Pilot Body Update from Aug, 18th

[nicka117]

Any progress on this feature....or are we likely waiting until March for it?

[westr]

Looking at some of the recent issues that they are looking into after the last couple of OBs I think your right I can’t see it being before March 

[Gunslinger22]

Crazy to think march really isn't far off, we're going to have to see a heap of content being added very soon! 

[westr]

Hi guys I know this may be something that is not added until final release like you’ve previously explained but I wondered if you had any screenshots of wip.

 

loving the ‘A’ btw the module is truly unique in DCS. 

Edited January 18, 2021 by westr

[nicka117]

Are we still on track to get pilot bodies in the cockpit soon? It feels so empty in VR.

[Gunslinger22]

27 minutes ago, nicka117 said:

Are we still on track to get pilot bodies in the cockpit soon? It feels so empty in VR.

Yes, the Tomcat will be feature complete by the end of March. 

[Skysurfer]

25 minutes ago, Gunslinger22 said:

Yes, the Tomcat will be feature complete by the end of March. 

 

X for doubt.

[Northstar98]

X, there's quite a few things not there yet, some albeit minor and mostly related to tests (such as OBC to name one).

 

EDIT: I also forgot TARPS! Though I guess reconnaissance missions don't really make too much practical sense without a dynamic campaign to facilitate it. 

Edited March 9, 2021 by Northstar98

[Skysurfer]

57 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

X, there's quite a few things not there yet, some albeit minor and mostly related to tests (such as OBC to name one).

 

 

And they specifically said they focused on bringing the Viggen out of EA in March rather than the Tomcat. If we see the eraly and IRIAF A + the Forrestal we can be happy at this point. There's indeed still quite some work to be done and the devil is in the details.

[Northstar98]

1 minute ago, Skysurfer said:

And they specifically said they focused on bringing the Viggen out of EA in March rather than the Tomcat. If we see the eraly and IRIAF A + the Forrestal we can be happy at this point. There's indeed still quite some work to be done and the devil is in the details.

 

Absolutely agreed!

[IronMike]

We need a bit more time than March to complete the Tomcat, but our goal is "as soon as possible this year", means as early as possible, in no way we want to drag it out. We just need a bit more time to keep up the quality. Thank you for your kind patience.

[Skysurfer]

2 hours ago, IronMike said:

We need a bit more time than March to complete the Tomcat, but our goal is "as soon as possible this year", means as early as possible, in no way we want to drag it out. We just need a bit more time to keep up the quality. Thank you for your kind patience.

 

If there is steady progress, content flow and now new bugs are introduced / main ones are addressed I don't see a reason to be in a rush or even obligated to meet a deadline. If it's done with passion, it's going to be good. Like, if we see more liveries + fixes for the A, the early A's and the Forrestal fairly soon as well as maybe the A-6, it would be more than a welcome milestone.

[Swordsman422]

Took me this long to have this d'oh moment after the gear discussion early in the thread: Heatblur talked about the MBU-5 and they aren't wrong for Iranian service. Iranian F-14 crews used the HGU-26/MBU-5/PCU-15 combination since Iran was mainly a customer of USAF gear up until that point.

 

Another side note that HB doesn't need to correct but might bother ASE nerds, F-14B/D crews used a different vest and regulator configuration than F-14A crews of the same period did. The SV-2B vest was modified by removing the big radio pocket on the left of the zipper and the paracord cutter pouch on the right side. The radio pouch was replaced with a mounting bracket for an OBOGS regulator and the cutter pocket replaced with a combined radio/knife pocket similar to what is seen on the CMU-36. In the mid-90's it was pretty easy to pick out which type F-14 crews were flying based on the regulator and presence or absence of leg garters, since the SJU-17 seat in the F-14D had integrated leg restraints.

[LanceCriminal86]

6 hours ago, Swordsman422 said:

Took me this long to have this d'oh moment after the gear discussion early in the thread: Heatblur talked about the MBU-5 and they aren't wrong for Iranian service. Iranian F-14 crews used the HGU-26/MBU-5/PCU-15 combination since Iran was mainly a customer of USAF gear up until that point.

 

Another side note that HB doesn't need to correct but might bother ASE nerds, F-14B/D crews used a different vest and regulator configuration than F-14A crews of the same period did. The SV-2B vest was modified by removing the big radio pocket on the left of the zipper and the paracord cutter pouch on the right side. The radio pouch was replaced with a mounting bracket for an OBOGS regulator and the cutter pocket replaced with a combined radio/knife pocket similar to what is seen on the CMU-36. In the mid-90's it was pretty easy to pick out which type F-14 crews were flying based on the regulator and presence or absence of leg garters, since the SJU-17 seat in the F-14D had integrated leg restraints.

 

Last I saw the Bs didn't have OBOGS, per a 1999 or so dated training document. Only the D was listed with OBOGS, there's a VF-103 guy that was here through their last cruise who worked on B Upgrades and he recalled only the Ds having it. And those extra vents on the jet may be part of the OBOGS as it was further back in the jet and on one side.

 

Like the MODEX I'm seeing a lot of variations over years and squadrons on flight gear. It'd be another really bad rabbit hole to go down for sure, but the SV-2B should still be the main survival harness until more recently, I think GWOT, when the CWU-33 style vests really started coming in.

 

 

THIS IS NOW A TOMCAT FLIGHT GEAR THREAD UNTIL WE GET NEW BODIES

 

Here's a VF-142 pic showing what we rougly have right now:

 

 

Last F-14A flight for VF-201 in November 1998. I see MA-2 harness, SV-2B vests, HGU-68 helmets with the fixed visor track. Their patches are somewhat different than the base Tomcat pilots in game.

 

 

Here's VF-31 in 2003, still looks to be an SV-2B. HGU-68 helmet as well. Maybe newer type flotation collar?

 

Here's 31 again in 2006, Looks like the CWU-33 style survival harness here, but also looks like the guy climbing has a VF-32 helmet?

 

 

I think this photo of Meagan from Speed and Angels with her RIO shows her with the later CWU-33? survival vest

 

 

 

Edited March 12, 2021 by LanceCriminal86

[Swordsman422]

Interesting images. The documents must be right. I have seen F-14B crews wearing SV-2s configured for chest-mounted regulators, but I guess they must still be using LOX. This is the only image I can readily find.

 

 

As far as I am aware, F-14 crews were still using the SV-2 as late as 2002. This shot is from VF-143 either before or after they cruised on the John F. Kennedy. Interesting to note that they are using the horse collar LPU. 

Funny story, when Revell redid their F-14 kit about 10 years ago for a limited run, they used this image as a basis for the pilot figures, and the molding was... just bad.

 

The CMU-33/CMU-36 was initially adapted over the MA-2 torso harness. As far as I know, any CMU that has an integrated harness is for helicopter crews. The integrated harness/survival vest is the PCU-78, which is basically a PCU-56 with MOLLE loops. All of this stuff would fall outside the modelled period for HB's F-14.

Edited March 12, 2021 by Swordsman422

[bonesvf103]

6 hours ago, LanceCriminal86 said:

 

 

Here's VF-31 in 2003, still looks to be an SV-2B. HGU-68 helmet as well. Maybe newer type flotation collar?

 

This is not an HGU-68/P.  HGU-68/Ps have the off center slide lock to raise and lower the visor (like the VF-201 photo you have above it).  Rather, this is an HGU-55/P that has modification for using NVGs (hence the clips on the black "elephant ears."  This is what the last Tomcat crews were wearing, though there were some HGU-68/Ps here and there, inasmuch as there were some MBU-20/Ps  and Combat Edge systems.

 

The horseshoe type flotation collar, with the beads like Megan is wearing, is the LPU-34 low profile collar.  Before the LPU-21 was used (seen in most photos from the 80s).

 

The CMU-33 is the newer version of the CWU-33, but there is little functional difference.  The CMU-33 is for rotary wing crews and has a flap on the right clavicle that opens to expose a slot where an extraction hook can go.  The CMU-33A is for fixed wing ejection seats and so does not have this, but it has slits cut into the vest at about pectoral level so that the Koch fittings and the D-Ring from the MA-2 can fit though them.

 

The oxygen regulator that connected directly to the MBU-14/P hose was the CRU-79/P.  The chest mounted version that attached to the modified SV-2B was the CRU-88/P.  I believe the CRU-88 was used in the latter days of the Tomcat's era.  The REDAR hose was used with the CRU-79/P, maybe the CRU-88 too.

 

v6,

boNes

 

[Swordsman422]

 

2 hours ago, bonesvf103 said:

This is not an HGU-68/P.  HGU-68/Ps have the off center slide lock to raise and lower the visor (like the VF-201 photo you have above it).  Rather, this is an HGU-55/P that has modification for using NVGs (hence the clips on the black "elephant ears."  This is what the last Tomcat crews were wearing, though there were some HGU-68/Ps here and there, inasmuch as there were some MBU-20/Ps  and Combat Edge systems.

 

Tomcat crews did in fact commonly use the HGU-68. Since the 600kt visor assembly was not compatible with ANVIS, it was removed at the squadron level and replaced with the same bungee visor used on the -55. These converts are sometimes, though not always, easily picked out by bare areas or obvious patches in the tape work where the visor track used to be. 

 

 

The LPU-34 is actually used for rotary-wing and non-ejection aircraft. Ejection seat aircraft were and still are using the LPU-36. This life preserver was introduced to the F-14 community around 2002, easily dated by the F-14 crew in the image above. VF-143's lone cruise aboard the John F. Kennedy occurred February to August of 2002 and their markings for this period were quite distinctive. The RIO in the above image is even the same man as appears in the image of the VF-143 crew from my previous post. Here, he's wearing the LPU-23 ( the ejection-seat equipped aircraft version of the LPU-21) and in the other image, the LPU-36 combined with the SV-2B survival vest, which was a short-lived combination. Around 2004, Tomcat crews were using the CMU-33/LPU-36 combo, still over the MA-2 torso harness. The below image is from 2003, and notice the pilot is still wearing the SV-2B/LPU-36 over the MA-2 torso harness.

 

Whereas the crew in the next image from 2005 are wearing the CMU-33/LPU-36 combo, still over the MA-2 torso harness.

 

 

 

 

[LanceCriminal86]

4 hours ago, bonesvf103 said:

This is not an HGU-68/P.  HGU-68/Ps have the off center slide lock to raise and lower the visor (like the VF-201 photo you have above it).  Rather, this is an HGU-55/P that has modification for using NVGs (hence the clips on the black "elephant ears."  This is what the last Tomcat crews were wearing, though there were some HGU-68/Ps here and there, inasmuch as there were some MBU-20/Ps  and Combat Edge systems.

 

The horseshoe type flotation collar, with the beads like Megan is wearing, is the LPU-34 low profile collar.  Before the LPU-21 was used (seen in most photos from the 80s).

 

The CMU-33 is the newer version of the CWU-33, but there is little functional difference.  The CMU-33 is for rotary wing crews and has a flap on the right clavicle that opens to expose a slot where an extraction hook can go.  The CMU-33A is for fixed wing ejection seats and so does not have this, but it has slits cut into the vest at about pectoral level so that the Koch fittings and the D-Ring from the MA-2 can fit though them.

 

The oxygen regulator that connected directly to the MBU-14/P hose was the CRU-79/P.  The chest mounted version that attached to the modified SV-2B was the CRU-88/P.  I believe the CRU-88 was used in the latter days of the Tomcat's era.  The REDAR hose was used with the CRU-79/P, maybe the CRU-88 too.

 

v6,

boNes

 

 

 

I was told explicitly that HGU-55s all have the gray edgeroll/elephant ears. If you see black edgeroll/ears it indicates an HGU-68 of some kind or a converted HGU-33. And as said above sometimes you see 68s with the fixed visor track but often you don't.

 

To add another twist the HGU-55s from Gibson and Barnes and Flight Suits Ltd use an ear pattern that mimics the old HGU-48, from which the 55 was born. I'm not sure when those came about but they very well could be in the mix from the 90s.

 

 

IMO for the Tomcats we have the HGU-68/SV-2B combo is probably the latest I'd want to see, considering our jets just don't accurately represent the ones used during the GWOT. While yes ours should have the PTID there are some additional features and upgrades on the Bs/B Upgrades that fought through 2005, which are the ones we're seeing here with the later CWU survival vests.

 

The good news IMO is that with the HGU-55, despite having not actually seen any previews of it, I'm confident we can get awful close to the HGU-68s used through the late 90s. The visor track can be added in textures and a little fun with normal maps and roughmets ought to be more than enough. The existing faux 55/68 trick Isoko and others have used are pretty convincing from a distance. I've not yet been able to duplicate it on my own, I'm waiting for the 55 to come out so I can drop some proper helmets for VF-201's last Tomcat year. Some of the other squadron members had HGU-55s during that year, but I do also want to reflect the final flight jet eventually.

 

I'd like to see more stuff from the late 80s through late 90s if you have em.

 

Here's a video that has some good cockpit footage from VF-1, shows examples of the converted 33s or possibly even the above mentioned Gibson or Flight Suits versions.

 

Skip to about 9 minutes to start the Navy fun, Tomcat crews around 12 minutes:

 

 

 

[bonesvf103]

Thanks for the updates.  What makes a LPU-34 different from the LPU-36?

 

Could it be that not all helmets were converted HGU-68s?  I have seen a black edgerolled and elephant eared HGU-55 that didn't have a -68 track or drill holes to attach the track.

 

Is the MA-2 still used?  If not, what's in its place?
 

v6,

boNes

[LanceCriminal86]

25 minutes ago, bonesvf103 said:

Thanks for the updates.  What makes a LPU-34 different from the LPU-36?

 

Could it be that not all helmets were converted HGU-68s?  I have seen a black edgerolled and elephant eared HGU-55 that didn't have a -68 track or drill holes to attach the track.

 

Is the MA-2 still used?  If not, what's in its place?
 

v6,

boNes

 

Not all 68s had the tracks, if you look at more Hornet helmet pics there's a bigger sample size. There was the "TACAIR" visor track like the pic I showed, there's also some newer ones that are on the sides like the older HGU visors. But most often I seem to see neither, just bungee visors and later on with the NVG clips.

 

Another tell may be the location of the comms cord. I think 33s, 55s, and 68s have differences there as well.

 

HGU-55s weren't coming quickly when the Navy adopted them and I guess the Air Force was getting the lion's share, so the Navy approved the conversion of HGU-33/34s to the 55 style. Hence where you see some of the funky elephant ear shapes, black ears, no ears and just bumpers, old style mask receivers, etc.

[Jackjack171]

13 hours ago, LanceCriminal86 said:

 

 

Here's 31 again in 2006, Looks like the CWU-33 style survival harness here, but also looks like the guy climbing has a VF-32 helmet?

 

 

I've seen this a few times. It usually happens when they transfer squadrons. The PR shop didn't get to swap out the reflective tape yet. This is often seen in the FRS during CQ as well. Most of the instructors still had their previous units reflective tape.

[Swordsman422]

I like how I spent 15 minutes writing my post and it only saved the pictures and not the text.

 

The main difference between the HGU-55 and -68 is the helmet shell, and specifically the shell material. That's pretty much it. If there are no signs of the former 600kt visor, then your best bet is to just know the date range of the image unless the helmet is in your hands, then you just peel back the liner and look at the label. After 1998 you can expect that carrier based fixed-wing tacair crews were using the HGU-68 or one of its variants. Below are a -33, a -55, and a -68 for comparison of comms cords locations. The -55 and -68 have it in a very similar position.

 

 

 

 

As to the color of the edgeroll being a defining attribute, this is also an HGU-55.

 

 

The differences between the LPU-34 and -36 are internal and just a matter of inflation options. -34s are fully manual, where -36s also have salt water activated inflators. Good for someone who didn't stay conscious during ejection and can't inflate his own LPU.

 

As far as I know, the US Navy still uses the MA-2 harness or a newer variation. With the CMU-36 moving to coyote brown, it's easier to distinguish. The USMC uses the PCU-78, with is a PCU-56 with MOLLE built in, essentially an integrated harness and survival vest.

 

Edited March 13, 2021 by Swordsman422

[bonesvf103]

Why did anyone move from the HGU-33 to the 55+?  The locking visor seems like when it hit that 400+ knot slipstream, it's not ripped off and continues to shield your eyes.  The -55 is just a visor attached with bungee straps that snap on.  They come up and over the foam blocks easily enough so I imagine in a slipstream they would fly right over the top of the helmet and get ripped off.  Why did they move to those?

 

Was it that the 55+ had better visibility than the 33? 

 

Also in the 33, the visor is stored in that integrated cover while the 55 has a Velcroed lambskin cover.  I think the visor housing is more protective than the lambskin cover is.

 

Anyone know the reason?

 

What happens if you eject and pass out over freshwater like one of the Great Lakes?  How would your LPU inflate then?  Any fix for that?

 

v6,

boNes

[Swordsman422]

The low profile helmets are lighter, more balanced, more end-user friendly, and compatible with a broader range of night vision systems. Having worn the APH-6, HGU-33, -55, and -68, I can tell you that a properly-fitting HGU-33 won 't impede peripheral vision like the APH helmets will. Generally, the low-profile helmets are less fatiguing to wear just under normal circumstances. In a turning fight, the extra weight under G of the visor housing can be an impedance. I would rather have a helmet that functions better in 99% of my flight regimes and satisfies 99% of my utility needs than be exceptional in the event of my ejection but mediocre everywhere else, especially if that helmet makes the need to eject less likely by being a factor in losing a fight.

 

Helmets can just as easily get ripped off in ejections as well. The slipstream gets underneath it and pulls it right off. The chinstrap snap is just firm enough to hold the helmet on normally, but if enough pressure is put on the snap in a way that might injure you, it'll pop out and the helmet will come off. Lt. Keith Gallagher lost his helmet and mask in a partial ejection from an A-6. If there is enough resistance to the slipstream, the slipstream is going to take it. The 600kt visor on the HGU-68 is supposed to stay in place in the event of an ejection at 600 KIAS, but the vast majority of ejections don't occur at speeds that high, so F-14 squadrons were comfortable replacing these visors with bungee visors that were more compatible with night vision systems. It's a gamble but there is just more operational utility in their decision.

 

The HGU-33 visor housing isn't as protective of the visor as it might initially appear. After a while, you'll still get scratches and streaks, especially along the knob track, right in the middle of your vision, from just friction of moving the visor. The lock knob is also not particularly easy to work with in gloved hands, and binds sometimes where turning it both ways seems to just tighten it.

 

But please remember that, having never flown fighters, this is only my opinion and experience, and is not reflective of the experience had by combat aviators.

Edited March 14, 2021 by Swordsman422

[RaisedByWolves]

On 12/22/2020 at 4:58 AM, Gunslinger22 said:

Crazy to think march really isn't far off, we're going to have to see a heap of content being added very soon! 

 

"manage your expectations"

 

:0