Dudikoff

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.

Bug opened!! While we're at it, were there any notable differences between Blocks 145, 150 and 155?

From here I got the following numbers for F-14A -> F-14B upgrades 1 Block 115 23 Block 120 4 Block 125 9 Block 130 11 Block 140 That's 48 (which matches the number Wiki says states). New build F-14B's were Block 145, 150 and 155. Not sure which Block standard the upgrades were made to or what the differences were between them. For the 159437 it says this unfortunately: 159437 F-14A VF-32 AE203 07/1975 VF-142 AC202 04 Jan 1989: this a/c downed a Libyan MiG-23 AMARC 11.02.1992 So, I guess the shown BuNo is just an easter egg, rather than the actual airframe they used as reference.

Good question. According to this list, it would have to be 120, 125 or 130. http://www.joebaugher.com/navy_fighters/f14_2.html Wasn't there an airframe serial number shown in the cockpit somewhere on the right side? You could look it up against this list.

AFAIK, that doesn't mean it's compatible, it's just that Nvidia hasn't validated that particular monitor model. Normally, you would keep VSync On as it caps the FPS. FreeSync and G-Sync only work up to the monitor refresh rate, not higher. Nvidia has FastSync for those higher rates.

Cool trailer. I would presume this plane was pretty much everybody's dream come true in DCS and thanks for going those extra 10,000 miles to make it as best as you can do it as this iconic plane really deserves it. This module will be really hard to top in the future, though :)

I don't have time right now to acquaint myself with the radar physics and stuff to be able to post well informed questions nor do I know how the HB radar model is designed, but all these documents about the AN/APG-71 upgrade that can be found on the net, mention how it fixes deficiencies of the AWG-9, namely: - being high-PRF only (so, in simplified radar modeling, some issues regarding detection of receding targets should be present, I guess) - having poor look-down performance over land (distinguishing targets from the ground clutter) - being more susceptible to ECM due to its non-low sidelobe antenna design My question would be if the HB SME's they worked with provided any hints regarding AWG-9 weak spots or especially these points in particular. If so, is something implemented in the radar model regarding this, if not, perhaps they check with them about these officially known deficiencies? Of course, perhaps the AWG-9 is still classified related to Iran owning them, but the points I mentioned are openly available on the net so implementing some of these issues in the sim if indeed present and possible to implement would not provide any new information I guess. Regarding the AWG-9 Pulse modes and PRF, apparently low-PRF is used for those, not high which was required for PD modes. It's mentioned that it was kept for ACM and all-aspect performance, so I presume that means to offset the limitations of high-PRF in some scenarios (e.g. receding or close targets).

I'm not sure if the first option would work as IIRC I have to remove all the DCS default assignments to the TM Virtual Device for the programed keys to work. Adding Virtual axis should be supported by Target, I guess, I'd just have to check the advanced manual. But, if they have separate control sets for each seat and it works in SP, that will do.

Currently in DCS, there is a standard radar model in which the high-PRF is optimally used for the approaching targets, while it has problems detecting receding ones, so medium PRF is used for those (e.g. on MiG-29, F-15C, etc.). Realistically, IIRC, medium-PRF is also a better choice up-close, but it has a shorter detection range. I know this model is rather simplified, but still, it has to be based on some facts. E.g. the MiG-29 manual calls these different modes "Encounter" and "Pursuit". Since I don't recall seeing the cockpit controls for the PRF mode setting in Pulse-Doppler mode, I searched on the net about the AWG-9 and high-PRF and found mentions supporting only high-PRF PD mode, while AN/APG-71, being a more modern radar, also introduced a medium-PRF mode. Of course, since -1A NATOPS manuals are restricted, what I'd expect is one of the few places this kind of information on it is described in more detail, I can't find any official confirmation, otherwise I would have posted something more than just 'I've seen mentions of it'. E.g. http://what-when-how.com/military-weapons/sensors-and-electronic-warfare-military-weapons/ The AN/APG-71 fire control radar is an upgrade of the AWG-9 weapons control system used in the US Navy F-14 Tomcat. It also shares 86% of the Shop-Replaceable Assemblies (SRA) with the APG-70 flown in the F-15C/E. The APG-71 is basically a digital version ofthe AWG-9 but represents a reworking of virtually every part of the system; only the transmitter, power supply, and aft cockpit tactical information display are retained from the AWG-9. Detection and tracking ranges increase by 40%, while reliability is expected to double in hours between failures. A new broadband radar master oscillator contributes to improved Electronic Counter-Countermeasures (ECCM) capabilities. The analog-to-digital converter is claimed by Hughes to be state-of-the-art. The antenna control allows for more flexible search patterns than those of the AWG-9. The fully programmable, four-unit signal processor and improved radar data processor permit greater simultaneous coverage of opening (target moving away) and closing (target heading toward aircraft) speeds. Additional modes permit Beyond Visual Range (BVR) target identification, raid assessment with high-resolution Doppler techniques to distinguish among closely spaced targets, monopulse angle tracking to predict the future position of a single target during high-speed maneuvers, and distortionless sector ground mapping of both ocean and land areas. The APG-71 can also be linked to Infrared Search and Tracking (IRST) for passive, long-range search making little use of the active radar. Digital scan control and improved frequency agility are also part of the upgrade. The advanced low-sidelobe antenna is more difficult to jam. Its mount is different, but the antenna retains the gimbal system used in the AWG-9. Further improvements planned or proposed for the APG-71 cover virtually every operational facet. Budget stringencies battle with the newly enhanced air-to-ground role envisioned for the F-14 to determine which shall be funded. They include: • adding a medium Pulse Repetition Frequency (PRF) capability for air combat maneuvering • interleaving high- and low-PRF waveforms for improved detection at greater range • modifying the frequency modulation of the ranging Doppler to operate over a greater range • improving ground clutter definition and ground moving-target indication and tracking • manual terrain avoidance and clearance • improved look-down, shoot-down capability over land • adding high-resolution synthetic aperture and inverse synthetic aperture modes

Thanks for the explanation. Yeah, for example, I've read that its replacement, the AN/APG-71, introduced a low sidelobe antenna and a sidelobe blanking guard channel (among some other improvements). AWG-9 is often mentioned as having been susceptible to ground clutter over land, but I presume it faired much better over the sea as that was its primary mission. Do you perhaps know if this altitude clutter was less significant over the sea compared to over the land? Also, did you get any information or hints related to performance issues stemming from the fact it only had a high-PRF mode?

Yeah, good point. I guess they got the info from one of the SME's. Still, it would be nice to hear if some of the them had anything to say on the radar behavior in regards to being only high PRF capable and the resulting issues. As I've read on the net that the radar was supposedly not at its best tracking receding targets due to it.