lunaticfringe

It ain't going anywhere.

The three MiG-23s were flying in a sub-100' formation, close enough that the Phoenix spall's 100' kill radius and the resultant debris from the first aircraft were able to damage the following pair. The F-14 shot at the target; formated at such close proximity, the AWG-9 wouldn't be able to discern individual targets based on the cell resolution of the radar. They didn't know they'd killed three Floggers until the formation was falling in different directions with three separate smoke trails.

Admittedly, I think I was very high in the sequence- the preorders opened at 16:00 GMT, and my invoice time was 16:00:48. Worked out as we were sitting in a showing of TS4 with the kids, and the previews were just starting- so I was able to have the page all loaded to go. They got their toys, now I have mine. ;) Edit: yeah, I think this explains it.

Outstanding piece of work, gentlemen. Now just waiting on my WarBRD to ship, since I thought I'd have an extra day or two to order with the message that preorders would be out by the 15th.

Nope. Nine combat squadrons, one training, and three T&E units. VF-11 VF-24 VF-32 VF-74 VF-101 VF-102 VF-103 VF-142 VF-143 VF-211 NAWC VX-4 VX-9

With MLC filter on, the gate is more than double the stated size. The problem is that you're shooting in STT with the filter. If you're below the target such that the angle of elevation is 3 degrees, the filter is automatically deactivated. Shoot in TWS if you want range with no target response.

The HB F-14B is pre-F-14B(U). It lacks the bus upgrades to 1553B, PTID, and CDNU/CSDC®, as well as the software required to employ it.

Why are you linking to a thread on a server/client spawn regarding static aircraft- one that is visible to any client aircraft occupied on the carrier deck, as though it's related to the wing sweep desync? These two issues are unrelated, and the former isn't HBs purview.

They're still rolling in. Recieved my first two shirts (out of six total) a month ago. Second parcel arrived yesterday with the same postmarked date. It's just the post.

Det cord material for the canopy explosive bolts is the same as LEM ascent stage. Who said space age technology never had real world applications?

TWS Auto isn't automatically adjusting azimuth and elevation relative to ownship and target maneuver to maintain tracks like it should. You can have it set in TWS Auto and have it guide, but full and proper functionality isn't in place yet.

It's been there since release, yo. ;)

And then ED performs back end alterations to stores drag values, of which third parties have no control over, and are always working at least one release build behind. As an added bonus, they alter handling values as different between carrier spawn versus air/land start, causing two separate lines of divergence. Every time ED makes a global physics alteration, third parties are left playing catch up. The Tomcat has more routes of failure because of its weapons loadout; it is the only aircraft with Phoenix and the only third party aircraft with Sparrow or Sidewinder, and it's the only third party carrier-based platform. ED alters global values, they internally update their own modules, resulting in no apparent adjustment to their aircraft. HB doesn't have that luxury. Instead, they're left playing catch up, adjusting from what was, while the global situation keeps changing. That argument is predicated on their former aircrew SMEs being full of it with developmental builds- which are built off of and corrected via current DCS release. Do you think they're BSing, or do you not acknowledge the scope of what is going on? Its unfortunate, but that's the way it is. Perhaps someday ED will get enough of a grasp around the laws of physics that they can let the engine go more than a release build without gross back end changes; or, more useful, let developers control weapon drag until the point of release, permitting a far more sensible process of matching drag indices to materials, and removing the concept of variables third parties don't control from the FM development equation.

How dare you let little things like "facts" or "data" get in the way of his tantrum.

You really need to take a leisurely stroll through chapter 2, section 22 of F14AAP-1 to get a handle on the nature of the control surface interactions. F14AAA-1 or AAD-1 are reasonable substitutes, dismissing glove vane information in the former. The slats are the leading edge area of the wings that descend when flaps are actuated. Maneuvering mode flaps and slats are CADC controlled via schedule, and overridden using the DLC thumbwheel.

Not even close. This isn't a hard concept if you've ever seen photographs of the F-14s loadouts. 6 and 3 are forward. Phoenix rails interface directly overtop of the Sparrow wells, thus covering the recesses. Sparrow centerline installation, 4 and 5, are too short for Phoenix, thus the pallets for 4 and 5 are carried on the channel sides with the recesses blanked. The wiring is shared between both locations of 4 and both of 5; that doesn't mean they can take two weapons at once, because the WCS won't be able to cue one or the other, and the Sparrows won't fit with the pallets installed. 8A and 1A can only support a single missile.

Sounds like a case of not using DLC. You can be on speed AoA with just wings, with wings and flaps engaged, but to be on speed with DLC engaged puts you in the state where you can really control the descent rate with the throttle. You can even use it to initiate a descent rate if the plane is stuck in a climb if you hold it forward. Run around dirty in the landing configuration, put the jet on speed AoA, and mess with the DLC to get a feel for how long you can engage it for descent and how to catch it with the throttle. Then you'll be where you need to be to get it down properly both on land, and in a case 1.

Yes. The boat is a gigantic magnetic anomaly.

Or, those who choose to stick a screen with half the brightness of a flat screen (and a quarter of RL) need to accept that they've made a choice, and must wait for ED to unequivocally fix the IC problem for modders to have their wares be 100% legitimized for across the board multiplayer. I have no problem reading the tacan on a 15" screen at nearly 3' at normal zoom FoV, which is my regular arrangement. Every player in DCS has a different usage case. Example: most don't run 2.2 gamma, which is the point for which all the quality textures are authored for based on RL. That causes legibility and visibility problems, but is solely based on a user hardware issue based on their own choices. Altering default textures from a realistic basis to fit a percentage who have problems based on their own decisions (which a developer has zero control over) while damaging the quality of life for others is not a justifiable solution, artistic proclivities or not. By the same token, they've stated they're open to permitting outsiders to produce fixes that work at the texture level for their particular usage cases and are engaging ED to get this done with valid IC; that's exceedingly fair and deserves a far lower amount of derision than this subject is getting. Meanwhile, they're getting insulted as though their SMEs experiences are BS for artistic decisions they're openly willing to let others alter, while hung up waiting on the environment owner to make it happen. That they choose to not alter them directly is holding to their own standard for what they intended to produce; their trying to work through the IC issue on behalf of the community is far more fair than they need to be. Accordingly, people need to relax. Former F-14 AT states unequivocally on the qualitative nature of the HB pit and how line jets got into such condition. https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4019213&postcount=85

Their SME and test group includes a number of former maintainers, rather than just pilots. People whom actually pulled F-14s apart and maintained them operationally, rather than the opinion of those who work over Eagles and Vipers or civil aircraft. Run with that to make yourself feel better while waiting on a braille cockpit update.

https://youtu.be/ZGqUZxFUa5Qp

I do recall Cobra mentioning in a post reply somewhere about that with ED getting it together and building out deck crew in a fashion similar to their own work, emphasis on that particular aspect was being slowed down a bit on HB side. And to be fair, it's reasonable for them in some ways to want to wait and see what they can access from upcoming ED paid CV to make their own building out of the Forrestal faster with the deck crew, spawn logic, and find out how much they can touch of the ATC. Consider how much the situation has changed on the ED CV module since the F-14 dropped; we've gone from an informational black hole to seeing teasers fitted out with proper ATC audio (some of which has leaked into DCS) and the moving crew showing signs of real life. Its becoming tangible, and it stands there's a lot of stuff HB will be able to crib off of if we're just patient. Things that will make Forrestal a lot more fleshed out and free from issues when it drops, rather than the normal feature and bug chase.

VDI, son

DLEGION, the loss rate and DpS isn't the glaring issue here; the lack of sweep is. In the first phase of your video, you're in excess of Mach 0.75 with wings fully forward and auxiliary flaps at a minimum of maneuver state- that is, less than 22 degrees sweep and well off the schedule. In the next, you're exceeding Mach 0.9 at essentially SL with the wings at less than 30 degrees of sweep, which is so far off the reservation it has a different postal code. Loss rates of a barn door are believable, as are pitch rates with the wing and control surfaces at their greatest achievable positions with the given energy states; what needs to be ascertained is why they're so far off the CADC program. These point to either damaged flaps or an emergency handle state out of the actuator gear and behind the program, because the jet shouldn't get into either configuration. With that in mind, I'm going to ask that anyone searching for this stops flying in external view and does so in the cockpit with the information bar displayed (CTRL-Y). A CADC-sweep disconnect from damaged flaps or the emergency handle is going to show immediately as a Master Caution and on the sweep gauge; that's going to tell if it's a raw FM issue, or if the FM is working off of the proper aero numbers and the aircraft was misconfigured or broken going into maneuvering. The rest of the information required is in the bar. And the design ultimate limit on the F-14 was 13.5 G. Mentioning of it reaching 90% or more of that is above.

You ever look at the structural load limitations of a MiG-25 versus an actual fighter designed to turn? The Foxbat was empty and gross a higher weight than the Tomcat. The Tomcat, however, was by design capable of taking more than *double* the MiG-25s ultimate load factor. It is a substantially stronger aircraft all around. Missiles kill aircraft. They kill them more reliably when the target isn't designed for anything over 5G and take a direct impact.