Rhrich

The glove vanes was an artifact of a mistaken view of how the future of air combat would look like. I remember it well, we thought a lot of stuff would happen supersonic. Looking back on it now it seems rather stupid, but it wasn’t just the tomcat, «everyone» believed this.

Just a question: I tired som wheels up emergency landings and found that: It’s relatively easy to land the Tomcat wheels up, but with the hook down, without incurring much damage. Even on rough ground like a desert. You can land wheels up, and after you come to a standstill you can then lower your gear and proceed as nothing happened. That’s of course not realistic, but perhaps it’s just an artefact of the code? It seems the Tomcat is pretty much bulletproof when you land, should it perhaps be tweaked to be a little more fragile when you land?

There’s some confusion here that needs to be cleared up: »Fjord» in English is a clearly defined geological feature, looking like Sognefjorden. Its different in the Scandinavian languages where fjord can mean any sort of inlet, bay or fjord, or even a defined sea. The latter is the case of Vestfjorden. It’s not a fjord in the English sense at all, but a part of the Norwegian Sea. It is almost 120nm long and 40 nm wide. But, it is true that any fleet there would have been somewhat hidden by “Lofotveggen” (google it, it’s beautiful). You would also have several Norwegian AF bases in the vicinity. Attached is a picture looking across Vestfjorden: https://no.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lofotveggen#/media/Fil%3ALofotveggen.jpg

Yes. You either protect your hearing or you'll loose it. I'm not too aware of this part of the game, but aren't the helmet on even if you open the canopy? Anyway: They're wise not to recreate the delta between these sound volumes properly. If they had you had to have one volume setting for one state and one for the other. I do not belive that would be better for gameplay. Not everything needs to be an accurate simulation. I don't pee in a piddle pack either.

I think the sound increases quite a bit. Also, thsy environment is in reality painfully loud. Hard to say when it's not real, and I've never used that particular helmet, but in general a helmet would dampen the sound quite well. I think they strike a good balance.

Hello all, Bought this campaign. Good storytelling, but I found it completely uninteresting to play. Seems this is full of errors, but I'm an old guy and might miss something, am I doing something wrong? The computer that is my rio seems totally scripted and in the wrong way. It won't report "holding short" unless I enter the runway. He states he tracks stuff when I can see the lantirn is not tracking (and even if it's masked) And the GBUs seem to track regardless of cloud cover or anything else. And even if I place my kite precisely where it says, it still won't give me mission complete (but at least I can press skip to get the next mission, so that's not an issue) Is this how it's supposed to be? Is it more a play a movie than real missions? Is the other campaigns better?

This reminds me of the old quiz question: How many buffalo did Buffalo Bill kill? Answer: 0. There are no American buffalo, they're bison. But there is a philosophical question here: If enough people use a word as a name for something, that something will have that name. Regardless of whether it's correct or not. I sort of get why folks use "Cat". It's got a certain flair. And since they neither have the issues that Victory mentiones and DCS only got the one cat and not the other Grumman cats, I sort of see why its caught on. That said, I'm sure everyone appreciates some education and stories from those that actually was there and know the real story.

Thanks a lot for your reply and help. Yeah, I guess these things will happen from time to time in a complex simulator. Anyway, the B model seems quite correct at present. So hats off to the developers.

I've just returned from a long trip, and haven't had time to read about the changes. But what's your impression? I used to think the Tomcat was a bit too slow in the acceleration. This seems to have changed, and it now feels very eager and quick. Has anything changed, or is it just an old man imagining things? (Havent had time to do some proper checks yet) Also, have not been able to recreate the error mentioned above for some months. Might mean they fixed it.

Overspeed. Did it ever happen. Sure. Some planes are more susceptible than others. I've talked to Lightning pilots, they had to be real quick with the gear. In the F-14 you get a "slow down" warning, but nothing will override the pilot. It's been a shift in mentality. In my day any system that overrided the pilot was treated with suspicion and I frankly spent far too long opposing them. Nowadays some folks tend to think that the computer or some safety system should override the pilot if some boffin in a office thinks the pilots doing something wrong. In my mind, both extremes are wrong and when I see things like AF447 I tend to think things have gone too far. But I'm a dinosaur. To the spesific question: I'm sure there was good reasons. And agree a boffin-interview would be interesting.

I did. It's single target track. Not single missile track. The missiles passive antenna picks up the radar reflections from your aircrafts radar. That's the basis for all sarh. Newer versions do have some more tricks up their sleeve, might be that Mooch is referencing those. As far as I'm aware (but might be wrong, havent looked into it) DCS does not model anything that will stop you from using multiple 7s at once. Keep in mind though. If a missile at a certain point will have a 50% chance of kill you won't increase your kill chance to 75% if you fire two at once. At max you will increase your chance by a few percent (since failures aren't modelled). Well. At least thats the theory in the analog world, not sure how dcs model this.

Because they didn't need it. Tomcats, at least in US service, have never been used in combat in the air superiority role it was designed for. If the Iraqis or Serbs would send up a fighter (unlikely, happened on very few occasions) a 54 would be very useful. Guess that's why they carried it. The belly was used for bombs and the other outboard station probably had the lantirn.

STT: Single Target Track.

This. Different volume is an old, tried and testet trick when you're flying with two or more radios. Get used to differentiate between the two (or more) by loudness, direction or whatever (depending on your setup) and make a mental picture of what the radio is. That way, you can, to give one example, instantly know who/what talking. When sitting in your couch it sounds unnecessary, but might be a life saver if you're close to task saturation. I used this throughout my career. Any one considering flying would be wise to pick up habits and routines such as these early.

Thank you. And yes, I've noticed. I have no computer skill whatsoever. I bought a PC and VR glasses on recommendation from a young lad, and this game it's the only thing I use it for. (I've tried the windows simulator, but I can't get it to look decent).

This has helped me. Its difficult to find the folders, but you can find a command you can type in the address line in the top of file Explorer that will lead you directly to the saved games folder.

We won't know the capacities of the F-14 weapons system until it's made public, and that will take many decades. In contrast to the amraam the upgraded 54 was only used by the US, and the only other potential user is Iran - who had success with 54 As. Some capabilites, not modelled in DCS, has been eluded to publicly, but I won't mention them here. Suffice to say, both the makers of the Phoenix and Tomcat seem to think that they should model the worst version they can find. In this way they are quite off the mark in many aspects, but they're still quite good in others. Anyone over 40 will have retired before we get the correct picture, but for what it is it's still the best modelled plane in DCS. If you can accept that, then play it. If you can't, then you'll have to modify (like the cockpit) or just refrain from playing dcs or this one plane. The Viper is quite good as well.

If anything I would say AAR in the Tomcat is too easy. The basket seems to be magically drawn to the probe if you get anywhere close and you don't have to worry about the damn prove damaging the plane or vice versa. Irl, if you hit the damn thing close to the edge it can start to get an angle and do all sorts of crazy things. Also, some of them could be deformed after several attempts. Sucks if you tanked after the local idiot. Also, granted the cat is much bigger than anything I've flown, but it seems to be too stable behind the tanker and the probe seems to have minimal impact on how the plane flies. Ps: not sure if Im right, but in some crevice in the back of my memory I seem to recall that you need a bit of force (not much, but just a small bit) when you hit the basket, or there is a chance the fuel won't flow. Anyway, the two big disadvantages of DCS is lack of depth perception (if you haven't got vr) and no feel. Also, a long proper stick helps, failing that, I've heard there is a meny to change responsiveness.

Agree with Warthogosl. KISS

Hello Draconus, Thanks a lot. What you're describing is exactly what I experienced. The few times this has happened to me the plane suddenly started slowing, like I was towing a large stone or deployed a drag chute. (For illustration, don't take it literary) Do you think the error is still there? I've been in the south the last months, so I haven't played, but it did happen to me sometime not so long ago. Right before or after Christmas perhaps. Is there anything I can do to stop it happening again? Hate to be that guy, but since some seem to doubt both Draconus and myself: I used to be a pilot and I've got many hours in fast jets. I can assure you what I - and by all accounts him - experienced was not caused by pilot error.

Hi, thank you for the message. That did not cause my problems, but it can indeed cause something similar. And it's potentially dangerous in less powerful aircraft, like many GA planes.

Thanks! Skipping IRST should make the D more feasible, especially with regards to weapons deployment. (Though it would be totally badass.) hopefully they find a way.

There are certain features on the D that won't be released. The IRST is the main one. That said, from what I've read (this was after I retired and I've got no access, so this is purely "I've read it on the Internet" - so it's by no means certain information - maybe its not even probable. Anyway I take no responsibility, this is just a rumour) not all Ds flew with a working IRST. I belive they took it away on some later models because it wasn't that useful in AG and there where no peer AA threat. (if there had been, like there is today, the USN would never had retired the Tomcat until it had a replacement). I know for a fact that there are functions in the A/B that's not modelled or even alluded to in the game. Since they would have added to the playability and lethality of the Tomcat I will assume it's either because they are still classified or they haven't managed recreate it in game. Ditching the IRST would simplify both the looks (can use present model) and also the flight model work. If the rumour about Ds without IRST is correct they have a historically plausible explanation for ditching it. I think they know that a B+ is a niche product, while the D would make record sales. I for one certainly hope they make it, or a full fidelity 15C.

Hello again all! Apologies in advance, I understand it might be difficult to say something definitive about this. But, sometimes, I would say perhaps one of every twenty times, the F-14 B suddenly seem to lack a lot of thrust. It's especially noticeable above a30. Is there a known error in the game causing this or perhaps something wrong I've done in installation? I've experienced trouble getting a almost slick jet to do 250 ias - even with full reheat. Other times it storms past match 1 without breaking a sweat. PS: I've got an extensive background in aviation - assume it's not a "real life" issue.

I see pilots who seek the limelight state stuff like this from time to time. Not really surprising that internet fanboys and armchair generals jump on and belive. What I don't understand is why a real pilot would say these things - he's just making a fool of himself. The guy clearly doesn't understand what he's talking about, or forget it - for entertainment purposes.. It's entertaining though, I'll give him that. And ten percent is probably true.