IronMike

We suspect so, plus a combination of excess power and power settings to achieve other important flight model components, such as pitch with power, etc. It is a balancing act to say the least. But I am confident Fat Creason will sort the remaining issues in this regard. That is up to event organizers, all pylons can be removed, except for the fuel tanks, which are completely negligable in this regard.

I'm really glad you enjoy the missions. If you haven't yet, you can also try OP Reforger campaign on caucasus and The Final Hour minicampaign on South Atlantic. Another mission which I personally like a lot is Clay Dagger on Marianas, however it is not voice acted unfortunately, and rather difficult, as you have to fight tropical inclement weather at the same time, one day, if time permits, I may turn it into something more akin to Training Day and Watching the Devildog. Likewise, on Syria, I recommend the chem strike mission, the full version from Carrier Take off, but this, too, is not voice acted.

Put down a card for it bud, please, just in case, we should look into it anyways. Thanks!

Could be manual overlofting.

Not quite, you just have to be more specific, because the general topic covers too much. Ask what you want to know, and if I personally do not know the answer, I will seek it out for you. The caveat being: there still will be things we simply do not want to share. Thank you Dalan!

There is a difference to knowing how the F-14 works, which we're all here for, and how the code-side of things works. It baffles me a bit that you have the impression that we do not love to talk about our work and how things are done, because I would still like to think that we're among the developers that are both forthcoming and communicative - at least we try to be. But we make these modules for you guys to have fun, and while I do appreciate curiousity - in the end wanting to know how everything is done on the code side, seems to distract from having fun with said toy more than it adds. Besides, some things we can't and don't want to disclose, because those are business insights not meant to be out there. That's perfectly normal, and I don't think you would expect other businesses to disclose their inner workings to you as much as we are sometimes expected to do. That has nothing to do with "big business" (we wish) or being "totally super serious" lol. There is simply a certain limit to everything. And there is also a major difference between for example asking "how does stores drag work in DCS" (which would be a question for ED, btw, not us) and asking "you should tell us how everything works under the hood." Finally, when we say "this is a too complex matter to explain to you fully", because the time needed for that simply isn't besides the above mentioned reasons, there is also a point where you need to accept that. Stores drag in DCS is a complex matter, so is an FM such as the F-14s. Moving one piece, moves all pieces, like pitch with power, etc. etc. It is a balancing act, that includes some 30.000 calculations and tens of thousands lines of code. That is not something that can simply be explained in general. If you have questions particular to the F-14s performance, then feel free to ask, and we will do our best to answer, if we can and want to. Which is a decision we need to make on a case by case basis. And if you have questions to how the F14 works or should work in particular, we will always try to answer to our best abilities. That said, this 35 page long thread, in majority, should have answered most of these questions already. Finally, there is also a difference between wanting to know how we do our job, and trying to tell us how to do our job, with a complete - and normal - lack of insight.

Unfortunately, like the above mentioned master light switch, it is a clickspot that cannot be provided in a senseful manner, and we have no plans of doing so for the time being. We may think of a different solution (like simply clicking on a handrail on the canopy frame, etc combined with a special option or similar) when we have some breathing room again, but it is certainly a very low priority item. Thank you for your kind understanding.

Very happy to hear about it! Part II is around the corner...

Thank you for the tests, Dalan. If you feel like doing the same for the -B, I am sure insights for both will help @fat creason to have further overview of the remaining issues. Accurate flying is of course important, but nonetheless these tests give a rough ballpark. We else run scripts to have the aircraft flown precisely, but it will be very interesting to compare the results as well.

Not only did I consider it, I have been explicit about it, as much as is needed for the community to understand. "These users here" range from knowing something to knowing little to knowing more, while none of them need insights beyond what has been divulged here openly from the very get go, or are considered experts at the level of an SME or software developer or a combination of both with the kind of experience in DCS FM development that would contribute to the solution of the problems we need to solve. We're not obliged to disclose the inner workings of our (and ED's) code to you, NDA or not, and while we always try to be maximum transparent and forthcoming, as you surely must know - being approached in such a manner that is berating and lecturing about what this community is like, with which I have been interacting for nigh two decades on a daily basis, does not help your case if you would like to know more. What you need to know and what you would like to know can be a very different pair of shoes, and asking nicely goes a long way towards being answered nicely. In the meantime, what you need to know, is that we are committed to solving the remaining issues, but how we get there, is - pardon me - not information that you are priviliged to, until we decide it is. As I mentioned, it is a complex issue, and explaining to you how all the various, many different parts of the FM are intertwined and connected, is beyond the scope of what these forums are here for. You can trust us that we will fix it. If you choose not to, that is ok, but that does not change that we ask you all for your kind patience, until we do. We will update you again, once we are close to completion, to which we are fully committed, as mentioned. Thank you.

Thank you, we will look into it, but it is possible that active pause simply breaks Iceman, and there is little we can do about it. Active Pause in general is a bit finnicky, and multicrew + AI makes it not much better. It may be better to command Iceman into an orbit and working the LANTIRN like that (as it is meant to be used), than using active pause.

That would be "beyond me", too, if anyone said that, alas no one did. If you read again carefully, I said it is a drag issue, not an engine performance issue. And we cant just boost engine power, because then it overperforms. We also cannot just work around it by making the drag negative where necessary, because removed pylons or payload then equally make it overperform. It's a rather complex issue, because fine balance also exists with other parts of the FM.

It should (or rather shouldnt with STT), alas in DCS the AI notches missiles, not the supporting radar unfortunately.

It is a known bug, Rafa, thank you.

Very happy you liked it. The tanker dunno why it is not showing, something changed, although it should have been fixed on Jester side, we'll take another look. As for the decision... if you knew, it would not be the same. I know, this is a bit of a "screwing with the player", but you get the choice to do the right thing. It's rare that we can have consequences beyond a mission, hehe. And it would be sad, if knowing would basically alter your choice. In hindsight, it involves a somewhat philosophical question about right or wrong. And when it "hurst", whether you stand by that decision or not... I am sure you will regain what you lost fairly quickly though. The Forrestal taking 1% damage on take off and landing is a bug currently.

Who said the F14 should win over an F18 all the time? That is question I will leave to ponder here. Apart from that, please stay civil everyone. @maxsin72 - you are not really helping your case by saying "bla bla" to folks who actually want to make a point to you (aka help you understand), and calling them out. I really like you, I know that you are simply very passionate about this. But please take a step back and stop challenging ppl in the most literal sense of the word. There is a difference if you say "hey, I would really like to test this with someone together, who knows what he is doing" vs "I don't believe your blabla, come at me bro, show me." The fact simply remains that no one needs (or wants) to prove anything to you, so if you want someone to test with you, you need to be a) nicer and b) ask much more politely and c) accept if they say no as well. Let us all make a bit tabula rasa here please and start fresh, as I know that none of the parties involved mean ill. To the contrary, we all kind of want the same here. Let's not lose focus of that. I would hate to have to lock this thread because we couldn't resist to not being nice to each other. Thank you.

In this particular mission, what you really need is to get to around 40k at about M1.1 - so you first speed up, then climb, then speed up again. Being any faster than that is not really necessary, and also detrimental to your fuel management. They are pretty far, so what also helps is to circle climb, or extend and climb then turn back in, there is enough time for that. But ideally you want to make it back to base on one hand, and of course also not rush into them otoh. I could have set the starting altitude at 40k, but chose 32k specifically to have the player put some tactical thought into climbing and fuel management here, and to represent a more realistic cap station. So how you climb, and how much speed you want to bring and how much fuel you burn that far out at sea, is a challenge ofc. Additionally, mind you, my test above was not in reaction to the mission (which has a much heavier and draggier payload), but in reaction to the OP, saying that he could not pass the transonic region with 2x2x2. EDIT: I just noticed you did not reply to me at all Apologies, glanced over it. But the above still applies and hope it helps.

With 4 phoenix, 2 sparrows, 2 aim9s, and 2 tanks you can reach M1.2 atm at 40k feet - which mind you is a massive payload and very draggy - how much should you reach with such a loadout in your opinion? Top speed charts iirc top of my head are for 50k feet with 2x2x2 and fixed internal fuel, no tanks (they are calculated, not proven). I bet you should get a bit faster than 1.2, but I doubt much with this payload. The problem is this isn't an engine performance issue as much as it is a drag issue, which we have limited control of. See the tacview below: M1.2 with 4x2x2x2XT. The moment you jettison ordnance (and mind you aim9s stay including racks), it purrs away to M2.28. Take away the aim9s and I guess you can account for those missing M0.04. I took off from an airfield, standard mission settings (no weather changes, etc), to give the best unskewed representation (aka no fast in air spawn). As for the active topic about not being able to reach more than Mach 1.0... He wasn't asking for 4 phoenixes and 2 bags, but if you read his OP again, he was asking for a 2x2x2 payload, aka 2 phoenix, 2 sparrows, 2 sidewinders. I did that, too, and even did 2 things here additionally: I spawned with 100% fuel (aka acceleration is a bit slower as one is heavier than after a normal climb, which has been demonstrated in the other tacview), and also I stayed explicitly below 40k feet. At 50k feet this would be even easier. So, no idea how he flew it, but not being able to breach Mach 1 at high altitudes is simply not true. I reached M2.14 with 2x2x2. Both tacviews recorded in latest Open Beta, F-14A. Additionally, although trying to maintain level flight as much as possible, if, then there was even an ever so small climb present in both tacviews, though negligable, as periodically there was a tiny descent present as well in order to keep correcting. Again, the performance is off marginally. Drag is a bit of a bigger issue, but as mentioned, only partially solveable by us, and even so, less of an impact than some here make it out to be. Try for yourself. And let me please know what you would expect. That said, I am not saying that there is no room for improvement. There most certainly is. But it is not such a game changer or game breaker as some claim it would be. 2x2x2_38kft.zip.acmi 4x2x2x2tanks_40kft.zip.acmi

So, just out of curiosity I tried 2x2x2 at around 38-39k feet, and reached M2.14 top speed. Of course, fuel is getting less, aircraft is getting lighter, etc. As a balancing factor the mission was started with 100% internal fuel though, which after a climb would be less, and thus you would reach high speeds faster. But I would say 2x2x2 gets you easily to 1.6-1.8 without completely going out of fuel above 38k feet. 2x2x2_38kft.zip.acmi

Thank you for the suggestions. These are all points we will look into during the Jester overhaul.

I sure hope not that long. It is actively on our minds and we talked with @fat creason very recently about it, but I cannot give you an estimate. Hopefully around end of the year, beginning next year. We all want to get it finally behind ourselves, too, Maxsin.

Great to hear, and thanks for the log. On another note, this was missing from the Hotfix changelog today: DCS: F-14 Tomcat by Heatblur Simulations - Hotfix November 2nd 2022 Fixed CTD when using LANTIRN in point track.

All of you have every right to ask us any question, that has always been like that and always will be. You know that, we always try to meet you on eye level. But I still would like to clarify something: the FM is not only 90% done. It is basically complete, with the performance being marginally off. That is off little enough for our F14 pilot SME to not consider it an issue, and actually far closer to the real deal than even an FAA-approved class-D simulator would require. That does not mean that we do not want to get it even closer in performance - we do, and always said so. But within your analogy you would remain sitting to quite literally split some hairs, or wanted some else fairly unnoticable points trimmed, on top of the hair cut that has been delivered to you. That is fine, and we will do it, but we do kindly ask for some patience in return.

Again, not quite sure what you mean with "build" - you mean the next DCS version? That is not quite how that works. We work on our internal builds, towards a patch schedule. Then this internal build gets submitted to ED several weeks before the patch. During this period both the new DCS version and the 3rd party builds get tested. Before uploading, our internal builds also get tested in house. Sometimes the patch schedule gets changed on rather short notice, which then means we either skip a patch or deliver a smaller amount of changes.

Not sure what you mean by visibility of the changes? Also not sure what you mean with "relationships at interfaces". If you mean whether changed items pass through my hands, or those of our testers, then of course, all of them. Bugs ofc can slip through and do, even though we do our best to catch them.