Dudikoff

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.

Yeah, but I hope there'll be a digital option as well (e.g. up, down commands and perhaps even reset to center) to be mapped to a hat.

Good illustration, thanks. Now I know how this clutter closely in front of the airplane is called, but apparently it's quite strong, as well. I stand corrected. But, looking at the image, it shows the altitude return blind spot area to be much more narrow than the main lobe clutter. And Jabbers illustrated in the video that the speeds in the range of 100 knots above and below the airplane speed would be filtered out, which is almost as much as the MLC filter range, no? And a further question would be if any of the high-PRF issues are simulated then?

Nikodemuz only said that the doppler sum would be zero for co-speed targets, but didn't say that these are dropped since the ground still has a relative velocity to the airplane. Besides, from the video you can clearly see that there's a significant range around the co-speed that is filtered out, not just the co-speed value and these would not have a zero sum, so the zero doppler sum is not the issue here. Naquii mentioned that it's due to the side-lobe ground clutter (which would be somewhere slightly in front of the aircraft and that would explain having to have a range of speeds cut). But, if that's really that significant for the AWG-9 and this co-speed blind-spot implementation is related to that, then the question is if the high-PRF issues with tracking receding targets are simulated at all? Later radars added medium-PRF (and interleaved) modes so they have an alternative in these pursuit cases.

Yeah, but you just took that explanation for granted, but the airplane still moves compared to the ground and thus which ground would appear as having zero relative velocity to the receiver then? It's not only relative zero speed, but like a hundred knots under and over that (it's mentioned and shown in the video, don't remember the exact values anymore). There might be some ground clutter from slightly in front of the airplane that fits the criteria, but is such extreme side-lobe clutter really that significant? Since the AWG-9 lacks medium PRF mode and thus uses only high-PRF mode for which the tracking of the receding targets is its known weakness, I'd rather put my eggs in that basket. Of course, I'm no radar expert, so I could be wrong, but I've only seen mention of AWG-9 side-lobe clutter mentioned mainly as a problem in countering ECM (hence the AN/APG-71 program).

Ah, awesome. So, each seat has its own controls and they're switched even in SP, I presume?

I'm not really sure I follow why would the co-speed target be filtered out by the MLC-filter. I'd expect it to be a high-PRF mode limitation as IIRC the AWG-9 lacks a medium-PRF mode (which is normally used against receding targets).

I don't have a handy place for the mouse with the HOTAS in front of me (plus, it's rather fiddly to use during the flight, IMHO), so I normally make custom profiles to put most of the controls I need during the flight on the HOTAS and Cougar MFD's. I'll start with the pilot ones, but later on I'd add some layers to support the RIO controls as well, so I can switch between the seats and do the fun stuff myself sometimes (like in the good old F-14 FD days). Speaking of, is it possible to assign the joystick axes to both the flight control axes and the RIO stick axes at the same time (thus, hopefully, using the flight stick for both, depending on the player seat position)? Is it even possible in DCS to assign the same device axis to two different controls (can't check now)? I kind of expect it's not, but perhaps there are some TARGET tricks that could be used for this.

I'm surprised he mentions that he doesn't expect the ECM controls did anything in RL. Didn't all the F-14's have the AN/ALQ-100 jammer (FCS track breaking), complemented with AN/ALQ-167 later on (CW jammer)? The latter is not in the F-14B we're getting, though, as it had distinctive (a nicer word for rather ugly) ECM antennas on intake sides. But, the AN/ALQ-100 antenna is there under the TCS pod.

I see most (if not all) cockpit switches don't have any default keyboard controls assigned yet. Assigning all those will take some time..

"Hey guys, while we are making sure Corsair will shine in all its glory, the other team prepares to give wings to yet another amazing bird... You've heard the saying: 'When you're out of F-8's - you’re out of fighters.'" I guess that's an announcement, then. Cool.

That looks great, nice weathering, too.

You can't as these are not TM Target profiles. You could add stuff in DCS directly, though.

Thanks for the video, but I have some questions if you don't mind. First, I presume the VSL High mode is from +15 to +55 like shown on the diagram during VSL Low demonstration? In the video, it's said +25 which is the upper limit for VSL Low if I understood the diagram correctly. I also thought the use of the ACM switch/cover (the red cover at the top left corner of the front panel) would be mentioned. I can see that at some points in the video it's down and up at the others. I kind of expected that its purpose is to override the RIO set modes and enable the use of the close combat modes by the pilot, but the PAL mode lock on is engaged with it down in the video so I guess that's not the case. Since there are no weapon employment procedures in the manual yet IIRC, what is the ACM cover used for then, exactly? Yeah, same here. I asked about this before and IIRC forward means it's depressed or pushed-in I guess (given that the arrows show up and down I guess, although at that angle the switch is set to, they could be mistaken for left and right which is what confused me initially). But, I might be wrong.

Thanks, same here. It takes quite a while to study, organize and arrange all these commands and shifted states/modifiers to something which is intuitive to me before trying it out in the real airplane and I'd rather do it ahead of the module release instead of not being to try out the plane comfortably for days after. For instance, currently, I have no idea if cockpit switches will be made as toggles or there will be separate keys for each position or both.

That depends if we're talking about the CPU load only or combined CPU+GPU. It should handle this speed for the fully loaded CPU, while if combined with the GPU also fully loaded, it would throttle down, naturally, as the GPU TDP is huge. IIRC, the notebookcheck test showed 2.8 GHz average on a full CPU/GPU load for 60 minutes, but those numbers may vary as not all the heatsinks are mounted ideally (as technicians install them manually, unfortunately, plus there are some manufacturing variations in the heatsinks themselves). Also, they don't repaste the heatsinks nor use undervolting which would improve those results noticeably, I guess. But, what's the point you're trying to make? DCS (or any other game, for that matter) doesn't provide a constant max CPU load, it's probably closer to 30-40% on average on my laptop, IIRC.