Golo

I see that its in a changelog, but I dont recall that ever happening before this update, and I did plenty of stall tests like today. Anyway I can see that its correct, my bad.

@IronMike There is a issue with engines autothrottling to 90RPM when AOA is above 17 units (uncommanded). Issue is both if configured to land (L/G down and everything) and cleaned. Any time throttle is between idle and 90RPM if above 17AOA engines will spool up to 90RPM, physicaly moving throttles past 90RPM will spool engines past 90. At no point I touched autothrottle switch (remained at boost position). Checked F-14A only. Can you guys check?

I have not checked recently, but for me there was slight descent of about 30-50ft upon AP engagement, and then it held that altitude OK. It looks like 3 autopilot cases 3 different results. Say what you will here, but I actually like it, it is like everyone has a planes with their own little imperfections, it gives HBs 14s "soul" if you will. I dont want this fixed.

Not only that, he also said that it was rapidly closing to Rmin distance for the shot. Just what the hell would have been Rmax distance for that shot?

You may want to recheck, especially the post start pilot procedures. Basically you switch it OFF to check if fuel probe extension moves it to auto, then switch it OFF again, until you are ready to take off. Than as a part of take off RIO challenge, you switch it to AUTO. Yes that is a bug or wip. Yes you are correct given those conditions you mention Wing/Ext Trans switch should move to AUTO. Only no. 4 is implemented now afaik. Edit: We already noted it in bug section before

If you say so. You might want to double check tho.

Yes

This implementation is seriously fkn impressive. Way above and beyond of what I expected.

Well, is this not how callsigns are given? You are sucking that S3 dry, you are Vamp.

Im actually looking at the AOA schedule diagram and it does not say it should extend at 7.7. It shows retract at 7.7 and extend at 10.5. So if Im reading that correctly they would only deploy if you go past 10.5 AOA (below M .58 on deck) and retract if you go below 7.7 AOA. If that is the case they are actually operating correctly as is. For A, have not tested B.

Tested it again today. They are off schedule you are right, not mach schedule they are off in AOA schedule. They open fine for me at M .58, to the correct amount by as far as I can tell by just looking at them, big BUT, they only deploy after 10.5 AOA, which is incorrect as you say they should start deploying at around 7.7 AOA. They also seem to not close gradually, but all at once if you get below 7.7 AOA. If you stay between 7.7 and 10.5 they just stay deployed to their M schedule amount (or they will extend if you slow down if you are above 10.5 AOA) I think their M scheduling is OK its the AOA schedule that is off. Tested in A only.

@HummingbirdI find nothing wrong with slats deployment, I tested it moment ago and slats were deploying fine for me. They just started opening at M .58 (actually looked like .6, but that is probably my reading error) when I pulled for just above 10AOA at about 1500ft. When I let go of the stick and accelerated little they closed around same M (I go by the airspeed indicator in cockpit only). Tested with F-14A in MP, latest OB. Note: No idea about main flaps deployment, cant see them from cockpit.

Ha at the very least, yes. This section should be locked behind sort of NATOPS evaluation quiz, which should be completed before you get permission to post anything here lol.

I was under the impression that you dont have to do it manually when launching 54s in TWS. Isnt target automatically put in track hold and if lost missile will still continue to predicted point and will receive activate signal?

Where do you see that? You say your heading is about 030 which is correct by BDHI and your tgts is about 210, which means you are both direct nose on, exactly what you can see on TID, as you are in ground stab and that shows true velocity vectors. So TA should be around 0. Flaps work fine again in latest update as far as I checked.

Yes, and yet as I understand it, it is now invisible to the AWG-9 due to now implemented PD 1800 kts Vc limit. I belive this is misrepresentation of AWG-9 capabilities. Logically it does not make sense to me for high speed interceptor to be "crippled" in such manner and there is a hint in manual of DDD being able to show Vc of 4000 kts with a use of Vc switch, which would make hell of a lot more sense for F-14/AWG-9.

Oh I see, have not tried that. Edit: @Naquaiinow I have and as you can see... (it is the same mission I used in our other discussion, I dont suppose old mission have something to do with it)

Not to get homoerotic about this guys, but I could kiss you. On a different note, you may want to recheck the PD surface contacts ignoring, still get them in PD with MLC filter off.

You can clearly see the two ejector pins, sticking out of the LAU-93 launcher in the 54C promo video above. Force of the ejectors is maybe too much in DCS, but Phoenix is definitely ejected from launcher. "The LAU-93/A guided missile launcher carries and launches the AIM-54 Phoenix missile, and is installed on the weapons rail of the F-14 aircraft. The launcher provides electrical and coolant connections between the weapons rail and the missile. The mechanical components of the launcher consist of a gas-operated, hook-opening linkage and two ejectors, a ground safety lock and positive launch pin, coolant, and electrical umbilicals. The launcher can also be installed on the wing-mounted multipurpose pylon using an LAU-93/A adapter."

And what about Vc Switch? From HB F-14 manual: The Vc switch (18) controls the rate scale on the DDD in the pulse doppler search modes. X-4 sets the scale to 800 knots opening to 4,000 knots closing, NORM sets the scale to 200 knots opening to 1,000 knots closing and VID sets the scale to 50 knots opening to 250 knots closing. Now why would there be need for this switch if AWG-9 was hard caped to 1800 knots closure in PD mode. This is one of the things that does not make logical sense to me and I think it is (that 1800 knots closure cap, if its true) wrong implementation of AWG-9 capability.

I stated my opinion regarding this feature. You are free to state yours, Im not going to argue about this. If and how HB will implement this is on them.

Yes, you have to disconnect external power after starting one of the engines and all will be well. Hydraulic transfer pump is inoperative if there is ext. power connected.

@IronMikeAs per your request Im creating this topic regarding free movement of flap handle with wing sweep over 50°. According to NATOPS manual flap handle should be locked. A few notes about that, I have flaps control set to an axis on my physical device, I did not test this with flap handle function assigned to buttons, so I dont know if it also applies. If I think about it, it would only work in case of a flap handle function set to buttons (flaps up/down) in a case where button press would not be held "in memory" (not sure how to describe it better). In that case on a button press the flap handle would not move, which would be correct. And if wing sweep is later less then 50° lowering the flap handle would require another button press. If the flaps down button press is held "in memory" then flap handle would not move with wing sweep above 50°, but would upon sweeping to less than 50°. I think that would be bad implementation. Lastly what I can think of is with flap handle assigned to axis (as I have). In that case when I would lower the physical handle, in game flap handle would stay up with wing sweep above 50° and there would be discrepancy in position between the two. Further more the flap handle (and flaps) would still move if wing sweep would lower below 50°, because of the position of the physical device previously lowered. I dont think there is a good solution for this function in DCS F-14, and in my opinion this specific function of the flap handle should be omitted from simulation. Maybe implementation for a button press would be OK, but I dont see any solution for an axis.

@Cobra847@Naquaii Hi, guys since we were on a subject of flaps function, can you take a look at this too? I thing it got overlooked, I was gonna bring this up later but now is as god of a time as any I guess. I already mentioned it Victorys post about flaps, note 2.

It was my impression when I red Naquaiis replies, that only after Victorys post it was given any weight, so I wrote what I did. If it is in fact not true then I apologize.