Dudikoff

I'm also puzzled by the daft response, but please don't let that discourage you from posting more advice combined with subtle jokes in the future. We already have the NATOPS manuals for leaning stuff the boring way.

Is he supposed to close the canopy? I just ran the assisted startup and thought he told me to do it, but I couldn't find where to click to close it so I just pressed LCTRL-C and it got closed and the procedure continued. However, after the emergency hydraulic something low and high test, I couldn't bring the switch back to off anymore. The cursor icon changes like it's over the switch (or at least the cover), but neither left or right clicks did anything.

So, what does Gates' desire to end the program have to do with all those presidents you've listed in the previous post? Or President Obama? Congress could have easily voted to continue the production against the administration's proposal of the FY2010 budget, but they didn't. There's no secret agenda, just short-sightedness and different budget priorities and views on the usefulness of the F-22, especially since at the time it had many bugs and was considered as rather expensive to maintain. I guess back then they didn't seem to expect China to field advanced stealth fighters of their own anytime soon. Here's the report used to brief the congressmen before that vote, I guess. http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/rl31673.pdf

It was posted on the first page already.

Evil Democrat presidents killing off the Raptor? LOL Sorry, I was laughing at your post. As far as I can read here, it was cut down by OSD during Rumsfeld time to 179. I guess the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were draining their budget and took priority to what the USAF wanted/needed. https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-22-production.htm

Technically, you'd just need to drop the JDAM in general direction of the target in case the coordinates are entered into it before the flight. Once the weapon's guidance system locks on to the GPS signal, it will correct and guide itself (given sufficient flight time, naturally) regardless of the INS errors on the launching airplane. But, I guess you're referring to the pure INS mode of the JDAM, in which case, yes, of course, that would probably be rather useless with the original F-14 INS. It's all theoretical anyway, since the F-14B we have has no digital bus, so it would require some electronic equipment and hacks to program the aircraft's INS data into the weapon to begin with.

I guess you could use the JDAM in the same way (with the targeting pod), with the added benefit of not having to lase the target all the way till the impact. Sorry, but I have no idea what you're asking me here.

The new navigation system (EGI) with a much more precise INS and GPS and which was connected to the digital data bus was only one of the things added for the JDAM upgrade. For example, the weapon pylons also needed to be upgraded to be able to receive the data from the same bus. The obsolete F-14 INS system had no connection to the data bus to be able to feed the data, but they did use an adapter to convert this data into digital bus standard for the LTS pod to work, though, so I guess that could have been used here as well. But, the F-14B we have doesn't really have the digital data bus installed yet, though I presume they might have had hacked the JDAM to work through the LTS pod directly somehow (since it has its own GPS and inertial unit IIRC) with some limitations? Of course, since the LTS pod proved to be a success, they made a much more comprehensive F-14B(U) Upgrade which added the digital bus, the new weapon control system, PTID, PMDIG, etc. which then for allowed the proper JDAM integration and no hacking was required.

Apparently, it did (EGI) with the OFP320 upgrade. https://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=3487&context=utk_gradthes

Nobody mentioned the altitude hold.

Looks really impressive, good job! I'm also rather curious to see the rest of the throttle base shown :)

What happened here probably is that your system cannot support 60 FPS so I guess half-VSync was active capping the FPS at 30 so that you don't have screen tearing. With it off, you have less lag, but have tearing and if you actually had the FPS to actually use the FastSync (e.g. 75 FPS), you'd probably have noticeable micro-stuttering as well.. Fast Sync does nothing for you unless your FPS is over the refresh rate of your monitor (60Hz here I guess) AND it's actually useful only when your FPS is a multiple (like 3-4x and more) of your refresh rate.

AFAIK, Fast Sync only helps when the FPS goes over the monitor's refresh rate (i.e. it helps gamers who play without VSync On to minimize the latency).

Of course, it's on the Internet. But, given that the study has shown that each newly produced F-22 would cost at least $200 million USD, it's of little use as it's deemed too expensive.

I'd presume that the missile will also go for the first target its radar detects once it's active? That would be less then ideal, even more so if there are some friendlies between you and the target. I guess it might be useful if you expect to be shot at and need to make a defensive break or something and thus lose the lock before the missile gets the go-active command.

The trigger is 'Space', the weapon release is 'RightAlt + Space' by default (as e.g. in FC3 modules).

It hasn't disappeared, that's just Internet nonsense.

Yeah, sorry for that, I misunderstood the purpose of the extend switch as I thought the off switch position would bring the aircraft to normal stance, but I guess it's just a spring loaded default position with no action. I guess the catapult will pull the nose strut down even further than the kneel position after the bar is attached and prior to the launch so no further action from the pilot is needed to secure it.

You kneel the strut to lower the launch bar to be able to attach it to the catapult. Then you extend the strut to lock the launch bar so it doesn't detach from the catapult.

The Tomcat navigation system only supports up to 3 normal waypoints (steerpoints). If you wanted to see more on the TID, you'd have to mark them as one of those special ones (Defended Point, Fix Point, Enemy Area, etc.). Check TID Symbology under General Descriptions chapter. http://www.heatblur.se/F-14Manual/general.html Regarding the radar, if the targets are facing away from you and are at a similar speed, they would get filtered out in Pulse-Doppler modes. Try to use Pulse modes instead. Check here for a demonstration.

Well, you don't have to solder anything if you want to use it. http://realsimulator.com/html/fusba.html

I'm not familiar with all the stuff they've crammed in (engines, newer TPs, radar, datalink, Night attack stuff, color MFD's) compared to the initial C that was introduced in the late 80's. But, I guess if you limit it to AIM-7's and don't use some newer stuff like JDAM's, it could somewhat emulate those early C's and thus cover a wider range of scenarios. Too bad we're not getting the NiteHawk pod, though.

Yeah, and here I was wondering where's that Parking Brake mapping.. Thanks for your effort. Hope this gets added to the module properly.

That certainly looks like a professional product. I'm curious to learn more about the stick gimbal system, the throttle base and software, but fear to imagine how much it would cost, though :) The stick mounting system looks similar to what VKB is using. Is it just a coincidence or?

Well, pretty much none of the cockpit controls are assigned by default, so quite a lot of work ahead. Does anyone get the difference between e.g. "ACM Cover Toggle", "ACM Cover Closed, Else Open", "ACM Cover Open, Else Closed".. Of course, there's also "ACM Cover On" and "ACM Cover Off" to complicate the logic further.