SgtPappy

Really new to the AI RIO extension and am loving it so far! It's saved lots of time, has added tons of immersion to the F-14 experience and has made Jester quite deadly before the merge. However, I am having trouble with something that maybe someone could provide some experience with. There is currently no command to have Jester target a specific contact with AI RIO from RWS (only from TWS). My favourite 80's servers don't use the AIM-54 so the command to STT a specific TWS target number is not available (i.e. in TWS, targets are only assigned attack numbers by the AWG-9 if there are AIM-54's carried). I have been using the Jester wheel but in the middle of combat, it's tough to navigate through the a bunch of Jester wheel layers (BVR radar > STT target > choose specific target > etc.). Is there a way to setup a custom profile that will take me to straight to the "choose specific target" wheel?

Maybe the tutorial videos are out of date, but they all show a line akin to a CCIP line show up on the HUD. I'm not sure why, I'm not sure how to use it but I noted the disparity and was not sure if the lack of this line is an indication of me doing something wrong on my end or if it's all part of the same glitch with the TALD in general (flies through ground, does not attract SAMs, no wings). This is part of what I am trying to get to the bottom of (i.e. user error on top of bug or just bug?).

I was asking if there was an update (since I had no reply in the other thread), which is different than knowing that it has been reported.

Small bump - any news on this? When I launch TALDs, the enemy SAMs do not target them. I get no launch line (like the CCIP line) on my HUD either.

Just curious - I have this same issue but on top of that, the SAMs do not attack my TALDs. I do not get the CCIP line down my HUD when I arm my TALDs so they appear to do nothing even when I'm locked or launched on by, say, an SA-3. Is this all part of the same glitch or am I doing something wrong?

Feelings are the same on my side - I often wonder what would happen had Iran remained under the power of the Shah. There would probably be more, updated F-14's, maybe better engines would have been equipped sooner, F-16's flying along side the Tomcats... but would it have been better or worse overall for the people of Iran? Who knows!

The issue is we don't have publicly-available information on the Hornet's performance. We have anecdotes that state it might not perform this well but we can't be sure.

Looks like my jet is in top gun movie mode then because I get most of my stalls flying through wash in-game! I've been setting my missions to have 300 KIAS tankers.. looks like I need to slow them down.

Ok I'm terrible with this new forum's quoting system so I'll figure out how to break it up later lol. Thanks for the info, as I figured, the thrust values aren't actually that pertinent to the crew. During one of the latest Tomcast episodes, one of the first VF-1 guys says how their planes had crazy amounts of power and those were detuned - I'm thinking the thrust output from the TF30s in those VERY early days is not a number we have floating around. And it makes me super glad to hear that really well-trained pilots could manage compressor stalls. In the game, I have issues primarily when I'm refueling up high and slow and the tanker refuses to speed up, then its wash stalls one of my engines. Have you ever experienced that situation in real life? If so, how did you mitigate it? Can you tell the guy to go faster?? Hummingbird did do the 5 kft tests, however. I would know, I was flying with him one of those nights! See his stuff above. When I see the info below, I take it as "hey here's what I tested, this is what the plots say" and that's it. I believe we've all learned that the plots are estimates, and are general and that there's only so much error that can be eliminated. I think Hummingbird understood that because he hasn't really mentioned the 5 kft data since he understand the 0.1 G difference is a non-issue. We're all getting to a mutual understanding there together!

I agree, Baz. I think there are uses for people obsessed with the mathematical programming of what is in truth a simulated aircraft. If others don't share that obsession then that's fine. I don't see the need for insults on this forum. However, I believe the argument now is that "it's ok to focus on these numbers but also please just understand the perspective that these charts are estimates and the ~5% error we are getting is actually the best we can do practically. If you find spot on performance, that's most likely a coincidence as any data set oscillating about the goal value is likely to hit that goal value somewhere and expecting the data to be exact everywhere just isn't possible. Avoid the use of statements like "these numbers should be here" when the charts themselves are estimates." Do I have that right? I think we can treat each other more respectfully and still get the point across. Being tired of explaining something to someone who is actually being polite is no excuse to then call them stupid, IMO. Perhaps you can tell, it's my unhealthy obsession with trying to get everyone to get along - there are so few of us in this niche Yea, Quid did an excellent post here on their sources of TF30 data: It sounds like the pilots may have been told about the detuning at some point and the myth stuck - that is if they are referencing the 20,900 lbf vs the 17,700 lbf figures. Maybe there is another detuning that we are not aware of. @Victory205, anything you can share about this.. is it a myth/misunderstanding/misremembered event or is there more to the story?

A "Next Launch on TWS target X" command akin to the "STT TWS target number X" would be a game-changer

Link is broken. This one should work: https://theaviationgeekclub.com/former-f-14-rio-tells-the-story-of-when-he-and-his-pilot-pushed-their-tomcat-beyond-the-aircraft-advertised-top-speed-of-mach-2-34/

Yea, honestly, I can see how darn close this flight model is after using the scripted STR mission - my flying is so sloppy so I need to try more data points with less climbing and diving - but this should give a rough idea of how close Heatblur got the F-14A! I believe comparing it to the F-15 was folly as we had originally assumed that the F-15 was exactly matching its graphs.

I'll try this too - what a badass ship! Heatblur did another amazing job. The 80's is where it's at

Thanks @fat creason! I hope in no way do our discussions or tests mean to be a slight on all your hard work. Our obsession to us isn't trivial although your point on accuracy obviously stands, and expectations could be adjusted to take this point into account. I think I speak for all of us when we say we love the Tomcat, this rendition of it and of course just want to see her kick ass - especially for those who play on MP. I think we've concluded to the best of our abilities that indeed, the Tomcat is closer than it ever was before and I for one would not have been able to know that unless I really tried my best to look at these numbers. Awesome work as always!

If it's the same mission I'm thinking of, I'll try it tonight. I'm trash at flying perfectly stable though, so if you want to have a go at in the F-14A, let me know what you get @Hummingbird and @captain_dalan. My quick and dirty flights just now got me 4.8 G at TAS = 344 kn, 5 kft and 4.8 G at TAS = 399 kn, 10 kft. I took these approximate speed figures from using the true Mach given in the F14-AAA-1.1 turn rate diagrams which say I should get 5 G at both those tested points but the 0.2 G could easily just be my own error.

Did they complete the TF30 tuning? I was under the impression that it was in progress after reading the language used in the patch notes. I plan to do some quick and dirty testing today for the F-14A at the real world data plot points I have, but from last night's flight tests with Hummingbird, it is eaten alive at all speeds between SL and 5,000 ft by the F-15 even at speeds where it should have clear superiority (i.e. 340 KIAS). From the plots, if both planes are around that same speed, the F-14A should out-rate the F-15 which was evidently not the case in-game. According to the plots, the F-15 at max. STR out-rates the F-14A by about 0.5 dps up to around 20 kft (I think) but it must do so at a higher speed which may negate the rate advantage. However, preliminarily, the F-15 had no trouble (even in zone 4 A/B) catching up to and then lapping the F-14A when we tested a series of level turns from 5 kft down to SL at the same speeds (STD day, same weights and loadouts per the real world charts). This result may also be caused by the F-15 which appeats to be overperforming by some 0.4 G at low speeds at ~Mach 0.5 at 5 kft - and that's quite a bit.

That's fine you don't have to care about hard data. Sometimes people prefer the flight model to "feel" right even if it's subjective. Fortunately, people who do care about the data are also allowed to not care about solely if something "feels" right to an SME. And that has nothing to do with the quality of work that the SME's provide. I like blue and you like green - both are allowed and are valid so let's all stop the tribalism revolving around what the other party should care about more, yea?

This had me wondering the same thing! I can't really recall if I've had an AIM-54 home in on a target after the track became an "X" unless it was already active when the track became an "X".

Apologies if I misunderstand you but static and and installed are not mutually exclusive terms. They way I sometimes think of it is how a car can be mate black but just because it's matte doesn't mean its black.. it could be matte red or shiny and black. Silly example but I hope you get the point. Shiny and colour are two different dimensions that don't rely on each other as are installed and static thrust. Static just means the engine isn't moving. It may or may not be installed in the aircraft. Quid's excellent post above should remove any remaining ambuguity.

The way I understand it is that "static" and "installed" indeed orthogonal terms. I'm not sure I've ever heard "static" implying "installed" in the industry. Static conditions are, as you say, on a stand with zero freestream velocity at the inlet. This is obviously a practical condition to test on the ground. I would think installed should be explicitly stated.

I guess I'm a little late on this but if you press the jettison weapons command instead of the jettison tanks command (LCtrl + W by default I think), then the wing tanks come off first. If you press it again, the CL tank comes off, followed by I think 2x wing pylon missiles, then the other two then the fuselage stations etc.

I'm just speaking very generally from a radar-theory perspective for pulse locks. Now that you mention it, maybe the AWG-9 requires Doppler return to maintain lock in PDSTT and that's why you need to switch to PSTT if the target starts to beam.

My understanding from the limited amount of studying I've done so far is that once you have lock, the enemy can't do much to escape just by maneuvering. Clutter would have to be introduced into the range cell, while sidelobe return would have to be strong or jamming strength over target signal strength would have to be high - basically a low S/N ratio plus clutter in the mainlobe that's tracking the target. Then all that needs to be in combination with low radial speed and maneuvering in the beaming plane of motion to deny the possible transition to PDSTT and broken lock search patterns. In TWS with the MLC filter off, the effect would be lots of false returns, so it would make sense to switch to pulse search and use the DDD to lock the target. If locked already in PSTT, I assume the MLC filter on or off would have no effect. Hard locks (STT, as opposed to TWS "soft locks") are very strong and can't really be broken by maneuvering and just entering a notch which would normally deny Doppler information as IronMike mentioned. This is one issue with some modules like the F-15/FC3 fighters where lock is broken even in a look-up, 1 nm situation as long as the target has low radial speed. If you have lock, you don't even need Doppler return anymore as you did in search since the tracking gates in elevation, azimuth and range are keeping the radar looking at the target (notwithstanding loft calculations, just looking at automatic tracking).

Thanks IronMike. Yea, I understand that the main beam is concentrating on the target. And indeed, without chaff, the STT range and angular gates keep the target locked and tracked at even longer ranges in a look-down scenario. When alone and without a RIO, it's a lot of fun to use PSTT on someone at 20 nm and just loose a BRSIT AIM-54 at them as they close! However, the above is not what I'm unsure about - and please correct me if I'm wrong here: It really would be the chaff in the resolution cell that should cause the break lock from a PSTT (given a wide enough res cell) and that cell seems pretty wide in azimuth/elevation at 15 or even 10 nm (thousands of feet) so I believe here that's where chaff should cause the break-lock. Understandable that the current DCS engine prevents this in the F-14 and it is not currently modeled. I believe the FC3 modules will just do the dice roll thing which is how I think it works with all missiles in-game. This isn't really an argument to request that feature now, it's just a discussion I want to have to understand the real-world effect in comparison with the game.