Any HERO would make a HUD mod for the F-4 :D

[1130]

Yes, just like the EJ-Kai and F-4/2000  Love that mixture of "Retro ages and Modern technologies"

Don't misunderstand this, I love all F-4 series, just wanna have more options which can make more fun

[JayTSX]

It would be a fun mod sure...

But I think you just summoned everyone, whos currently on a "modern technology is no dogfighting" spree so I guess good luck?

Joke aside I think people will mod the module to resemble more modern versions of the F-4 it's just currently not a really popular opinion in this forum...

[exhausted]

13 hours ago, 1130 said:

Yes, just like the EJ-Kai and F-4/2000  Love that mixture of "Retro ages and Modern technologies"

Don't misunderstand this, I love all F-4 series, just wanna have more options which can make more fun

I would be excited with the F-4E if it featured the upgrades making it a deadly resource in the skies of the 1990s and mid-2000s, such as the Greek and German variants. The Japanese actually have a very fascinating relationship with their Phantoms, and would be right at home on the Marianas map. The Turkish Terminator is a really awesome aircraft as well, and we already have 2 maps with Turkey in them. 

Alas, no we aren't getting those... just a couple of bland F-4Es and maybe if there's still interest we will see DCS Phantom return to carrier decks.

[RevampedGrunt]

11 hours ago, exhausted said:

I would be excited with the F-4E if it featured the upgrades making it a deadly resource in the skies of the 1990s and mid-2000s, such as the Greek and German variants. The Japanese actually have a very fascinating relationship with their Phantoms, and would be right at home on the Marianas map. The Turkish Terminator is a really awesome aircraft as well, and we already have 2 maps with Turkey in them. 

Alas, no we aren't getting those... just a couple of bland F-4Es and maybe if there's still interest we will see DCS Phantom return to carrier decks.

I gotta ask, why do you make it a point to crap on the variants we are getting every time you speak here? Pretty sure everyone who checks the threads here have seen your complaining at the very least once. We get it, you're salty. 

[IronMike]

13 hours ago, exhausted said:

and maybe if there's still interest we will see DCS Phantom return to carrier decks.

Has nothing to do with interest, and also is not a maybe. We will do a Navy variant, as we said.

[Rudel_chw]

14 hours ago, exhausted said:

just a couple of bland F-4Es

embrace your cold war spirit, you don’t need a digital HUD to fight properly 

[exhausted]

On 3/20/2023 at 9:46 AM, RevampedGrunt said:

I gotta ask, why do you make it a point to crap on the variants we are getting every time you speak here? Pretty sure everyone who checks the threads here have seen your complaining at the very least once. We get it, you're salty. 

Please don't make this about me. I'm only talking about the airplane and commenting on the variants I would like to see.

Edited March 24, 2023 by exhausted

[SgtPappy]

18 hours ago, exhausted said:

Please don't make this about me. I'm only talking about the airplane and commenting on the variants I would like to see.

 

"Alas we are not getting the F-4E, just a couple of bland F-4J/S..."

If it were the other way around i wonder how this would be justifiable... 

[exhausted]

45 minutes ago, SgtPappy said:

"Alas we are not getting the F-4E, just a couple of bland F-4J/S..."

If it were the other way around i wonder how this would be justifiable... 

Thank you for sharing your opinion. Nothing about your opinion threatens my enthusiasm. I hope you find enjoyment in other aspects, such as mastering effective MiG-21 tactics to give you an advantage against what will surely be droves of F-4 noobs.

[Aussie_Mantis]

On 3/20/2023 at 1:01 PM, exhausted said:

I would be excited with the F-4E if it featured the upgrades making it a deadly resource in the skies of the 1990s and mid-2000s, such as the Greek and German variants. The Japanese actually have a very fascinating relationship with their Phantoms, and would be right at home on the Marianas map. The Turkish Terminator is a really awesome aircraft as well, and we already have 2 maps with Turkey in them. 

Alas, no we aren't getting those... just a couple of bland F-4Es and maybe if there's still interest we will see DCS Phantom return to carrier decks.

 

10 hours ago, SgtPappy said:

"Alas we are not getting the F-4E, just a couple of bland F-4J/S..."

If it were the other way around i wonder how this would be justifiable... 

 

On 3/21/2023 at 12:46 AM, RevampedGrunt said:

I gotta ask, why do you make it a point to crap on the variants we are getting every time you speak here? Pretty sure everyone who checks the threads here have seen your complaining at the very least once. We get it, you're salty. 

 

"The F-4E was a considerably deadly tool in air to air warfare, and always has been. I'm looking forwards to taking off in my land-based multirole phantom and doing both air to air and air to ground after taking off from a land airfield, and I think that the F-4E is possibly the deadliest variant of the Phantom and of its time period and generation, far surpassing the other aircraft and particularly the inferior naval variants, which scored less kills over Vietnam and had the fatal flaw of being unable to be multirole aircraft.

In fact, I think the F-4J and the F-4S should not be added. They'd detract from the F-4's rich history."

... said nobody ever. But if I replace the F-4E with the US Navy ones and switch around the other stuff, as well as replacing the schpeel about multirole aircraft with your opinion that the solely air to air aircraft is better than a multirole one- something that historically has repeatedly been proved to be wrong-

 

I like the F-4E. I also like the F-4J. But I like the F-4E more. I see the potential of the international exports where it saw combat service prior to upgrades, such as in the Turkish-Greek border conflicts, the Iran-Iraq War, and the Arab-Israeli conflicts. I'm very excited to see the F-4 coming into the game, and believe that in terms of definitiveness- the F-4E is the Phantom for many people around the world, including myself, but that doesn't mean we somehow don't acknowledge the US Navy or their Phantoms, or British Phantoms- something that you have trouble comprehending and applying, since you seem to ignore any and all international F-4 use prior to upgrade programs and have what comes off as a superiority/god-complex about US Naval Phantoms, to the point of regurgitating myths such as the fact that the F-4J and USMC aviators could "hit mortar-tube sized targets" while the US Air Force somehow could not, or of higher US Navy Kill Rates when all evidence points to the contrary. The US AIr Force had more planes in theatre at any given time and hogged most of the air to air kills over Vietnam, and did most of that with their short-nose, doppler-less F-4s, most often without a gun pod.

 

None of us see the need to blatantly rub the F-4E in your face as superior to your short-nosed naval variants, and this forum is for the F-4E being released by heatblur, at least until the naval F-4s start coming into the game- so why do you see the need to constantly derail threads on it? Please leave us alone. I'm- if you'll excuse the pun- exhausted of seeing your comments on threads- most often not on the content that you write, since they at times have merit to them, such as about USN training versus USAF training- but more because of how you phrase them and put them. You've made your hate for the F-4E clear. Can you please not bring that into F-4E threads? You're not the only one waiting for a naval phantom, but most people are patient enough not to say anything about a plane they're never going to buy, and instead make other threads about the ones they do want to buy. I think you might be able to have a more constructive discussion if you perhaps created threads about USN phantoms and discussed those there. 

 

-----------------------------------------------

 

On the topic of HUDs, @1130 in my opinion, despite some people believing that adding a HUD would detract from the aircraft, I think it might be interesting. Historically, towards the end of their service life in air forces globally, usually when the F-4s were transitioning from predominantly multirole or air-to-air roles to the air-to-ground role, upgrade packages that integrated many modern weapon systems also integrated the HUD systems of modern aircraft of the time, as well as MFDs. Interesting aircraft like the Kurnass 2000, the F-4EJ Kai and the F-4E(H), as well as the Simsek and Terminator 2020 F-4 upgrade programs, might see use as mods, but I don't think any of them would merit a full part of a module- but they'd certainly be interesting being added later on as variants to the F-4E, like the F-14A and F-14B will be. I've been trying planes without HUDs recently and find that the HUD really helps you visualise a lot of important things in a quick and easy fashion- the most important thing being your velocity/lift vector. Actually being able to see where that is pointing is extremely important for knowing the tempo of a fight, as well as for figuring out in what kind of state your plane's flying, and I'm going to miss that with the F-4E.

Edited March 25, 2023 by Aussie_Mantis

[SgtPappy]

17 hours ago, exhausted said:

Thank you for sharing your opinion. Nothing about your opinion threatens my enthusiasm. I hope you find enjoyment in other aspects, such as mastering effective MiG-21 tactics to give you an advantage against what will surely be droves of F-4 noobs.

Lol its not my opinion, I'm quoting you... with the airplanes switched.

[exhausted]

1 hour ago, SgtPappy said:

Lol its not my opinion, I'm quoting you... with the airplanes switched.

To be clear, I posted what my response would be in the situation you presented lol  

I've never targeted anybody and I've become quite comfortable resisting being called out. This is nothing but a consumer viewpoint in a market and it's nothing personal to me. I have consistently been for my viewpoint while not being against anybody else's. As a consumer in the market, I am able to present my point of view and that should not bother anybody else. 

9 hours ago, Aussie_Mantis said:

you seem to ignore any and all international F-4 use prior to upgrade programs and have what comes off as a superiority/god-complex about US Naval Phantoms, to the point of regurgitating myths such as the fact that the F-4J and USMC aviators could "hit mortar-tube sized targets" while the US Air Force somehow could not, or of higher US Navy Kill Rates when all evidence points to the contrary.

 

Prove it's a myth. 

[Vampyre]

 In DCS, a HUD is not necessary to be effective if you know your aircraft. In BFM (If your module is well designed) you will know what state your aircraft is in with visual and audio cues put in to offset the lack of haptic feedback. If you are constantly looking forward to check your altitude, attitude, airspeed and lift vector then you are fighting yourself as much as you are fighting the enemy. In BFM if you lose sight then you will lose the fight. The Heatblur F-14 is a great example as its HUD is not a primary flight instrument. It will buck, shake and wobble visually and the sounds of the airflow and rattling in the cockpit plus knowing that the lift vector will always be directly out of the top of the aircraft tells me the same thing a HUD would with the added benefit of not having to take my eyes off the bandit. The HUD will only become useful in the last seconds before the kill... same as a gunsight. For BVR all of the instruments can be viewed with a good cockpit scan which should be done even with a HUD. For air to ground, having CCIP and CCRP functions with release cues are handy, but again not necessary. Having flown the DCS F-5E a lot in the past (because it was the closest thing I could get to an F-4 at the time) I got good at manual depression bombing... to the point that I could kill moving MBT's with Mk-82's consistently. That kind of skill is honed over time with practice and is perishable. Having a HUD is easy mode for air to ground and is where that instrument shines. It makes a poor pilot seem mediocre and a mediocre pilot seem good.

The F-4 spent the vast majority of its service life and made its reputation without a HUD. That, and the fact that all of the HUD modified versions are small in number, from differing countries, vastly different from each other in both form and function and the difficulties of finding required information/SME's combines to make them less desirable for a module maker in DCS. It seems to me that, simply to cater to the HUD cripples or a minority of nationalistic sentiments, the juice isn't worth the squeeze.

As for the game modification people I'm sure they will jury rig something up.

[Aussie_Mantis]

On 3/26/2023 at 3:22 AM, exhausted said:

To be clear, I posted what my response would be in the situation you presented lol  

I've never targeted anybody and I've become quite comfortable resisting being called out. This is nothing but a consumer viewpoint in a market and it's nothing personal to me. I have consistently been for my viewpoint while not being against anybody else's. As a consumer in the market, I am able to present my point of view and that should not bother anybody else. 

Prove it's a myth. 

Please provide actual, non-anecdotal proof of USMC aviators doing so. It's your claim. I'm not obligated to provide proof of it. Can you provide proof of your claims? Otherwise, it would be hypocritical.As for proof of the second- I'll put it here, since it's not the main point of the thread. This is about HUDs, not @$&*ing on the F-4E, or talking about F-4 myths.

Spoiler

the US Navy made 40 kills with F-4s of all variants- B, J, and N. 23 kills with USAF F-4Es, 44 with F-4Ds and 41 with F-4Cs means that the US Air Force killed 108 MiGs over Vietnam- higher kill numbers. Due to statistics, and the fact that USAF losses overall during the conflict are inflated due to:

1. USAF aircraft were used more heavily during the conflict, present in higher number and flying a higher number of sorties due to being present in higher number

2. USAF F-4s filled a higher variety of missions, and most squadrons were flying in and out of North Vietnam doing anything from SEAD, interdiction over the Ho Chi Minh to TARCAP while USN F-4s almost exclusively only ever did air to air missions and never did any of the more dangerous SEAD/Iron Hand missions that more than likely inflated USAF losses.

The USN kill rate during linebacker was 6:1, the USAF one 2:1, but this doesn't actually account for any factors like Route Pack (the USAF usually flew the more dangerous ones or ones defended more by SAM rather than MiG) or mission (USAF aircraft, as mentioned earlier, did a lot of more dangerous missions, often flying into low flak on Iron Hand or Strike Missions, while USN VF squadrons usually stayed more than far out of it and were not prone to being shot down while laden with bombs due to generally not carrying bombs in the first place). In addition to that, K/D statistics really depend on how you count them. Navy pilots and also planners were far more liberal with what they counted as "kills" as opposed to USAF ones, who were far more stringent and made it far more difficult to justify a plane as having "killed" another.

If I remember correctly, USAF losses in the book: Vietnam Air Losses: USAF, Navy, and Marine Corps Fixed-Wing Aircraft Losses in SE Asia 1961-1973 by Chris Hobson were 51 losses total between the USN and USAF. If we don't account for separate losses- the USAF comes off with a higher kill ratio by virtue of higher kills. However, this is irrelevant, since the USN was not operating with the USAF.

According to the USAF's own data and accouting for Unknowns, 38 phantoms were lost in air to air combat according to their 1973 Operational Summary. This includes aircraft damaged that either landed at base or crash-landed at base and were subsequently written off. The USN is quoted by a USAF Society article as having lost 7 Phantoms, but this only accounts for aircraft that were shot down and never made it back to the carrier- not write-offs or crash-landings. If we adjust for these, the USN lost about ~15 phantoms, while the USAF lost 38 (this already accounts for the crashes) resulting in ratios of 2.84210526 for the USAF, and 2.66666667 overall for the USN. But this is biased due to a small number of USN aircraft killed and missions flown relative to the USAF. I can't say for certain whether the USAF or the USN was better in air to air combat when the USAF just got so many more kills that whatever I say about the USN will be statistically irrelevant and difficult to actually extrapolate any data about. The USAF had nearly 2300 aircraft lost by any cause over 11 years of combat. The US Navy lost significantly less, but also contributed less aircraft, so it honestly makes sense.

I'm not trying to disrespect USAF or USN pilots here. Both made immense sacrifices for their country and my respect goes out to both. What I'm trying to make a point of is that trying to give one service a handjob while actively trying to discredit the other benefits nobody, not me, not you, and not the thousands of USAF servicemen that to us, are just numbers, but to everyone they knew, were people of real flesh and real blood. Both deserve respect. The least I can do for them is to tell the truth of the horrific war they fought, underprepared for the fights that they would engage in due to doctrinal errors and inexperience of using missiles in air to air combat.

We could debate USN/USAF kill ratios forever, but that would derail the thread. The crux of the matter is, neither air arm was prepared for Vietnam- the US Navy was probably the better prepared of the two, but not by much, and their training regimes as opposed to the USAF worked better, especially after '68, and that showed during Linebacker. Thankfully, the USAF got its proverbial #*$@ together and kicked ass in desert storm, and so did the Navy.

 

On 3/26/2023 at 4:49 AM, Vampyre said:

 In DCS, a HUD is not necessary to be effective if you know your aircraft. In BFM (If your module is well designed) you will know what state your aircraft is in with visual and audio cues put in to offset the lack of haptic feedback. If you are constantly looking forward to check your altitude, attitude, airspeed and lift vector then you are fighting yourself as much as you are fighting the enemy. In BFM if you lose sight then you will lose the fight. The Heatblur F-14 is a great example as its HUD is not a primary flight instrument. It will buck, shake and wobble visually and the sounds of the airflow and rattling in the cockpit plus knowing that the lift vector will always be directly out of the top of the aircraft tells me the same thing a HUD would with the added benefit of not having to take my eyes off the bandit. The HUD will only become useful in the last seconds before the kill... same as a gunsight. For BVR all of the instruments can be viewed with a good cockpit scan which should be done even with a HUD. For air to ground, having CCIP and CCRP functions with release cues are handy, but again not necessary. Having flown the DCS F-5E a lot in the past (because it was the closest thing I could get to an F-4 at the time) I got good at manual depression bombing... to the point that I could kill moving MBT's with Mk-82's consistently. That kind of skill is honed over time with practice and is perishable. Having a HUD is easy mode for air to ground and is where that instrument shines. It makes a poor pilot seem mediocre and a mediocre pilot seem good.

The F-4 spent the vast majority of its service life and made its reputation without a HUD. That, and the fact that all of the HUD modified versions are small in number, from differing countries, vastly different from each other in both form and function and the difficulties of finding required information/SME's combines to make them less desirable for a module maker in DCS. It seems to me that, simply to cater to the HUD cripples or a minority of nationalistic sentiments, the juice isn't worth the squeeze.

As for the game modification people I'm sure they will jury rig something up.

Excellent points here. The F-4E cockpit is probably one of the better ones- certainly better than the early Air Force and later Navy F-4 phantoms in terms of overall layout. A lot of it, especially in the front cockpit, is optimised for dogfighting.

Also handy is the fact that the F-4E, unlike all other F-4 variants, will have a dogfight override pinky switch that lets us switch from guns to sparrows to sidewinder, as well as an easy A2G/A2A override. No messing around with a dial. Slap one button on the side of your throttle to switch to Air to Air, then use a pinky switch to switch from one system to another. Surprising for a plane that some people would claim is "weighed down" with air to ground hardware. The aircraft has a lot of the control schemes that you'd associate with more modern planes already, like ECM Pods, Targeting pods like Pave Tack that have a thermal channel, datalink between bomb and plane, self-designation for paveways, a POV switch on the main stick to steer maverick locks, split workload between the forwards and rear cockpit, and unlike USN models, isn't limited mostly to the air to air roleset thanks to high integration of almost any and all piece of technology the US Air Arms fielded from 1963 to 1987. You can plink tanks with Mavericks, bomb bridges with GBU-24 paveway IIIs- whatever you want.

It's almost like it's not, and remained a highly effective and potent fighter for the air to air arena that saw the US through to generation 4. I'm honestly excited to see slatted F-4Es as our first Phantom and I'm looking forwards to flying it. My only misgiving is that I'm going to have to get used to not having a HMD or a HUD!

As for counter-MiG tactics- it's going to be fun. The F-4E rates very well compared to unslatted phantoms and even compared to a lot of MiG-21 variants. The MiG-21, from what I hear, is a tough fight, but it'll be fun to figure out how to kill it.

in my honest opinion, I therefore conclude that the F-4E will be a really important plane- a bridge that connects older/simpler Generation 3s like the F-5 to more modern aircraft like the F-15, just like the Mirage F1C.

Edited March 27, 2023 by Aussie_Mantis

[exhausted]

13 hours ago, Aussie_Mantis said:

Please provide actual, non-anecdotal proof of USMC aviators doing so. It's your claim. I'm not obligated to provide proof of it. Can you provide proof of your claims? Otherwise, it would be hypocritical.As for proof of the second- I'll put it here, since it's not the main point of the thread. This is about HUDs, not @$&*ing on the F-4E, or talking about F-4 myths.

This framing doesn't really seem like you're setting up for much of a debate. I am not sure why we are using this thread to talk about things said or not said in other threads. Sorry you disagree with me, but I have not used myth as fact. Best wishes.

Edited March 27, 2023 by exhausted

[Aussie_Mantis]

5 hours ago, exhausted said:

This framing doesn't really seem like you're setting up for much of a debate. I am not sure why we are using this thread to talk about things said or not said in other threads. Sorry you disagree with me, but I have not used myth as fact. Best wishes.

 

Hi there,

Please read what I posted instead of rejecting it out of hand due to a preconception. I have clearly stated both my opinions and whether or not it is up for debate inside the spoiler and do not feel like repeating myself again in an unrelated thread.

Sincerely yours,

 

Mantis.

Edited March 27, 2023 by Aussie_Mantis

[exhausted]

13 hours ago, Aussie_Mantis said:

Hi there,

Please read what I posted instead of rejecting it out of hand due to a preconception. I have clearly stated both my opinions and whether or not it is up for debate inside the spoiler and do not feel like repeating myself again in an unrelated thread.

Sincerely yours,

 

Mantis.

 

Mantis, I've read everything I had patience for. I'm seriously not interested in going tit-for-tat over something completely unrelated to this thread. Maybe another place, maybe another time, but not here. 

[upyr1]

Unlike some people I really don't have a problem with the Super Phantom 2000s I want the classic versions first. I think if we ever get the F the Ice would be the best variant otherwise it would be a crippled E

[NoodI]

+1 I would enjoy a f4f ice

Or a f4e aup

Edited March 28, 2023 by NoodI

[1130]

Wow I can learn so many new knowledges here, thank you @Aussie_Mantis   for your comments about the HUDs. Very good points from the WPN system to Vector indications

For the others, sorry I don't want this post lead to any aggressive arguments. Like I said, I love all the Phantoms, and I know HUD will only be on some late versions, I'm Happy and grateful  to see HB making that E version as the first Phantom product in DCS, and if they would like to add a Phantom with HUD ,like EJ kai in the future that would be a perfect dream day of mine   but I know not everyone would be interest in that one, but some would be like it as well, from the cost of manpower and investments ratios, it's more likely to be a player community mod first.   Pardon my bad English as a non native speaker my self  

2023/3/25 PM4点04分，Aussie_Mantis说：

On the topic of HUDs, @1130 in my opinion, despite some people believing that adding a HUD would detract from the aircraft, I think it might be interesting. Historically, towards the end of their service life in air forces globally, usually when the F-4s were transitioning from predominantly multirole or air-to-air roles to the air-to-ground role, upgrade packages that integrated many modern weapon systems also integrated the HUD systems of modern aircraft of the time, as well as MFDs. Interesting aircraft like the Kurnass 2000, the F-4EJ Kai and the F-4E(H), as well as the Simsek and Terminator 2020 F-4 upgrade programs, might see use as mods, but I don't think any of them would merit a full part of a module- but they'd certainly be interesting being added later on as variants to the F-4E, like the F-14A and F-14B will be. I've been trying planes without HUDs recently and find that the HUD really helps you visualise a lot of important things in a quick and easy fashion- the most important thing being your velocity/lift vector. Actually being able to see where that is pointing is extremely important for knowing the tempo of a fight, as well as for figuring out in what kind of state your plane's flying, and I'm going to miss that with the F-4E.

 

 

[Aussie_Mantis]

 

21 hours ago, 1130 said:

Wow I can learn so many new knowledges here, thank you @Aussie_Mantis   for your comments about the HUDs. Very good points from the WPN system to Vector indications

For the others, sorry I don't want this post lead to any aggressive arguments. Like I said, I love all the Phantoms, and I know HUD will only be on some late versions, I'm Happy and grateful  to see HB making that E version as the first Phantom product in DCS, and if they would like to add a Phantom with HUD ,like EJ kai in the future that would be a perfect dream day of mine   but I know not everyone would be interest in that one, but some would be like it as well, from the cost of manpower and investments ratios, it's more likely to be a player community mod first.   Pardon my bad English as a non native speaker my self  

 

 

No worries man, I make typos like a broken typewriter with the keys flubbed around. HUDs won't come to any F-4 variants intended to be added, since US variants generally do not have Heads-up displays. They really skimped out. Fortunately, the cockpits should be relatively easy to navigate. I would personally like a later F-4E upgrade- preferably the Greek or Israeli ones- but if that doesn't come about, then I don't really mind. The F-4E is what I personally think is the coolest Phantom, so I certainly don't have any quarrel or need to wait years for another carrier-based variant. Though I do agree they might be cool with VTAS and PD, there's something about the USAF ones that just gets me.

 

Well, that and the many hours of Strike Fighters 2. Call me biased, I probably am.

Edited March 29, 2023 by Aussie_Mantis

[Aussie_Mantis]

@1130Thought of this afterwards but was working & didn't have time to post-

 

If you really want to familiarize yourself, start gettingnull to know the cockpit layout. Here's two images to get you started:

nullthey'renull meant to be one fold-out, so use photoshop ro something to crop them into place!

[exhausted]

On 3/27/2023 at 6:26 PM, upyr1 said:

Unlike some people I really don't have a problem with the Super Phantom 2000s I want the classic versions first. I think if we ever get the F the Ice would be the best variant otherwise it would be a crippled E

ICE would be really awesome, since it was so specialized for service in the current environment.

[1130]

19小时前，Aussie_Mantis说：

@1130Thought of this afterwards but was working & didn't have time to post-

 

If you really want to familiarize yourself, start gettingnull to know the cockpit layout. Here's two images to get you started:

nullthey'renull meant to be one fold-out, so use photoshop ro something to crop them into place!

This is sharp！ thx man！ this is the best reading material of the year