lunaticfringe

There may come a day when the strength of stores induced drag is permitted to be controlled by the third party, independent of dynamics post separation. A day when drag indices and performance tables are more easily matched by automated processes without needing a permanent loop of confirmation against global values. But it is not this day. This day developers fight!

Something-something-20th letter of the alphabet Volume III? Yeah. I definitely get what you're saying. My concern after having read through much of that a couple of years after finding the P document, however- and the reason I've mentioned the information from the 1.1s as is, is that as a matter of direct usefulness one would expect the calibrations to the used indexes to be closer, at least for the given era. There seems to be a margin of "wash" in the stores tables as the stubs don't have base values, the -5 tunnel, the example noted, etc. It'd be interesting to see a later edition of either pub in that series than those I can put to hand to see if there was carriage or information post-strike test and implementation. I'm happy to be wrong on the tabular stuff if the end result is more accurate. I misunderstood you as well- hence the comment about the missing weight. Either way, neither of us are wrong insofar as wanting the work herein to be wrong, and like I said- that's fine with me.

F14AAP-1.1 includes the notation of the -5 as note 2 on the standard data. AAA-1.1 doesn't, because there is an adjustment from what classifies as zero ; in the A model document, zero index is with the plugs installed in the four channel slots, whereas the later manual works up. As to your math, the examples in the aforementioned data sections don't jive with your math. They're clear as to the weights, no reason they wouldn't be to the index adjustments. And you're forgetting 450 lbs of weight per station on the pallets- it's not just 118 lbs of fairing. You don't get a bonus lugging them with stub Phoenix only if you don't need the cooling.

Maneuver flaps active when the flap handle is lowered for landing can damage the flap system outright. The reason you separate the process behind the boat is to make sure you're below 8 units of AoA (combination of speed plus gear drag with wings fully unswept), thus causing the CADC to automatically retract them before you pull the handle down. Similarly, my recollection of conversations on the subject for "dropping the Big Boys" in a grovel is that you command the maneuver flap override with the DLC rotator to close them, then pull the flap handle.

The rest of the story: Sparrow stub adapters: 2 each Sparrow on 1b, 8b: 6 each Sidewinder adapter: 1 each Sidewinder on any position: 8 each And for reference: External tanks: 11 each Tank fairings: 1 each

The stub pylons I listed are for the Phoenix alone. I'll check the tables for the Sparrow stubs later, but you should see a similar number- memory says the Sparrow stubs are 2 rather than 3, but don't quote me yet.

Yes on pallets cooling As. The big winners in the tunnel are Sparrow; they're indexed as 2 in the tunnel versus 6 on the stubs. The pallets incur a significant penalty in and of themselves. Drag indices are as follows: Pallets (any or all four stations): 10 AIM-54 on forward stations (3, 6): 12 each AIM-54 on rear stations (4, 5) behind AIM-54s on 3, 6: 8 each AIM-54 on 4, 5 with no AIM-54 ahead: 12 each AIM-54 stub (1, 8 ) pylon: 3 each AIM-54 on stub pylon: 12 each Also note: drag indexes for the tunnel are reduced by 5 as a whole. Thus four Sparrows in the tunnel become a total index of 3 (from 8 ), whereas four Phoenix are 45- 10+(12+8 )+(12+8 )-5. As noted you need the pump for Phoenix on the As. You can do the stubs alone on the sealed Cs.

I'm not saying it isn't interesting, because it's something I've waited for myself since joining in test last year to run such operations properly. What I am saying is that if you want to simulate the realities of integration with involvement of the roles the Tomcat flew, you're going to be doing conversion in one direction or the other when the bag of ish hits the fan. And to be honest, if your pair is paying attention to where a ship reference is, and you know where bullseye is relative to that reference, if NAVGRID is configured ship relative, its simple to derive the target relative to the bullseye call. You should be able to do it with a waypoint known to you that is *not* sitting on bullseye now- its the same aspect calculation you should be making in your head so you have the picture separate of a target. Know what keeps force planners up at night these days? Loss of datalink. The kids are losing these skills because of sensory overload. They're getting more information than ever before, but not necessarily learning how these things are derived. The last three generations had to learn these skills cold before going to war, and that's the era that DCS is ultimately modeling best with the majority of its modules- the 90s-00s bridge to where we are now. So get comfortable and experience it.

First, because Tacview isn't an exact 1:1 representation, either. Its recording heading, bank angle, and pitch, with position applied to a coordinate grid, whether lat/long derived or simple X/Y/Z. It's interpolating everything else presented to the user. Meanwhile, DCS is recording *every* input and variance thereof, and having to replay within those constraints. This is why any global change in drag, pressure modeling, or the like screws everything up. And it's also why the replays from servers seem to work better, because they appear to be tracking less of this data.

Blind calls, Vector Logic, and contracts for grid responsibility. VL, when cut down, could give a set of Tomcat CAPs vectors with all of two values relative to a specific point (normally the boat, or a position relative to the ship's direction of travel): a heading relative to in two digits, and a letter, which signified range, often delineating 50 nautical miles of range. So if the jamming degraded call came in as "09 E", the CAPs knew the target of interest was on a heading of 90 degrees at 250 miles from the ship (or the point delineated as the MEU). At that point, it was the responsibility for the group covering that particular region of the threat sector to determine and prosecute the contact. Contracts between crews would determine which jet in the flight looked high or low, and once found, the target was dealt with accordingly. Navy pilots didn't have trouble with bearings; they simply preferred to receive blind calls rather than handholding- because they knew their job at the killing end better than the guy 200 miles away gazing in the looking glass. And it tended to be more efficient because the radials expanded outward from what they were defending- not what they were attacking. Prosecution responsibility between multiple groups becomes more difficult to ascertain as the slices get closer together- which they do when you're looking at bullseye rather than out from it, thus the need for more positive control. F-14 crews trained to work with minimal oversight in the grid because comms denial was the expected level of opposition.

*reads kvetching over NAVGRID* *laughs knowing the origin reference was normally referencing the boat's course and not the ATO bullseye* If it's used normally, you're still going to have to regularly perform conversions.

Gave a little review over on Reddit, information regarding proper software configuration included.

Record and share an ACMI of a typical engagement for review. If it's taking you such substantial amounts of time to convert, there's lots to learn.

If you're having trouble keeping the pipper on him based on angular rate changes, you've either got a closure problem or are trying to prosecute him from too close- both are BFM issues. Everybody wants the pipper on the helmet look, but unfortunately the gun's CEP doesn't work like that. And it's important to note that training environment tape comes from a need for scoring- and is generally found after somebody gets abused into zero energy post-grovelling. But what the gun's CEP does do for you, however, is solve for shooting with a bit more range. And that's built into the radar ranging equation and the rate of fire- remember- this is air to air gunnery, not Silent Scope; the Vulcan's business is in "good enough". If the bad guy passes through your HUD at proximity to your pipper with relative lead and alignment for at least one bullet TOF, squeeze and make him the next contestant on "Dancing With the Tracer Stars". But don't dare think about putting the pipper ahead of him until your finger is already on the first detent. Keep the operation smooth. The instant you feel everything is aligned, make your smooth transition to lead, put the pipper where it needs to be, and squeeze; let the radius and ROF do their job. Compensation needs to happen in the pull forward. If you're a dot width adjacent the fuselage, or a bit more ahead then you wanted, squeeze and hold for a full Mississippi- you'll take off his wing or get the cockpit splash you want anyway. The fowl hunter or clay pidgeon shooter is firing with a shotgun, just like you. What matters for him is smoothness and position to the point of lead- not absolute exacting precision.

Ordered a new base on the 2nd, shipped on the 10th for delivery on the 15th here in the US (keeping in mind we have a three day weekend coming up).

If you're not fast enough on the draw to understand the relationship of aspect on the circle, and the fact it's shown on the TID- thereby aiding in finding out whether or not it's an issue or not, I'm not given to be particularly impressed at how you've read anything. ;)

The TID repeater shows target aspect. Ergo, the target turns away, the circle will collapse. Hence the question. I'm asking what the target is doing in the TID repeater because that may be the reason why he's seeing a collapsing circle.

Forgot the sarcasm tag. Dammit- I hate it when it does that.

What's the target aspect doing on the TID repeater?

Nothing looks cooler in a formation than being the one misconfigured guy who is bouncing around, trying to configure throttle and trim at a point in the envelope where the jet wants to do two things at once. Of course, YMMV.

The easiest way to see this in action are the turn radius lines of an EM diagram. Start at a Ps: 0 point near one of the radius lines. You go a little bit faster (to the right), pull a little bit more G, radius stays the same while resulting rate goes up. Select a higher descent rate in ft/sec to increase your actual Ps, you pull a bit more and your radius goes down while similarly increasing your rate of turn. So you can, in fact, descend with a higher G turn and maintain the same (or better) radius than the bandit with a higher turn rate. The trick is in moderating how much you lose in altitude versus how much you gain in G.

Why not just stay in bomb, since you're still flying the same net profile on the tanker's wing? Save the configuration and trim adjustment for when you're reconfiguring for a different cruise profile.

In ACM/Boresight mode, the WCS initiates a data dump of true air speed, range, seeker angle, English bias (guidance directive for where to head off the pylon), and a quick simulated Doppler injection to tell it for what to look for on return from the signal of the flood horn- that is, the normal radar isn't illuminating the target. This is dumped in less than a second, and the missile is on the way. In the normal shot, the missile is being fed with a better Doppler command, which, depending on the missile type and selected mode, is used with FM ranging as well as recieved power difference between the rear antenna and the seeker antenna to discern the target over a greater range and against jamming. This extra information takes the greater amount of time.

I've never seen anything remotely close to that on the deck in almost a year of being involed in testing. In fact, I went backwards in builds the other night after seeing that track and still couldn't match it anywhere since release. This is one of those situations where having the info bar and axis display in the cockpit view on film is going to be the only real proofing given broken replay tracks and Tacview interpolating between data points. We have to see exactly what is going on.

Budgets aren't arbitrary conditions.