lunaticfringe

The gating is correct to the actual aircraft. The additional arm throw in the MIL region of the module was an artistic decision mentioned previously.

Nothing says "see-they flare!" like a video *post touchdown*. These are not flares. There is no intentional increase in AoA just prior to the mains coming into contact with the tarmac. The F-14 when correctly configured for landing requires DLC enabled. The spoilers deploy automatically on touchdown even if DLC is disengaged as a function of the Spoiler Brake setting. And speed brake deployment when on speed is proper procedure to maintain engine spool RPM performance, as closing the brakes recovers airspeed faster than raising throttle setting. The Tomcat not flaring, like other Navy aircraft, is based on gear geometry. To take a 45,000 lb aircraft slamming into the deck at 125 knots requires a much more capable suspension than land based. The flip side of this design is that the airplane has to be firmly planted, and square, otherwise there is a chance for things to get squirrely. The section landing is a proper three degree glideslope, all configured up properly, and both F-14s land square with good main gear compression. We see what happens when it's not with the IRIAF touchdown; it wants to go all over the place and needs quick correction. Now do that on a wet strip with a quarter of an inch or more of water, and you're in real danger as the uncompressed main potentially hydroplanes while the other grabs friction from the tarmac. This is a flare. The pilot intentionally increases AoA just prior to touchdown, and deployed the speedbrake. This particular flare was egregious in height relative to speed of deployment, and almost caused a ground strike. Pulling back after touchdown is not a flare. That's areobraking, as is seen from time to time on Iranian landings.

They also didn't shoot anybody with the M61 having deactivating the MCB, just like nobody shot a Sidewinder at anybody with the big boys down. Because they did these things for an advantage in the training and ego-checking environment, rather than under actual combat conditions. Mid-Compression Bypass exists to protect the engines and maintain engine stall margin in the high AoA environment, and the circuit engages in the event of firing the gun to smooth airflow turbulence from the gun's vented gas. ACM is the high AoA environment. And I don't know about you, but reliable use of the gun- ergo, not losing an engine for squeezing the trigger, is kind of the point of entering the phone booth with bad guys. Same deal with glove missiles and the flap handle; part of why the maneuvering flaps only deflect so far is to compensate for missile exhaust. Slap that handle down, but you don't get to shoot anybody- because you'll look the fool coming back to the boat with a flap panel torn up because you can't follow basic instructions. All that noise was left on the beach when they were cruising into harms way.

Who can detail the difference between the operational handling and working environment of a USAF aircraft versus a US Navy one? Anyone? Anyone? Similarly, the USAF Museum collection is a rather poor starting point of comparison, given the material access they grant themselves to NOS in the supply network, as well as material from off of other aircraft at other museums. If Dayton wants a replacement panel to a better standard and another museum has it, they're going to get it, per the service artifact loan terms. By the same token, many of the last jets off cruise that were saved from the jaws at AMARC were getting the best gear to put on display. The jet formerly at the QAM, that a couple years back was moved down to the US Naval Academy, had a stunning cockpit based around a number of donor jets, and had the benefit of being with the Reapers for years leading up to it- thus not dealing with the day to day environment at sea. Meanwhile, get jets that come off cruise and go right to the museum, such as the B at Akron-Canton, and it was even rougher than what we have exampled in the HB model when it arrived, pre-demil.

You can also see its on the beach.

Even without talking software compatibility which may have come late in the service life, AIM-9X needs the MIL-STD-1553 upgrade that came along with the B/U and was default in the D as a bare minimum to have a shot at working. So considering Puck's experience, there's your clue.

Re: shots before the merge: "Credibility down, kill ratio up." - D-Hose

Re: setup- I'd be interested in knowing if Carroll has curves on his setup, and if so, how much, because the jet appeared very sluggish in axis response, and the rock was not anything good inputs on default settings wouldn't negate. He appeared to be applying enough corrective controls, but the jet wasn't actually responding.

From writings and conversation with a former TOPGUN XO (now deceased), taking two aircraft with roughly the same energy margin, the first one to make a large vertical move is going to be the one who runs out of energy first. This can be offset in practice by having substantially more energy at the merge, but that can come with its own bag of issues. It's also offset in section maneuvering through mutual support, and in that instance you want for somebody to get dynamic and into another plane of maneuver against the bandit, but this is 1 v 1 focused. This also does not supersede going nose high if you've abused an opponent into a place where he's slow, but you've still got lots of knots to stick your airplane in a place he can't get to in the aim of solving the rest of your angles and separation problems. If you've punished him into being close to, or below, his vertical maneuvering margin to start the climb (like Manazir says- 230 knots in a Tomcat, or specific to whatever you're up against), and you're at 350 knots in a Tomcat- get out of plane, get up there, and ruin his day on your reentry.

There's nothing that the AI is doing with regards to its roll, jink, reversal dynamic that breaks the laws of physics, or is not something capable of being employed by a human. That it's not tactically advantageous- as it's not generating larger offset, is erroneously solving range dynamics for the shooter, and makes no attempt to cause a closure problem, doesn't mean it doesn't work in isolation, which is why so many seem to have trouble with it. The AI currently gets stuck in the tail-chase loop for a very interesting reason, though- because the shooter missed their first shot attempt. It also breaks out of the loop quite easily- let it get 45+ degrees off the nose, and it stops. This is why you can get into a flat scissors with the AI, rather than it immediately going off to the tail chase races. So if it gets stuck in the loop, redefine- which is what you should be doing, anyway. Every air to air gunshot in history has been taken at a guess; the instrumentation making the guess has gotten better, but it's only ever been based on where the target was historically, and compensating for one bullet time of flight. To whit: "always a snapshot, rarely a tracking shot"- you literally just described the Thach weave, and it wrecked havoc all over the Japanese. Now acting as a virtual descendant of the First Team, we don't like high aspect gunnery? Deflection and high aspect gunnery is a thing, and it remains a thing everywhere outside of the training bubble. If you're beating a guy one circle, you need to be capable of finishing without a reversal- otherwise, all you've done is extend his life expectancy. Same applies for large out-of-maneuvering plane entry. The sight is giving plenty of corrective drift data even without a lock. The canopy centerline is there, as is the upper handle bolts on the frame that can be used as a visual gauge. The more comfortable you are transitioning from high to the boresight cross, and applying the rudders to catch the bandit along the line the gunsight is drifting along, the more successful you're going to be.

Majority of tactical aircraft on the planet are land based; the Tomcat as exampled in Navy service was not. Compounding this is the specific amount of flight hours and usage US aircraft were getting through the Cold War, into the 90s, and even now. US flight hours per type and aircrew outstrip *everybody*; whereas the Soviet Union were getting a hundred a year or less (and similar rates in the Pact), NATO double that, the USAF and USN were generating an average of 300 flight hours per year per crew member. It's easy to keep your machines looking pretty when they're not being flown, compared to the jets getting rode hard and put away wet, sometimes quite literally. Compound this with a smaller production run and subsequently smaller spares depth at the depot amd supplier level, and you're going to see more Navy line F-14s in a state of wear than essentially any other contemporary type (including the Hornet- which had the benefit of substantially more aircraft built and more exports, which keeps spares availability higher). Pilots have expressed this, and Tomcat maintainers have validated this. Doesn’t matter what some random Air Force tech wants to say- US, Canadian, or somewhere else in NATO; spend five minutes watching an F-14 cruise video and you'll spot the idiosyncrasies of these cockpits, specifically because of the conditions they were used in, the requirements of availability, and the limitations of getting replacement hardware- even in the 80s. So no- it doesn't conspire that the Tomcat is right and other jets are wrong. It simply is a product of its working environment and its greater relative usage on an airframe by airframe basis, shaded by lower amounts of spares.

Which is why you had trouble making one that fit the circumstances. You've taken a conversation about a possible bug that went into a useful exchange regarding graphics settings and turned it into a self-focused rambling blog post about card market pricing and taking user preference controls away from them, because you just can't be bothered. If you don't have the nerve to drop on nVidia or AMDs spaces, Blogger or Substack are far more suited for your "consumers of the world unite!" spiel than the F-14A&B Bugs and Problems Subforum.

Do you walk into a liquor store and complain they don't sell prime rib, how the National Cattlemen's Beef Association are running a scam through the sale of brisket because it's a slow process to cook properly and some people just don't have time for that- and that consumers need to demand more from their butchers than market rate pricing? nVidia and AMD both have websites to take your complaints on their products, as well as your suggestions on what you think they should be doing. I'm sure they'd enjoy hearing your expertise on the subject.

This isn't the farm with the windmill you want to tilt at, de Cervantes.

It has nothing to do with getting gud, and everything to do with user preferences. Somebody running a 144hz monitor may want all of the frames, image quality and visual draw distance be ****ed. Somebody else using the same monitor wants all the visual treats and extreme draw, and accepts a framerate in the 40s-60s using smart refresh techniques. And the terms change for every individual user based on personal preference and system capability. Under what terms is it the card maker's responsibility- or right, to restrict users to a specific experience based on what they think is best? This isn't Apple ecosystem.

For those about to rock- we salute you.

It's absolutely nonlinear, and to be honest- there isn't much to be done to make it displayable on the kneeboard; reason being that the diagram would lose all visibility with a more accurate altitude presentation. The ball projection out to 1 mile would collapse, making it far less illustrative for relative height; see the blue lines below the current ball projection attached- these are more representative of the 3 degree glideslope and the field presented by low and high ball positions with relative scaling to a 1/4th in presented deck height off the water, rather than the current roughly 15 degree projection representing the 3 degree +/- field. The more "accurate" the display of relative altitude, the less illustrative the card would be from a half mile in. And scale correction for downrange just makes the triangle collapse even further. The relation to the ball, with regards to range and altitude, is clear from a mile out until in the wires. At some point, a non-scalar projection is going to catch up to the data and skew to adjust, and there isn't any other place for it.

There were no updates to Phoenix on HB's part last patch.

Was the FLAPS light illuminated on the warning panel?

The dynamic cockpit offered by Forge is a promised feature for the product you purchased years ago. Many have been waiting for this, and most are amused and having a good time with it. The option to turn it off will be made available. Because for starters, not every livery has the depth of available documentation for more line aircraft with the associated names for canopy rails, maintainers underneath, and various minor adjustments across the airframe- which would set the rivet counter set off given their lack of realism. These factors exist in a three way fight with the font, kerning, and angle adjustments across the fleet that do not easily permit the institution of dynamic modex. And then there's this sort: It's interesting, the number of factors being held in a constant state of tension, all among people who claim to want "realism", but not necessarily deal with the costs of such. Some days you fly the jet that needs a panel replaced but the COD can't bring one out. Most days you fly the jet that doesn't have your name on it. Sometimes realism needs to be countered with the lack of specific visual information, and others it needs to wait for an outsider to make a skin and purchase a new hard drive to carry the load.

@DSplayer- did you figure this one out?

For the front seat after late 1986 mission dates (as Charlie would have left a three month instructor washout for the second time by then).

Because the mission designer didn't script the target for him. Very nice breakdown on how its done.

You had a bit of an issue with how things get produced at the bleeding edge of that processes with IM earlier. When it came to the process of design and planning versus scope, the same sorts of issues occurred. One quite literally put the F-16 series in the red late in its life. The manuals were inspiring; they weren't, as you wanted to compare them, remotely close to a -1A, even for what was found in the games themselves. And the only one I noted as being "early access" was in relation to the F-16 series 1.0 to 3.0. One, you get twelve missions. Two, you get twenty or so, then two paid expansions nearly the cost of the title itself. Your lack of interest in the F-4E is fine; I was explaining the process of developing current manuals, and how it's going to affect prior modules in relation to it. Who said anything about using classified documentation?

Jester's been ME scriptable going on a year.