near_blind

Ironically, this is kinda how I feel each time a tornado thread pops up in here.

How many goats must we line up for ED to finally put together the intermediary Air Force and Navy Sidewinders between the B and the P and L?

You're just saying that because we don't have dual rack Slammers. Yet.

Sounds like a golden opportunity for you to hone your skills with the AIM-7 and AIM-9.

AI_SHOOT1.acmiAI_SHOOT2.acmiAI_SHOOT3.acmi Simple set up, three AI F-14Bs with Task set to CAP, one set to the default random setting, one to max launch range, one to half way between max and no escape. In all three tests, all three F-14s engaged with AIM-54s. In the final test. I hopped in as a player and gave my wingman (again, using the default random setting) orders to engage bandits, and he engaged.

That'll do it!

How fast are you going? If you have sufficient speed to windmill the engines above 48% RPM the generators should stay online. Below that, it's probably a bug unless I've missed some strange edge case.

Literally Unplayable.zip.acmi Jaccuse etc.acmi

If you're just trying to test straight line kinematics got cfd validation, does it matter if the missle is active or not? Otherwise loft isn't really "configurable" for TWS/PD-STT shots.

ACM cover goes brrrrrrt

I'd also add Get. Higher. (emphasis added for general consumption rather than towards you personally) When in doubt, embrace the BVR Sparrow and the SARH banzai.

Context is key. Up high where you are reducing drag as a factor until the end game, allowing the missile to loft up and leverage its greater weight on the downward portion? Yes, I would expect it to out range an AMRAAM. Down low where it to bull through the soupmosphere with its greater mass and diameter? Speaking of cuff without testing, I expect the AIM-120 to get where it's going faster and maintain its speed better doing it, which probably means it's going to go further. With this FM the AIM-54 is going to suffer flying low and or flat, the lower and flatter, the worse the pain. The Phoenix seems to prefer falling to gliding. That's not to say there aren't indisputable guidance issues that need to be solved.

What are your shot parameters?

It's also got massive drag counteracting that massive motor. it's a thick missile and low altitude isn't really its happy place.

More or less

Your Tomcat pilot has a cassette player with sick tunes in his flight suit It comes with a default soundtrack, but you can replace it with your own files.

Chuck

That, with maybe reducing or eliminating their RCS / attractiveness to radar guided cruise missiles would be a pretty good change.

The reason I don't find the automatic transition reliable and recommend disabling it, is it doesn't take into account the pertinent factors of the engagement. HB have modelled that when switching from PDSTT to PSTT, the further to the left or right of centerline the radar lock is, and the lower it is from the horizon, the more likely that the PSTT transition will drop the lock, target closure and aspect may also play a role. Jester does not take azimuth or elevation into account when making his decision to switch modes, he merely uses range. If I'm guiding a Sparrow with STT, at the ranges where jester wants to switch modes automatically, I am usually deep in a crank (the target is off to one side), and it is almost a guarantee that the lock will be dropped. Now. I'm not saying disabling it will magically solve all your issues. Manually setting it means you are now responsible for keeping track of what mode your radar is in, and when you want to switch it, and all of those aforementioned issues still exist, but I find I am a better judge of when to make that transition than jester is. A dev can correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall this behavior being present since the release of the module. It's just relatively rare as once established, PSTT is usually pretty reliable. I haven't done substantive testing into what causes it, but I seem to notice it when the target closure rate is very low, and they are chaffing heavily. E.G. I was shooting at a MiG-29 the other day that attempted to defeat a Sparrow by doing a hammerhead (that is nose pointed straight up, no/very limited horizontal speed) while dumping chaff. Lost pulse lock, and then the next three sweeps of PAL locked onto chaff bundles.

Aight, but who's bringing the AIM-4s?

How deep is the water? Ships won't "sink" unless there's enough depth for water to cover the highest point if the model. If they are destroyed in shallow water it's possible to settle on the bottom without hitting that threshold and remain there indefinitely.

Same questions from the beginning of the thread apply. Which STT? Is automatic PDSTT -> PSTT enabled? Are you sure the bandits were hot and you didn't just have closure on them? A Tacview or something showing what the target is doing couldn't hurt.

The difference between the our F-14B and the F-14A blk 135 are... the engines, the engine gauge, and the A doesn't have the thrust asymmetry limiter / SEC panel the B does. Otherwise major systems (RWR, RADAR, Navigation, etc.) are all the same. This is, btw, why the B was originally called the A+, it was just intended to be an up engined A as an interim measure until the D could enter service in numbers. Control mappings should be common between the two aircraft, so you shouldn't even need to remap anything. Eventually HB should be giving us an older F-14A variant for the USN and the IRIAF each. Those should have some more noticeable differences, especially regarding the RWR.

Back in October the flight model got reworked, and the amount of authority available to the auto pilot isn't quite correct to control the aircraft with the new values properly. This is known and being worked on, but until then consider the A/P only partially functional at best