Tomsk

Actually it wasn't my example, it was Black Lions :) Of course I'm sure the real data on the exact properties of military radars is highly classified, so I doubt heatblur is using that to model their systems. However, on the grounds that one directed radar antenna is probably similar to another and that you would want to minimize sidelobes as much as possible in such a system it doesn't seem a terrible approximation. Right but different tool, different purpose. I'm sure you know more about this topic than I do so correct me if I'm wrong but the role of EW in this case would be to detect and locate enemy radars, so you'd want that tool to be as sensitive as possible. Whereas ideally you'd want an RWR to only show "you are being launched on" if you actually are, or if it was at least fairly likely. You ideally wouldn't want it to tell you "you are being launched on" if it's actually someone else that's nowhere near you who's being launched on. False positives are better than false negatives, but you would try to filter out as many false positives as you could. Different tool, different function, different design right?

Sure, I am familiar with the concept of sidelobes on directed antennas. However, the side lobes have a lot less power than the main lobe right. For the 'typical' example shown on wikipedia the strongest sidelobe is -15 decibals relative to the main lobe. Decibals is a logarithmic scale, so that's POWER(10, -15/10) = 0.03 so in that wikipedia example the strongest side lobe has at most 3 percent of the power of the main beam. It drops off quickly as well, so at around 15 degrees off axis the strongest sidelobe is around -23 decibals, which is 0.5 percent (i.e. one two hundredths) of the power of the main beam. At 30 degrees off, where I was getting lock indications, the example on wikipedia suggests the strongest sidelobe might be around -35 decibals, or 0.03% (3 hundredths of one percent) of the power of the main beam. It seems to me that it is ... unlikely that this would trip the RWR into believing it had been launched on. Particularly given that in some of my examples the SAM is over 40 nautical miles away. In the end, the modelling of directed antennas isn't my field of expertise. So if Heatblur look into this issue and decide the simulation is accurate that's fine. However, I'm raising it as a potential issue because based on some observations and some simple maths it looks very suspicious. It would also be an easy mistake to make I imagine, for example forgetting to apply a logarithmic scale to a power output based on decibals.

As in my post I just posted, Super Grover says they are modelling the tracking beam as being 10-15 degrees wide, which seems reasonable. However, the results in the simulation show it is working as a beam that is 75 degrees wide or more. Hence why I suggest it's inaccurate.

So my understanding is they are more like electromagnetic flashlights. They direct radar energy at the target they are painting to guide the missiles. This makes sense from a tactical point of view, the guidance beam shoudn't be much larger than needed to guide the missiles or you just make the SAM more vulnerable to ARMs. Indeed you say seem to say that the guidance beam is narrow (10-15 degrees) in your other post: However you currently seem to be modelling a beam that's more like 75 degrees wide or more. Here's some examples from tacview that prove my point: You can see my F-14, you can see an SA-6 (which is 25nm away from me) has just launched on number of nearby friendly F-16s. In this example I have made a hard break turn and turned cold because my RWR is telling me that I am being launched on. However, the angular difference between my bearing to the SAM and the actual target being tracked is 30 degrees (measured using a paint tool). It's as though the SAM is projecting a 60 degree wide tracking beam, which as I understand it isn't at all realistic. Here's another example: My squad mate has just been launched on by an SA-2, I'm turning away because my RWR is telling me I've been launched on. It keeps telling me this for an extended period so I continue to break. Again you can see the angular difference is greater than 30 degrees. As I understand it I shouldn't be being told I'm being launched on here. Another example: Here I'm hard breaking after my RWR is telling me I'm being launched on (20nm from the SAM). Again you can see the aircraft that is actually being launched on and the difference is more than 30 degrees. Another example: Again a friendly is launched on, again I'm turning away hard here because my RWR is telling me I'm being launched on, but the angle is 20 degrees different. Indeed, my RWR is still screaming that I'm being launched on here, at 37 degrees (this missile has gone for chaff): Another example: I don't turn away here because I've wised up to it at this point and can see the launch visually, but my RWR is still saying I'm being launched on. I could probably keep going and find even more examples in my recent tacviews, but these are probably enough to make the point: it seems like the guidance beam is being modelled much larger than it really is, as a 75 degrees wide beam (or more). This is not a weird one-off, it's very repeatable. I have not observed this problem in other modules, only with the F-14.

I can appreciate this argument, in real life things aren't as "clean" as in a sim. On the flip side, there is clearly a point where the system is just not modelling the reality very well. A RWR that just screamed "SAM launch" the moment you turned it on, is just modelling a broken RWR. After flying the Tomcat regularly for the last few days and having many missions where the RWR seems to be constantly on fire telling me of SAM launches even though I've never been launched on even once, I'm kind of skeptical how realistic that modelling is. However, you might know better than me :)

I don't think we're likely to agree here, we probably just have different perspectives :) I've had this argument many times on a range of different topics, and the question is very old and longstanding within the flight sim community. Different people in the community have a different points of view, and different sims have taken different paths based on those points of view. Some people think that flight sims should only model realistic mechanical systems. They argue you can't model things like the feeling of G effect that a real pilot experiences, so why try? Yes, this might produce unrealistic effects in the sim (like it being really a lot easier to break the wings than it would be in the real plane) but that's just a shame. Other people (such as myself) think that flight sims should aim to produce realistic outcomes. It's feels very strange to see people breaking their wings all the time (it happens on DCS WWII servers constantly, on some of the DCS WWI planes it's such a big problem it's become the dominant way to defeat them) and we want to see a realistic simulation of the scenario. Real pilots didn't break there wings all the time, so they shouldn't in DCS either. So if something is missing (such as sensation of G) that is causing that problem then it's reasonable to adjust things like black-out mechanism, or the modelling of stick forces and pilot strength, to give better feedback to produce as realistic outcome as possible. The thinking goes: the black-out mechanism is completely an approximation anyway, who could even say what the "most realistic" blackout model would be ... so why not change it to produce more realistic effects and give the virtual pilot at least something close to the feedback a real pilot would get? No one is ever going to convince me my perspective is "wrong": to me it's extremely frustrating that the sim produces such an unrealistic outcome (like that it's really easy to break wings). Some sims, such as IL2 BoS and Falcon 4 have tended to agree with my opinion and have been willing to add more compensatory mechanisms, and to adjust things like how blacking out works to give the pilot better feedback. Likewise, I don't imagine I'm ever going to convince you of my perspective. You probably see my argument as wanting to add something "gamey" and unrealistic, you see trying to change the black-out model to give feedback and dislike the idea of changing it for that reason. I think what you advocate is more gamey and unrealistic ... I see entirely unrealistic outcomes, that would never happen in the real world, servers full of WWII battles with pilots breaking their wings left, right and centre. We just see the world differently :)

As discussed, yes I agree at low speed, but not at high speed. Most cues are due to pulling high AoA, and you can over-G at low AoA at high speed. And at high speed small stick deflections will produce very large G forces very quickly. You don't need to be ham fisted at all. So my argument is that "blacking out" in the sim is already a completely unrealistic 'game' mechanism. I'm sure it's nothing like blacking out for real, it's a simulation to compensate for the lack of a realistic effect. Since we're already doing that, we're already including a compensation mechanism .. why not change it slightly to give some of the feedback you do get in real life?

I think we can agree from things like the cat blackouts that DCS's modelling of G is a bit lacking and unrealistic. Giving more progressive feedback, like having less delay to G forces causing blackening of the screen would help a lot with these problems. The other thing is a better modelling of pilot strength and stick forces. Pulling massive G at high speeds likely requires incredible strength, and you can currently in DCS pull far more G more quickly than any real pilot ever could. It seems that the plane is modelled, but the pilot is not. I've experienced enough to know that I could feel it :)

Yes, you can experience this at a much more reasonable mach number (like 1.3 or something) but I gave a particularly extreme example because the problem gets more acute the faster you go. You can break the plane really easy, even if you're really careful, because there's almost no feedback ... and it's very unrealistic because in real life you'd be perfectly aware you were pulling so much G, as well as the huge stick forces you'd need to achieve it. I don't have the track to hand at the moment, but the situation was I was being chased and fired on by multiple planes. I was low, and running away very fast (can't remember the exact speed, but it was fast) and I decided I wasn't going to outrun the missile, so I had to break. I knew there was a risk of over-G so I pulled very gently, easing into the turn gradually. None the less I snapped the wings with no warning. That is a reasonable comment, but to my mind this suggests that DCS should have an even better feedback for G forces than IL2. I'm not complaining that the plane breaks (it should), I'm complaining there are situations where it can break even when you are very aware of the risk of over G, just because there's so little feedback in DCS compared to other sims.

Ah I hadn't seen that though. Yes, it's just I've spent a lot of time in the F/A-18C and have noticed the F-14 gives launch warnings when the F/A-18C definitely would not. The Hornet's interpretation seems more accurate in this case, given that the F-14 gives warnings when I was definitely nowhere near (in distance or angle) the aircraft that was being launched on. In one mission this resulted in my RWR constantly saying I was being fired on by an SA-6, due to a fight the AI was having 40 miles away.

Yes, I've seen that. I'm saying it's not working properly :) I've been getting RWR warnings for the SAM launching on an aircraft that was more than 10 miles away. Where my bearing to the SAM is 090, and the aircraft being launched on is at bearing 135 from the SAM.

We're talking about the quality of the feedback given, not the nature of the airplane. It's perfectly possible to break the wings in a WWII plane, the difference is that one sim gives good feedback and the other doesn't. Not what the nature of the plane is. To be clear, I'm saying it's incorrect to say the buffeting gives feedback on G forces. I instead propose it gives feedback on AoA. He says this in his quote: I'm also not saying what's the case in the real plane, he obviously knows vastly more about that topic, I'm just saying it gives very little feedback in DCS for high-G and low-AoA (low alpha).

Loving the F-14 Heatblur, you've done an amazing job. The level of detail and work that's gone into it is clear, and this is clearly step above anything that's come before. Heatblur has raised the bar for everyone else to follow. So with that said, one issue that I've noticed is that the F-14 RWR seems to be much too sensitive. In particular, it seems to give a missile launch warning if there is a SAM vaguely near (like within 50 miles) that is launching a missile at someone, even if you are nowhere near the target the SAM is launching at, even if you are completely the opposite side of the SAM. This (I believe) does not accurately reflect how SAM guidance (and RWRs) work, and is not how RWRs work in other modules (for example the F/A-18C and A-10C). Most radar guided SAMs use SARH and guide missiles using a tight radar beam. As I understand it RWRs detect the missile launch by detecting that tight guidance beam. Because the beam is tight it general means only the aircraft that is being guided to (or one that is very close to it) will see the guidance beam and get the RWR launch tone. The F-14 RWR is currently giving a missile launch tone when it seems there is no way it would be receiving enough power from the guidance beam. EDIT: oops excuse the title should say "F-14 RWR gives missile launch tone incorrectly", apparently I can't edit it now. EDIT: Now with actual concrete measured examples https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3864406&postcount=12

So it's incorrect to say the simulation provides buffeting in response to G forces. As Sandman says, buffeting and shaking is due to AoA and not due to G forces. If you are going fast enough you can pull more than enough G to break the plane at low AoA. A ButtKicker or JetSeat also isn't going to help: if you are going fast enough there is no shaking. As is per usual for a forum thread I see people like to reply to without reading the thread. To be clear, this phenomena is NOT due to yanking hard on the stick and being surprised the plane breaks. The problem is if you're doing mach 1.6 you can break the plane whilst being very gentle on the stick. If you'd like to try it get the plane in a dive to mach 1.6+ at low altitude and then execute a six G break turn without looking at the G meter (you can't always do it in real life). You'll find two things: You really don't need to pull hard at all on the stick to over-G the plane. You can ease it in as gentle as you like, it's still very easy to over-G. There is almost no feedback at all, especially in VR where the blackout effect is significantly reduced. As Sandmans says this is a problem unique to sims, and in particular unique to DCS. It's not such a big issue in IL2 Battle of Stalingrad which has much better feedback (particularly black out effect) and a better modelling of stick forces and limited pilot strength. Although there's no doubt I could use more practice (when does someone not need more practice?), the truth is that compared to the competition this is an area where DCS is sub-par in terms of the feedback it gives.

Not really. My understanding and experience is that the beta is promoted to stable every few weeks, assuming there are not any bugs that prevent DCS working for all modules. If just a single module is broken, they will often still push it to stable anyway. Our squadron used to run stable, hoping we'd see less bugs. In practice we found it made no real difference as ED would happily promote builds to stable even if the Hornet had game breaking bugs in it. It is kind of frustrating at times that the Hornet is so unstable and features break so often. On the flip side, it is still in "beta" and so this is kind of what you are signing up for.

So clearly if I was just honking back on the stick then snapping the wings would be fair. But that's not the case, both times it's happened I've been very mindful I'm going fast. I've explicitly thought to myself "I have to be gentle", so I've slowly and gently eased on the stick, slowly increasing pressure over several seconds (I've even counted it) to avoid exceeding the G limits. However DCS doesn't give you any feedback on G until many seconds after the G has been pulled, and this is both unrealistic and causes all these problems. Let me compare with another flight sim I fly regularly. IL2 BoS, that has the same limitations if you pull too hard you can break your plane. But it's not a problem for two reasons. The first is it models stick forces and pilot strength. A real pilot cannot instantly put 50lbs on pressure on a stick, so even if you command it to do that it eases it in for you. Secondly, and most crucially, there's no delay between applying G and seeing the effects. The blackout effect comes on as soon as you start pulling strong Gs, not 5 seconds after you've pulled too much G. This is much more realistic (because it simulates a pilot feeling the G in their body) and as a result you get much more feedback, so you don't snap wings. I'm not asking for "Over G" warnings or other magic. All I'm asking is to model pilot strength appropriately, and most importantly, to apply G effects when the G starts being present, not a long time after it's present.

Right, even if you are aware it's easy to over G the plane and you are gentle on stick and only increase pressure gradually it still goes from totally fine to "look ma' no wings" in a split second. I have likewise found the only way not to suffer from this problem is just to avoid maneuvering significantly at high speed.

These are all great suggestions. However, why not add a bit more feedback? Introduce some blackening around the edges of the screen, have the pilot make noises for pulling Gs. As everyone agrees, in real life this isn't a problem: you can feel the Gs on your body, so you wouldn't over G the plane. No one seems to be debating that accidentally snapping the wings off is completely unrealistic, so why not add the correct feedback into the game?

First off wanted to say I'm really loving the F-14, it's an amazing achievement. One issue I've had is that I've been flying around with the F-14 and I've noticed it's incredibly easy to over-G the plane. When the plane is going very fast, even if you pull back on the stick gently increasing force slowly there's no feedback to tell you that you're pulling too many G. Your screen doesn't black out, your pilot doesn't make straining noises, there's just no feedback at all. Instead one moment you seem to be fine slowly easing into a steeper turn, you don't even have the stick pulled back very far, and the next you suddenly find that your wings have snapped off. This make it very hard to fly the plane in a combat situation at high speed (where the Tomcat shines) and is clearly totally unrealistic as in real life a pilot would have a strong sensation of how many Gs he was pulling. EDIT: Currently it applies the G feedback effects (blackout and breathing noises) quite a long time after you've already pulled the G (several seconds). It would be much better if the feedback came as soon as you started pulling the strong G, it would be much more realistic and lead to less snapped wings. It's also worth noting that I fly VR and this could be a problem specific to the modelling of black-out in VR.

I find it works fine for the UHF 1 (ARC-159) radio, I can use the RAlt+\ binding to bring up the communications menu for that radio to communicate with tower or flight or whatever. However the UHF 2 (ARC-182) radio does not work. I can get Jester to tune it to the right frequency, which I can see is correct in the repeater, however, whilst RCtrl+\ brings up the menu I never receive any response to my requests nor do I hear any communication from the AI on that channel.

I've found in singleplayer that the UHF 2 (ARC-182) radio does not appear to work. I can get Jester to tune it to the correct frequency and when I press RCtrl+\ it does bring up the menu, but I cannot use it to contact my AI flight, or ATC, or AWACS. Nor can I hear anything the AI says on that frequency. Everything works fine for the UHF 1 (ARC-159) radio.

Nope ignore this, this is my mistake. There's a warehouse limitation in that mission that prevents the use of various missiles. It's a bit confusing that there's no feedback about this, but that is a DCS issue not a F-14 issue.

I've been modifying the awesome MBot DCE to work for the F-14, which is something I'm sure many people would appreciate. The missions it generates load fine, however there are problems with the loadouts. The loadout is correct in the mission editor, however in the game all F-14s have their radar missiles and fuel tanks removed: How it is in the mission editor: http://pasteboard.co/I6vGREc.jpg How it appears in game: http://pasteboard.co/I6vHieq.png Going into the menu to reload the weapons doesn't work either, the missiles can't be selected as options: http://pasteboard.co/I6vHEjJ.png The mission is attached here: https://ufile.io/3tvii