IronMike

What do you mean by list? Like a script? That's not how that works. During my theatre time I developed a special technique that creates a play in only a few days through improvisation. With this technique I was able to bring a play to the stage in only 3 days, from nothing. You know the direction, but you write it together with the actors, as well as stage it at the same time. In a way, you let the actors live out the story while it is written. This technique has been applied to Jester, which is what makes him so lively, moody, etc. I have ofc everything written down, too, because one of the rules of this technique is "write everything down" - but in Jester's case (and contrary to a theatre play) you cannot just use that as transcriptions, because when you do the variations, you also need to divert from what is written down. This is what helps to keep his language alive. What you cannot do in Jester's case is write out a script that has all combinations either, because I had to focus on the single parts beeing peeled out to a level that they are all compatible with each other, while still delivering a diversity in mood and emotion. This is the most difficult part and takes all the focus. Curating a script for that is just a horrible distraction, which isn't needed, because I keep that all in my head, more readily available and with a far better overview than any script could ever give me. So in the end, you have a result coming from thousands of notes, dozens of word documents, the freedom to improvise and the organic combination of thousands of voice calls. Hence it is easier to transcribe it from the end result, which is best taken from a combination of the single calls and the sdefs (which basically are a script, just broken down in 11k parts). Art may be a form of engineering, and engineering is a form of art, but they also work vastly different at times. You can't just engineer Jester's language and write up a script beforehand - you have to live it out.

We have no plans at all to do that, as we always stated, please keep that in mind.

I will say it was a mistake to say this. The reason is simple: for one my screen is capped at 60hz (4k 55") and the 200 FPS was displayed as such in the FPS counter (ctrl+scroll), so if my screen wasn't capped at 60, I cannot say, if the jump would have really been up to 200 FPS. Secondly, it can be different on different systems, even if the same or similar setup, and I now set expectations, which may or may not apply, once multithreading comes. So please manage your expectations accordingly. And my apologies for jumping the gun there a bit out of my own excitement. Please take it with a huge grain of salt, and we'll all have to check how much we gain each of us in particular, when multithreading releases.

Do you have maybe a tacview saved from your attempts please? Do you hear Uzi 2 being hit at all? (this one is important) You are also not supposed to kill anything but the bandits assigned to you. You do not get any call for any MiGs in direction of anything, except the 2 Su27s and the 2 MiGs out of Gudauta. It is possible that killing other bandits, which are not assigned to you, is breaking the trigger logic. Uzi 7 btw isn't there, it is just a call as in "they will relieve you". I double and triple checked everything, and there is no flaw in the trigger logic/ scoring system.

The reason we are not doing them, is because we would have to transcribe nigh 11.000 voice calls, make nigh 11.000 sdefs for it and then write the code to have the combined (fractured) transcriptions play together like the audio files. It bugs, us, too, and we keep thinking about it, but it is a monumental task, and unfortunately not possible atm. I also doubt anyone would invest the time for it for a mod. We even have offers from hearing impared community members, who would be willing to help with the transcriptions, but coding all of that is the real bottleneck, where we simply need to say "no" for the time being.

All our reaction precisely. Trust me, you are very thankful for having missed that thread.

We will have some nice surprises of long awaited items, but temper your expectations please: in the discord I was indeed referring to the fuel pylons. We shall see what else we might have put into the patch. To avoid disappointment though: - it is not the -D. - it is not a clean cockpit. - it is not the early A (yet). - it is not glove vanes.

Yes, I think we can look into that. So basically what you would like is the functionality of the kneeboard as is know when brought up with "K", but directly when strapped on your legs, without having to press K? If we do it, it will be further down the priority list, as our plate is really full atm, but I absolutely like the idea. Thank you for the suggestion!

With exceptions, full burners in BFM. Do not brake using your throttle, that is or can be a terrible mistake. You manage speed and AOA with your stick input primarily. There are times ofc where you want to also reduce your throttle, but these moments are rare (like avoiding an overshoot, though that, too, is better done with a maneuver than killing a source for your energy). That is the whole point of the "fapping" (or adjusting the pull of your stick), to manage your energy. You dont want to just slow down, but rather transform your speed into altitude or angles, which can then benefit you to shoot the bandit or defend him, etc. It will unfortunately be a while till I find time again to make a vid, but I'll try to keep it in mind.

Yes. @fat creason is working on it as we speak.

The reason why we do not share our business propietary knowledge, of any sorts, is because we don't have to - unless we ourselves deem otherwise. It is neither usus, nor is it sound for a business to do so, nor would I know of any business that does it. We are very much for transperancy, but transperany does not mean renouncement of private data and intellectual property - which the researched objects may not be part of, as they are potentially available to anyone - but the composition and approach very well is, also including objects that are not readily available as you purchase certain rights to use, while even the mention of certain documents may reveal more than we want, for reasons we cannot and will not ever disclose, which can be as benign as the original owner, like a museum, asking us not to do, to expensive propietary knowledge, to legal obligations and anything in between. Additionally we are in no way contracted or obliged to prove to you that what we do is accurate to the T. We choose to do so voluntarily, and so we set a constraint for ourselves by saying "we want our modules to be as realistic as possible" - and re-affirm this constraint to the community by marketing them in this way, by making a promise. Other simulator modules - across all sims - may choose a different path and not even put in the effort to model to a certain depth, or accuracy for that matter, in full disclosure or not. Or they may even make up things. It seems to have a market, one could go and say "we did it like this, because it is fun." But we don't, we want the opposite, we say we want our modules to be as realistic as we can get them. I think looking at our modules, it is without a question that we thus also abide by these parameters that we set for them. So we put in the work to research it, put it together and then present it to you. The outcome is an amalgamation of that research, of countless hours of digesting, disecting, re-arranging, understanding and then coding that hard-gained knowledge, technical, historical, cultural and professional information, into a product that you then can experience. And with all the effort we have put in, with all the skill applied, with all the research done, we can safely say: this is the most realistic experience of a Tomcat in any sim to date, and as real as we can make it. Knowing our demeaner to also continuously evolve, continue to research and to correct earlier findings when necessary, you can also safely assume that we stay committed to the above mentioned realism long after the release of the module. It is however not our obligation to disclose our proprietary knowledge or "trade secrets" to you to prove any of the above. Yet we do try to disclose as much as we can, and want. In the end it is our decision, and we have to weigh what is good for our business to disclose and what not. We also make ourselves accountable by putting out a module with the claim of being realistic. Anyone can go and either try and prove it or disprove it. And since we made ourselves accountable, if someone does disprove something, we have to react to that by improving the aspects in question to uphold that claim. This is why we try to be so thorough before releasing something, like gathering SME input, tester feedback and finally publicizing it to a brought community where other experts or subject matter experts can react and comment on the work, and through their input help us not only maintain a standard of realism but evolve it even further. The duty to disprove our claim however is not on us, but on the person making a counter-claim. And mind you, as you said yourself, we're doing still entertainment products for the end-consumer, that is video games, genre flight-sim or not: we are making a product which again we like to tie to historic accuracy, but ultimately still remains a product for your amusement, and not a thesis for a phd, or a scientific article for a university paper, where quoting rules apply. Which brings me to your approach, if I may. You have a counter-claim, or at least a differing idea of what we present to you, even though backed up on our side to you in person by someone who works with military radars in his professional career on a daily basis. That is fine. More so, it is appreciated. We should always remain open to re-think our decisions, to re-visit our data, to re-verify our sources and to double check the outcome of our findings. We should always remain open to improving our products. But you cannot demand from us to prove to you that our claim is correct or false to disprove or prove your own claim. You can ask if we may share our sources with you, but when we say no, you then cannot demand it. Please be so kind and understand, that you also cannot expect us to follow up or change our modelling based on a claim that you have not backed up with any source or proven otherwise outside of putting up a theory yourself. Because contrary to us, you should present sources and factual data, if you want us to change what we presented so far. You don't have to, afterall, it is not your job, but please understand that we will not allocate costly ressources, work and time to overhauling something, which has been presented to us as wrong without any reputable source to back up your claims. Remember what I said above? If you do, we will however, because we made ourselves accountable towards what we promised. And lastly please accept it, when you ask for documents, and we say no, that it is a no which will always be given without reason, because the reason alone may be revealing what we may prefer not to reveal, which to protect is not only our right, but also obligation towards our business. Thank you for your kind understanding.

Dear all, feel free to join our official discord channel! We love being close to you all- and with all of the exciting Heatblur updates and new products coming soon, join us on discord as we enter this exciting new year in earnest and connect with you through our products and shared love of aviation. Your Heatblur Team! Server: https://discord.com/servers/heatblur-simulations-1071433028045377637 Invite Link: https://discord.gg/heatblur-simulations

Guys, you have me laughing here a bit, I cannot lie. The important bit is: LudL0w understood what I meant, I understood what he meant, and more importantly even, he is now flying the Tomcat and eligible to grow a feisty moustache. What else matters? Love you all.

@_BringTheReign_ @DonJosh @Don Rudi @Tomcatter87 - PMs have been sent, my apologies for the delay. Special thank you to @DonJosh for the very kind gesture. It is always great to see, when the love gets shared around. We bow to your example. Thank you! Thank you all again for participating and enchanting us with all your great submissions, we are already looking forward to the next contest and hope you all and many more will participate again. Congrats again to all the winners!

The longer the better, really, because it gives you more travel, but I would not concern myself with the length of it in the Tomcat, as the seating position will vastly differ from yours (most likely). I use the tabletop version, simply because I need to move it in and out of the way constantly, and I can just slide it aside, pull in the keyboard and vice versa, and I can assure you that it is precise enough. But it makes you fly more out of your wrist. While a desk mounted stick with extension, makes you fly more out of your shoulder, which is generally considered to be better. On my virpil stick I use the maximum possible extension, which is quite nice. But in the end, consider your seating (a deskmount will have you likely move a tad further away from the table than a tabletop, so what about throttle? do you need to reach further for it? or likewise pedals? how often do you need to get it out of the way? and lastly what do you believe will be most comfortable to you, etc.)

Thank you. In light of this, I'll hide this entire discussion, as it indeed highly destracts from the topic at hand. I appreciate your input and hope you'll continue to engage with us, we're more than happy to engage with you. Have a great day! EDIT: if you would like to continue discussing this topic, feel free to PM me anytime.

Thank you for the reports, everyone, we will look into it. Indeed the pilot should be killable.

Why, because you were caught on facebook making up things I never said and got called out for it? Or because you try to practically dissuade any of our potential customers, who inquires about our modules, which you have done now repeatedly? Or because you keep making up accusations and false claims, because our work and/ or schedule does not fit your own wishes? We're all for criticism, open dialogue and meeting on eye-level. But repeatedly claiming falsehoods about us, bringing an almost exclusively negative attitude, not taking any constructive input by us or members of the community, refuting any disagreement by providing you facts and blowing up normal processes into exaggerated claims and accusations based on fantasies, and then playing the victim role, despite not only never having been attacked by any of us (merely disagreed with), but simply because you do not get the attention you seek with this kind of behavior and attitude, I am sorry, but we do not have to stand for. I strongly suggest that you cool off and come back with a more courteous and mature attitude, please. Thank you.

Please show me that proof. Please show me where a member of the Heatblur Team called someone an idiot. I can assure you that this never happened and that if it did that person would not be a member of our team for long. Everything has been said regarding the phoenix, specifically in the thread you were linking. We have zero intentions to change its performance anymore as it is as accurate as can be, which has been demonstrated and backed up several times. We have no influence on the issues with the AI and terminal guidance or any other limitation within DCS. We have to wait just as patiently to see missiles for 3rd parties progress in this regard. We are continuing to work on it with ED. I am not sure where these exaggerations stem from by some lately, but we neither stopped work on any outstanding remaining issues, nor on regular maintenance, nor on further evolving our products. Stating the obvious =/ calling you names or branding you in an unfavorable light, but what you are trying to do, like some others, is to force us to change the narrative and admit things, which are a) not proven or lose claims or b) impressions/ feelings (aka "I feel the phoenix should be stronger") to satisfy subjective expectations that are not in line with how the phoenix should be. How it should be? As it is, simply put. Why? Because it is more realistic. Saying that does not mean neglecting or denying the oustanding issues (like with the AI, terminal guidance, etc), which have nothing to do with its FM, performance and general behavior. If you cannot accept that it is more realistic now and as close to reality as it could possibly get, but hinges on DCS limitations, then you need to either provide proof that says otherwise or deal with it in some other form or way, sorry to put it so bluntly. The phoenix will continue to evolve, but we won't change it unless we see data even more accurate than the one we have.

Precisely. Using the tgt size switch for "stealth" is a pure DCS-ism. IRL it defines basically the range at which a certain type of target, small, normal, or large is most likely to be seen by the missile. Misjudging that will have the missile not see the target properly, which goes both ways. Set a bomber sized target to small, and it won't find it. Set a fighter sized target to large, and it won't find it. But this is beyond the scope of missile seekerhead simulation necessary for a consumer sim.

A lot of good things are in the works for 2023, the next one up is the release of Op. Reforger II, which is currently in testing/ bugfixing and if we're lucky may come before the end of the month still. Stay tuned for more updates to follow soon. OFC, early A, TARPS, etc etc are all things I did not particularly mention now, but will be part of our focus this year and we hope to bring the Tomcat to a full release asap.

Dear all, following the last major patch for the Viggen, we are skipping this one and thus have no changelog for you in January, but ofc would still appreciate your feedback greatly regarding the current DCS update. We hope you all had a great start into 2023 and we will continue to keep you in the loop as we further progress in improving and maintaining the Viggen throughout the year. Thank you!

Dear all, we hope you had a great start into the new year. While we are largely skipping this patch, some fixes which did not get pulled from the last patch made it in, plus a hotfix for an issue not allowing the player progress in "Training Day". As always, we would kindly like to ask you for your feedback. Thank you! DCS F-14 Tomcat by Heatblur Simulations - added missing changes from previous changelog: Fixed wheel chocks appearing in wrong place after moving the aircraft and setting them again. Fixed Op Reforger Mission 5 TALDs not working for Pontiac. Updated Quickstart F-14A_IA_NTTR_Zone5 by Reflected Simulations. Fixed Quickstart Training Day stuck at checkpoint issue. Fixed Quickstart Training Day tanker TACAN.

It is almost done, currently in the process of fixing/reviewing feedback from testers.