lunaticfringe

Let's take those rose colored glasses off for a moment, and go the whole nine yards if we're going to wax poetic, and add in the value since this seems to get brought up in these conversations. 4.0 was the the culmination of nearly 14 years of work, with the first release in 1987. 1.0's MSRP of $39.99, 2023 dollars makes that $105- all for a grand total of *12 missions total*. Gee- bargain. AT a year later, again, $39.99 MSRP puts it at $101. And don't forget the two scenario packs, $29.99 each ($75 per, today). You'll note at this point, if you recall the designer's shareware demo note- that the manual was worth the price of admission, when it was essentially a pared-down translation of Shaw, with an F-16 focus, and not remotely near the contents of a -1A or other service tactical manual. And they reused that same section twice. MP tried SH's trick, but kept regurgitating the same thing across titles- F-15SE, F-19, FD, with little to no type clarity in those applicable sections. See- that's the age where the Prima guide took hold, which was another $25 bucks to get a real understanding of what was going on under the hood; 4.0 needed it, because the binder lacked substantive weapon and systems employment context- which made for a lot of unfun explanations for those who came in late after the patch series broke some measure of HOTAS logic and presentation. And lets not forget a third of these manual pages were a couple of maps, details of the campaign and various OPFOR info bits- again, regurgitated across titles within firm products. Back to the F-16 title. 3.0 and 1991 comes along, and you're talking an MSRP of $69.95- that's $150 today. Realistically- if you've been along since the original title at that point: let's call it "Early Access", considering 2.0/AT was just a year out from 1.0, and now you've just got to get in on 3.0- you're now $350 invested in today's dollars, and seeing a better than 1:1 comparative increase in quality, modeling and experience that has been grown in the F-14A and B since the initial EA release in 2019- at four times the cost, when taken against the F-16 series. And if you only bought 1.0, you got all of twelve missions, whereas the Heatblur F-14 is at two modeled aircraft, will essentially be 3.5 when its done with the early pair of configurations, missions on every map in DCS, and two voice acted campaigns. *shrug* The cost/value argument simply doesn't work in any way, shape, or form. First tier DCS modules are more factually accurate and representative of their respective targets versus any aircraft presented in 1990s simulation, and are dollar for dollar a substantively better value- adjusted for inflation or no. You ask why Heatblur, and other DCS module developers, don't play faux tacman authors- simply put: at best, after ED's (and additionally for Steam: clearing house) cut, they're making perhaps half per copy, inflation adjusted, than those 90's publishers were on a full price license. Half off sale? Now they're making a quarter. More man-hours than most of those titles, substantively less money. What gets cut? The feelies. Why? This isn't 1991, 1994, or 1998- Wikipedia is deeper on publicly available information than MP, SH, or Janes titles ever were; and it's all built on materials authored and published by the latter's namesake. Hit up particular publicly accessible (see: you're not going to jail) service websites, and you can download training materials substantively deeper than the generalized playbooks MP and SH rewrote once and kept shoveling for years- with revisions every two to three years. YouTube exists. And there's always the forums of a certain F2P for the spicy stuff. In 1991, an interested buyer didn't have remotely the amount of information available at their fingertips- they saw a box with a jet on it and thought "awesome"; it was the publisher's job to fill in the blanks for those with no grounding on the subject matter. Now it's a Google or YouTube search away. To whit- it's not a reasonable use of their (developer) time and resources. To which I reply, in the words of Lord Flashheart- this isn't a reasonable use of my time and resources, but I'm gonna do it anyway. What's past is past, and what we remember as quality needs to be considered with doubt, when they were selling us licensed guides on the side to fill in the employment gaps. Work like Naquaii's original F-14 manual are substantively better in actual detail regarding both the module and the real aircraft itself where the baseline manual is concerned. The online decision is the correct choice, and it does receive updates. There is material that does need to be added in due course, and it will. Chuck's guides are fine for those that need them, but they're really two sides of the same coin with regards to presenting information and process; one is simply more wrote than the other. But there's still a missing component. The after-sale guides used to point at it for a few pages, but then orbit what was missing for spacing. Training missions as we've seen tend to solve some of the equation, but not all, because they're not requiring actual solutions- just a talk through with step prompts. So there's a conceptual framework in place being worked through with the F-4E to fill in that missing component in a way that's more comprehensive, at least with respect to employment technique, than has come before. It's beginning there because the documentation is in process, and is set up to work into the necessary text sections. And if it works, the instruction technique will be back-ported into the Tomcat and Viggen for the techniques that would find the exercise useful. Either way, both will receive their necessary revisions in due course. TLDR: DCS modules aren't short on manual, and are better money for value than what came before. The Tomcat (and Viggen) manuals will be effectively finalized. The F-4E manual, when complete, will have something new to fill in much of what has always been missing, without the (supposed) value added filler that no longer satisfies, or is justified. And if that something new works, the Tomcat and Viggen will get the same nature of treatment.

Have you had any more issues with this? I've been smacking around various control configurations and such trying to make it occur again in testing builds during each startup, and still cannot cause the out-of-sync situation to occur (except from the method listed above).

The wings were engineered for a substantively higher CL Max (roughly 15% higher in Mach) and unrestricted G; this is indicated in the original sweep program when comparing the schedules side by side. The reprogramming to Ps Max doesn't get close to what the wings can withstand, even without the operational limitations in place. That said, any crazy being applied with the wings forward off schedule are being done for an ITR bump, rather than STR, because the schedule is in place to maintain available power; keeping the wings out or putting them out behind the curve invokes excess drag, and diminishes the jet's ability to maintain its state while turning, as exampled in the charts above.

It's abundantly clear how little experience you have with the process. Get yourself through the successful appeal of an MDR and come back to me.

Reason I'm asking about the Emergency Wing Sweep handle is because the only condition that I can repeatedly cause the warning is a minor "bump" of the handle with the guard up right as I'm closing it, then tagging the Master Reset switch. The minor out of sync of the sweep program versus the manual entry causes the system to properly show a fault. Because of the way the implementation is right now (only restricting the axis when the cover is down, rather than requiring it per the actual hardware to have the handle lifted to engage the sweep control via the lever), it's really easy to catch with that little bump while in the process of closing and resetting- and it only takes one "step" (ie, one small bounce on the control) to do it. To eliminate something being wrong with the nub 4-way, can you try putting the manual sweep controls on the mic 4-way switch instead, and then remap whatever you have on the mic switches to the nub on a temporary basis, to see if the "return" action of the nub when you let go is triggering the opposite "aft" control and stepping the sweep out of sync?

Do you, by chance, have the Emergency Wingsweep axis set to an axis in your settings?

Not all documentation acquired for module development is, in fact, covered under the lack of government copyright law for materials produced on its behalf. Systems training and company engineering and troubleshooting texts authored in-house retain copyright protection and are accessed accordingly, quite often at substantial cost, or donation (for example, they be provided by a museum). Contrary to popular opinion, "freedom of information" isn't. Contest a mandatory declassification review finding- that's the point where lawyers, billable hours, and government costs kick in. But wait- this is for *commercial* purposes: billable research hours and per-page costs start government side from the initial request. After all the expense, all the time, and all the back and forth between controlling offices and final service branch chief office oversight prior to signoff, you're left with materials that are very much in the realm of proprietary- because that research cost is an investment; one that needs recovered at a threshold well above e-peen wagging in forum debates. Somebody else wants that material, they themselves can go fetch, as not every document hits the servive reading rooms. So what it all boils down to is simple: when the system works like it should, to the recollection of the people who flew the machine and operated the radar, as well as the people who tested and maintained the equipment- when the people who helped build the model explicitly state a number from documentation, it's the number. At this point, with the amount of heat they've willingly accepted for supposedly downgrading weapons and systems to more closely approximate what they can prove to have been the functionality, a wide gate is the least of your concerns to debate regarding how well they understand what has been presented. And if you're still unable go accept that an early 1960s derived system built with a specific operating area in mind, constructed with the best (but albeit era-limited storage and back end techniques), and with processing far more dependent on the operator skill and knowledge of the EW environment than what it had built in under the hood, that's a "you" issue regards to understanding, not anybody else.

The gunsight installed in the F-4E and will be modeled in the module is the ASG-26A LCOSS.

The pilot overhead in the F-4E (and Phantom in general) is substantially higher than the pilot of the F-14. The Phantom pilot is responsible for all stores management (including selective jettison), as well as weapon release grouping and timing profiles, directly assists in Sparrow tuning, and performs DDS programming (while the WSO selects mode). The pilot selects all air to ground employment modes, and in some instances a profile will require a mode change just prior to release (example: Target Find cannot provide the release signal, thus requires selection to another release mode once the offset target is sighted and on approach). The Phantom is an odd mix, as capability outstripped the original cockpit ergonomics design in very short order, and it shows in how seemingly related tasks are distributed throughout the cockpit in strange fashion. There is a method to the madness (for the most part) once you get an understanding, but it will likely take some time for everything to "click".

Are you able to close the sweep handle door (thus having put the manual sweep override handle into the spider detent)?

Yes. Alignment would not be performed until after both engines were running and the emergency generator test was performed by the pilot (second step of his post-start procedures), to make sure that there was no risk of a power fluctuation throwing the alignment off. NATOPS also instructs that there be a delay of a few minutes (3, if memory serves) between activating the ECS and starting up the avionics and AWG-9 so that the bays are sufficiently cooled before they're powered on.

Also important to keep in mind- there was a two-plus year period where excess F100s couldn't be had for all the money in the world. Production was so slow that the USAF was receiving brand new F-15s off the line in St. Louis, performing expedited acceptance, flying them out to recipient commands, and immediately having the engines pulled and trucked back to McDonnell. Now throw the F-14's production volume on top of that. It took years of F100 and F-15 production to get everything stabilized. Adding the Tomcat, even without the F100s own teething issues, would have left both services without viable numbers of airframes. So, TF30 it was.

It also ignores the fact that the comparative math is flat out wrong. Useful range comparisons are based on the point the shots are taken at the target, not some other reference- unless they're fired from the exact same position. Let's equivocate: Ex 1: 60 mile shot, 25 mile range at arrival- 35 miles flown by the two aircraft, roughly 5:4 ratio makes that about 19.5/15.5 range flown from the F-14 vs Su-27, meaning the missile went about 45 miles itself. If the target was at 66 miles from Creech when it got hit, and our interceptor was running on a hot vector from it, the F-14 shot at ~21 miles out from Creech. Ex 2: 15 mile shot, 5 mile range at arrival- 10 miles flown by the two aircraft; 5.5/4.5 flown by the F-14 vs Su-27, respectively; Sparrow went about 11 miles on its own. Same situation- hot vector out of Creech and a target at 59 miles when it's downed, the F-14 fired at the Su-27 at 48 miles out from Creech. See the problem? The Tomcat in example 2 literally had to fly out the 35 mile difference between the two weapons in travelled range itself. To illustrate it more fully, reverse the shot positions: Phoenix shot at 48 miles outside Creech? Bad guy blows up at 93 miles from the land based carrier. Sparrow shot at 21 miles outside Creech? You better hope that round hits, because if it doesn't- that Flanker and all his friends are inside the group.

What's the distance to Creech got to do with anything? What matters is the distance to you, the shooter. You launched on one target at 60 miles, and it it at a range of 25 miles. You launched on another target at 15 miles, and the round hit at a distance of 5 miles. The difference in range is 20 miles. And that difference in range is the difference between him getting multiple shots off and him never getting a shot off at all.

It's not, and unless the underlying DCS radar base is MASSIVELY altered to supply the necessary modeling functions to make it work, it's going to remain beyond the scope.

H should be the cutoff. First cruise birds carried 9H in support of Frequent Wind, 7500+ new rounds built, plus another half that in conversion kits for Gs- they'd have run out of targets before they ran out of shots to take.

Spends pages talking ish to you. Uses your work to tell us what is already known. Love it.

Wants to one circle radius fight. Derides/abstains from high aspect/snapshot gunnery. Commits to the phone booth. Pulls the flaps handle, adding net two-plus external tanks worth of drag. Wonders why he can't accelerate. Uses meme about proverbial good times making men soft. Complains when overperformance is moderated to match the tables. Doesn't realize the hypocrisy of his argument. *shakes head*

As one who has pointed out the effect of imaging technology versus what the eye represents- white balance and exposure aren't undercompensating for literal missing paint. The centerline isn't going to magically reappear by overexposing the image by two stops because it's been worn off. Given this is mid-cruise- the deck spends far more time looking closer to what is in those images with respect to wear than it does post-workups and fairly clean. With regards to the angle of the image- the second large image is at a higher angle relative to the deck than a pilot would be looking at it coming down the glideslope.

That's not guaranteed. Mid-cruise images from the CVW-3 photo book "Where the Sea Meets the Sky" shows the centerline essentially obliterated at 50'; even the foul lines are almost gone but for the extreme sides:

This has been discussed at length in this thread. Go back and you'll see the breakdown as to hows and whys.

The notch being an issue in DCS predates the Phoenix, and isn't exclusive to it- because it's baked in to the radar and missile guidance models as they currently stand.

The notch is a thing and should be modeled. The DCS notch is overly wide, and should be corrected, along with representation of radar and missile track recovery functionality. And the notch should only apply when the defender is challenging the correct emitter/antenna pair at the correct time- pre-active, the launching airframe, post-active, the missile. It's difficult to get into effectively, and even harder to stay. Entry should not be an instantaneous break lock, because track files and recovery methodologies exist for a reason. Flat out notching a launching opponent should require substantial seconds spent running the 90, rather than passing through as part of a turn away, because it's going to take time for the attacking radar to run out of track recovery time.

There's some crossover between what would normally be considered a fighter versus attacker. What should be clarified in some fashion is how these evaluations are being made.

Read the whole quote. The whole quote- not just the part you don't like. The money line: They have repeatedly stated they're not done; that is a definitive message on their part that it's not good enough for them- in contrast to professional requirements they offer as a comparison. It's not game breaking. It's not an issue that an actual, substantial hours F-14 pilot has trouble with. And they're going to correct it in due course. What then is there to argue about?