only carry bombs? It's true! The F-4E was weighed down by its bombing gear! And the USMC was so much more accurate than USAF pilots that they could hit targets the size of a mortar tube with iron sights while clearly F-4E pilots with actual A2G equipment could not with, you know, CCIP, bombing computers, and all the things that were put in specifically because they're more accurate than bombing sights! Remember, the F-4E is solely a bomber (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) (Real) (Big if True)

 

 

Edited March 11, 2023 by Aussie_Mantis

[RevampedGrunt]

17 minutes ago, Aussie_Mantis said:

Silly Grunt! The F-4E is the worst Phantom ever built!!! Don't you know that the USAF F-4E could only carry bombs? It's true! The F-4E was weighed down by its bombing gear! And the USMC was so much more accurate than USAF pilots that they could hit targets the size of a mortar tube with iron sights while clearly F-4E pilots with actual A2G equipment could not with, you know, CCIP, bombing computers, and all the things that were put in specifically because they're more accurate than bombing sights! Remember, the F-4E is solely a bomber (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) (Real) (Big if True)

 

 

 

I'll simply drop my entire payload on top of those Marine Phantoms. Don't need to worry about A2A if the enemy can no longer take off~.

Edited March 11, 2023 by RevampedGrunt

[upyr1]

On 3/9/2023 at 3:07 PM, LanceCriminal86 said:

Feedback I'm seeing from Phantom pilots was VTAS again being potentially great, WHEN it worked, which from the maintainer and crew inputs often it wasn't. Feedback about it adding a whole new list of things to down a jet before the flight or the system being INOP. The trackers in the cockpit often had issues and required protective coatings and such to frequently be replaced, wiring hassles, the helmet sensors being somewhat fragile. Basically by the end of the 70s the Navy crews weren't using it anymore on Ns/Js/Ss, maybe the Marines did a little longer but it sounded like they ditched it too due to upkeep vs benefits. A paper on head tracking helmets, particularly Honeywell systems like VTAS, mirror the Navy divesting interest by 1979. So whoever said VTAS was getting use well into the 80s, cruise photos and personal accounts seem to show that not to be the case. VTAS boxes were left in the jets as you can see them on the canopy rails, but no VTAS helmets present at all in the 80s cruises. They either converted the helmets back to a traditional configuration or went with replacement APH-6s or HGU-33s. One of my two helmets from the PMTC/Pt. Mugu is a VTAS I with a standard single visor APH-6 housing fitted. The guy that wore it in the backseat said it was noticeably more difficult to keep his head up during maneuvers when he rode with VX-4, and very fatiguing. VTAS II are exceedingly rare to find on the collector side, and stand out pretty sharply in photos due to their offset visor housing knobs.

I did find out that there is a "manual" of sorts out there for use of the VTAS in the Phantom II, but it appears to be exceedingly rare and not looking good to be able to find a copy. It might be able to fill in some of the blanks that would be missing from any F-4J/N/S manuals, but have to actually acquire one first to get it scanned.

As to ACEVAL/AIMVAL, nothing I can share openly but "Roger, ball!.." covers a lot of the pre-event training and then lessons learned from the event. It sounds like somewhere out there is a report from one of the big T&E departments in the DoD that discusses the major flaws of the test itself being the scenarios and ROEs. It essentially forced a slanted result because of how the scenarios were being run, allowing the pilots to "game" the system to get wins because they didn't actually have to defend an objective or deny the enemy, not to mention the numbers of aircraft involved didn't really reflect realistic scenarios. Plus they were all seasoned pilots, and they also had full knowledge about their adversaries as they had trained together. And probably because the takeaway that was chosen from ACEVAL/AIMVAL was "we need longer range fire/forget missiles" due to high attrition and 1:1 kill exchanges in the testing, which also killed AGILE (that could actually have made VTAS worth it), it seems to be why VTAS was skipped on the F-14 and phased out of F-4 use.

 

This reminds me of what Ward "Mooch" Carol said on his channel was the only thing he didn't like about the F-14 module was that all the systems normally work and there isn't enough failures

[Kalasnkova74]

2 hours ago, upyr1 said:

This reminds me of what Ward "Mooch" Carol said on his channel was the only thing he didn't like about the F-14 module was that all the systems normally work and there isn't enough failures

True, but this takes us back to the infinite debate on accuracy vs gameplay enjoyment. Doubt anyone would be happy paying $70 for a DCS module only to have their radar suddenly go “lead nose” in an MP server. The fact such things happened to real world combat pilots won’t stop a vitriolic bug report loaded with exclamation points from landing in the developers inbox. 

Edited March 11, 2023 by Kalasnkova74

[upyr1]

58 minutes ago, Kalasnkova74 said:

True, but this takes us back to the infinite debate on accuracy vs gameplay enjoyment. Doubt anyone would be happy paying $70 for a DCS module only to have their radar suddenly go “lead nose” in an MP server. The fact such things happened to real world combat pilots won’t stop a vitriolic bug report loaded with exclamation points from landing in the developers inbox. 

 

It would make for an interesting difficulty option. Back to the vtas I wonder how it would work with  period missiles. 

[Biggus]

6 hours ago, upyr1 said:

It would make for an interesting difficulty option. Back to the vtas I wonder how it would work with  period missiles. 

Worked well with everything from the AIM-9D through to at least the -9L and probably -9M on the heater front (22 degree off boresight due to missile gimbal limits) and all the Sparrows that were ever loaded onto a 1972ish- onward Navy Phantom.  I believe it was usable to around 60 degrees when slaving the radar to the helmet.

I'm not so sure I'd agree with @LanceCriminal86 that it was gone that quickly, I've seen plenty of stories of it being used well into the 80s.  It looked very much to me like something that some squadrons made good use of and other squadrons practically deleted it.

[Bremspropeller]

7 hours ago, Biggus said:

I'm not so sure I'd agree with @LanceCriminal86 that it was gone that quickly, I've seen plenty of stories of it being used well into the 80s.  It looked very much to me like something that some squadrons made good use of and other squadrons practically deleted it.

Same.

I think it was mostly down to parts availability and the hassle of keeping the system serviceable being worth it or not as squadron policy. So it depends whether your squadron senior officers are "believers" or not. It's not like the Navy wasn't cashstrapped, so ressource-allocation wasn't in favour of VTAS being up on all jets all the time.

[Dragon1-1]

22 hours ago, upyr1 said:

It would make for an interesting difficulty option.

It's already there, under "random failures", though it's not always fully developed. However, I think that the ability to script them should also be considered. Not in MP, but SP campaigns can make good use of this. 

An accurate simulation of how Tomcats were around Gulf War and onward would indeed have a lot of things crapping out. 

[divinee]

On 3/12/2023 at 1:58 AM, Kalasnkova74 said:

Doubt anyone would be happy paying $70 for a DCS module only to have their radar suddenly go “lead nose” in an MP server.

I would even pay more if i'd have to stress about the reliability of the systems and if my missiles, radar etc just randomly wouldn't work . It's a big part of the characteristics of those machines and I'm flying DCS because of the realistic simulation, not to be the most efficient target killer. Of course not everyone wan't those so those should be optional things (from the server side).