WarthogOsl

It looks like the pilot model visibility is still is not adhering to the checkbox in settings when in MP.

Sorry, meant this to go into the other topic (I'm not sure it would be in the log, fwiw).

Sigh...the pilot model visibility is still not adhering to the settings check box in multiplayer.

They need to find an SME who has experience with carriers that bounce around like bucking broncos when making a turn.

I'd expect it will no longer taxi like the tires are made of melting marshmallows. Presumably the addition of wheel chalks allowed this.

Anyone noticing some weirdness with launching the Phoenix...perhaps it's just a multi-threaded thing? Basically the missile immediately strafes to the side on release. It looks very strange. Last night I launched 3 in sequence, wing level, and 15-20 degrees nose up (as is my usual way). All 3 missiles were launched from the tunnel (not pylon) and did the same thing. This was on multiplayer, btw.

Not sure if this has been noted yet, but on MT, if the sun is low enough to appear in the mirrors, it seems to fluctuate between a large white square and a diffuse haze blob.

Anyone find that the A model has less thrust when in MIL power since the update, at least at high altitude? I feel like in the past I could cruise up at 38-39k fully loaded for A2A, and I could maintain around Mach .8. Now it seems like I'm almost stalling. And what seems odd is that my speed doesn't increase as time goes on, as you would expect to happen as the fuel and weight burns off when flying at a constant altitude and throttle setting. Maybe just my imagination, I dunno.

Does the untouched ACM panel ever show up again in the rotation? Not complaining, but it seems like there must be at least some F-14's that don't have the first level maintenance stuff, especially if the whole ACM panel was removed and sent into the second stage maintenance and put back into service. FWIW, so far all I've seen is the safety wire and the tape. Neither the plate version nor the unmodified version has shown up.

I've seen this too, but it goes away once the rest of the cockpit interior and carrier textures are loaded.

I feel like yaw is much better damped now. Ever since the big FM update a year and a half ago(?), the plane seemed pretty sloppy with yaw oscillations, even at high speed and low AOA (for example, after performing an aileron roll, or rolling out a steep turn). It almost seemed like the yaw SAS channel wasn't doing very much. It seems much more locked down now.

I definitely have it happen with flat shadows, not shadows off. I do have secondary shadows turned off, though, if that's what you are referring to?

I don't know to be honest, but given that flat shadows have been an option for a while, yet lots of people have suddenly started noticing this particular glare effect, It's reasonable to assume that something has changed. Perhaps its more the way the windshield responds to glare has changed to make the effect more noticeable.

This happens for me in multiplayer on every spawn. In single player, the body will briefly appear, then go away automatically if you have the pilot body check box unchecked. In MP, it just stays there unless you turn it off manually.

i mentioned this in another topic, but it seems to be caused by flat shadows. Basically the sun can actually shine through the sides or bottom of the plane and cause a huge reflection on the inside of the windshield (this is independent of the hud being on or not). I don't know if this was always the case, and I don't think it's specific to the F-14.

So is it supposed to work like this?

Okay, I did a little test with the sun low over Marinas (6:30 AM in June or July), and I think the issue is caused by flat shadows. I had shadow and terrain shadows set to flat, and secondary shadows off. What I found was that I could turn the plane so that the sun was at my 9 o'clock, then bank right (away from the sun), such that the sun was completely hidden from the cockpit. Yet, the massive glare happened, as though the sun were shining through the belly of the airplane, though the instrument panel, and onto the windshield. I then turned the main shadows from flat to low, and the problem went away (except for a brief bit of glare just before the sun went below the canopy rail). Perhaps no shadows causes this as well, but I didn't test that. The HUD brightness was turned all the way down in both cases. Flat shadows... Low shadows...

interesting...I did recently change my shadows settings after the last patch reduced my fps. I think I have them both set to flat. I thought I still had shadows in the cockpit because the lighting changes? I might try and repro it tonight and see.

It was actually even worse than that a second or two before I took that shot. The windshield seemed completely opaque. I should also note that the sun was very low on the horizon (just after sunrise on the server) and directly at my back. I'm not on my PC currently so I can't take a screenshot of my settings, but they are pretty low.

There seems to be a massive amount of glare on the windscreen that turns the whole thing green when the sun is directly behind you. I don't recall it ever being this bad. You'd think the sun would be blocked by the seat and your head from that angle?

The thing is, the F-14 was originally designed as a Mach 2+ airplane and Mach 2+ airplanes typically have variable intakes. Planes intended to fly at less then or not much over Mach 2 tend to have fixed intakes, for example, the F-16, F-18, Rafale, and even the F-22. And although the F-14 had been as fast as Mach 2.4 (according to test pilot Kurt Schroeder), there were some other structural issues that limited them operationally to less then Mach 2. These could have been addressed, but apparently the Navy didn't feel M2+ speed was important enough to spend the money on it (again, according to Mr. Schroeder). So the plane could have probably been designed and built with a fixed inlet, had the need to go over Mach 2 not been a design requirement. And it probably would have been fine that way.

The normal F-16 doesn't have diverterless inlet, as the article you linked illustrates. Obviously the shape counts for a lot, but the inlet is fixed and pretty darn simple. I'm guessing they could have created a fixed inlet shape that would work on the F-14, but then that would have cost even more money. I do wonder if the ST-21 would have had a fixed inlet, though.

Yeah wasn't saying it didn't. Just speculating whether it actually needed variable ones. For example, if the money were available, could they have shaped the inside of the intake so as not to require them, saving some weight and maintenance issues.

Sorry....the F110 had what?

I've wondered....did the F110 powered F-14's even need the ramps? Given that it was limited to less than Mach 2.0 anyway, why didn't they just fix the ramps or remove them (and the associated actuator hardware)? Having a fixed inlet doesn't seem to have hurt the 110 powered F-16s.