Dudikoff

Great, thanks for confirming that.

Not sure if it was answered by HB before, but I presume the F-14A will also be capable of dropping bombs, right? I know that they're making the mid-80's standard, but AFAIK, the A2G panel was present on the F-14A and (if wired and connected) technically it should be able to drop bombs, it's just that it wasn't tested and used back then. Right?

F***, yeah! Cool video, although the climax resolution was a bit too easy. I guess the MiG pilot was checking his mobile or something.

DCS is a single-threaded application, with only the sound processing running in another thread IIRC. You've probably bought the hexa core CPU because of marketing as there's no benefit from it in gaming over a quad core and even that one is an overkill in most cases.

Definitely not the same. SparrowHawk HUD was a commercial HUD product chosen because it was supposed to be a cheap and fast upgrade, IIRC. But, the program started in 1998 (?) while the HUD finally entered operational service in 2001, IIRC (it was developed before, but I think there were some reliability issues with it). They came in different stages as the HUD was finally ready in 2001 IIRC while the PTID was available from 1996 or 1997 I guess. In any case, the HUD itself would not be classified and would be described in a non-classified flight manual.

They said they'd rather make the F-14D before the F-14B w Sparrowhawk HUD, but they don't have the weapon system manuals needed, so I guess that's probably a no.

IIRC, Lock On did support playing avi files before and after missions, but at some point this was removed. It would be nice to have this back, but I suppose we have to wait till those announced changes to the current campaign system are released.

But, that's exactly the answer to your question. If they had the docs for the MLD, they'd probably do that instead of the MLA. I would presume that the only reason they have the manuals for the MLA was that it was exported to some current NATO countries (but, it's just a guess as I don't know what the source is for those manuals). Some MLD's were exported, though, but those were not the same as the Soviet ones as they lacked the exterior changes to improve the maneuverability. Since the MiG-27K was not exported IIRC, I doubt those docs could be found. The MiG-27M was license made in India, but they still use it (albeit further modernized), so I doubt they're willing to share the manuals.

Opera here, but they use the same engine now (Chromium), IIRC. But, yes, you're right, in Firefox it opens up correctly. I'm not really a web-developer (more like a general programmer), but I've checked a bit the CSS code and the table elements holding those images lack the width definition (to e.g. 100%) which when added makes the images show correctly. E.g. if I modify the custom.css file for that exact table class (and remove those two commented out parameters which seem to introduce a problem) like so: table.docutils { width: 100%; } the images show correctly as the table is stretched across the whole row. Not sure why it works in other versions of the Chrome browser or Firefox, maybe some different default handling is present.

Given that one was an F-14 study flight-sim and the other an action flight-sim game pretty much, I wouldn't even mention them in the same context. Still have the FD installed on some portable laptop (and the Tornado), while I could never get into those USNF/ATF/USAF games with their generic system modeling, weird physics and arcade gameplay. Though, I was surprised to read they were released in the same year, also thought the USNF was released a few years later. Always felt it's a shame Microprose didn't merge some of the FD features to their earlier F-15 SE3. The systems modeling there was quite decent, but the game world was empty (i.e. no wingmen or civilian or friendly flights) apart from a few scrambled interceptors. With a wingman, squadron management and some friendly support flights, plus some enemy groups to encounter, it could have been a much better sim.

The predominantly quite serious comments on this post really show the current state of mind on this forum. Waiting for the Tomcat, I feel some of these guys wouldn't know a joke if it hit them flat out in the face..

Err, it was a TV-series quote which even the most cursory Internet search will corroborate. But, thanks. You ruined it. You ruined the moment.

Thanks, Captain Obvious, but my quote was in fact quite literal, too.

Is it just my browser or the images showing Pulse and Pulse-Dopler examples for DDD under "Detail Data Display" heading are super small and unreadable? Also, can we get some diagram showing all the control options for the Target Designator switch? I find it confusing that the switch apparently has a left and right arrow drawn on it, while the controls mentioned in the description are UP, DOWN and DES (designate) whatever that is (push-in?).

Said Ripley to the android Bishop..

I did try the Super EF-2000 years later and the successor F-22 ADF and TAW, but wasn't really impressed, TBH. Coming from the same company, they felt like a more complex TFX with a better flight model, systems modellng and better campaigns, but still. I guess it didn't help they were "simulating" these quite advanced aircraft at the time so it felt rather digital and generic compared to the study sims concentrating on older aircraft (MS FD, DI's Tornado, Jane's F-15). Regarding ATF, I don't know. What was the last time you've tried it? If it was more than a decade ago, I'd suggest reinstalling it and trying out that "flight model" behavior. I guess we went way OT, but it will be long three weeks before the F-14 comes out, it seems.

IIRC, USAF, perhaps as I tried it a only bit so don't remember much except that it felt like another one of their lite sims (and by that time there were plenty of new serious sims released), but regarding the USNF and ATF, I'd have to strongly disagree. I actually did install Fighters Anthology again a few years back and reminded myself why I never could get into those games. There's no flight model to speak of, the maps are archaic and empty, just a few scripted enemies with bars showing their damage. At the very least SC allowed you to skip flying over that emptiness and added some movie-like story and management elements to keep it interesting ;)

To be fair, the latter two were not that far off the "WC2 in Jets" mark. Both came some years after the SC so the somewhat increased complexity was expected. I'd point out the Fleet Defender and Tornado as my obvious favorites of the SC era (1993/94), but my computer couldn't run the DID EF2000 so I didn't really play that (only the predecessor TFX which was again close to the WC2 mark).

So, if this had been done in the startup video, we would have heard the crew chief respond, right? And if e.g. we don't actually ask the crew chief for a disconnect and say "Check", the Jester will complain? Just wondering if all these checks are non-conditional or they already have the necessary conditions implemented and checked.

So, I guess it would be better to have separate countries for them. One could make fictional scenarios between them then, as well (e.g. (T)Opposing Force).

Awesome video. During the engine indicator test, Jabbers said the TIT indicator should be around 500, but it was at 400? Also, if the canopy is closed, how do they interact with the ground crew chief to remove the auxiliary air supply? Hand signals?

An officially supported mod would never work as ED would be held responsible. As an unofficial mod, it could work, but then the mod developers have no way of protecting their product. IMHO, the only way out of this, realistically, is when the Russian MOD (or whoever needs to OK it) decides that e.g. those initial export variants and their systems are no longer relevant to them or to the partner countries who still operate them. But, even if that's the case now, they have no benefit from it, so I'm not sure if they'd OK it anyway. And even if they did, you'd get a somewhat downgraded export variants of initial MiG-29 and Su-27 variants (so, Soviet mid-80's tech), which would perform worse (radar and RWR-wise) than the current FC3 modules. So, I guess plenty of MP people would complain even more. Though, ideally, that could entice ED to release downgraded variants of their Hornet and Falcon modules (e.g. an F/A-18A or initial C and e.g. F-16C Block 30 or 40). That would be really nice to have.

Yeah, but that depends on the general status. If there are some unresolved major issues, it could mean more than one week between them (with subsequent patches released on Open Beta until the major issues are resolved).

I don't think they're ever been released on the same day (ever since there were separate OB and stable branches), otherwise what would be the point of having them separated? AFAIK, new modules are released on the Open Beta branch first on a Wednesday and if there are no blocking issues discovered, the stable branch gets it two days later (if not, then they aim for the next Wednesday).

Will this trapped fuel be simulated? Is the trapped (but, apparently indicated) quantity more or less constant? E.g. 1200 lbs +/- some random amount? It should be implemented, I guess.