lunaticfringe

Fundamental problem with that is the WEZ isn't ultimately calculated by the missile as in RL, where the individual variant dynamics are carried in the software. Instead, a module developer would be required to compensate for every change that ED would make at this point now, or in the future, rather than present the information as both understood, and from where ED should ultimately be taking it. The presented WEZs for every aircraft in DCS are effectively borked. ED corrects the guidance and drag profiles for the environment, and they'll work. For now, it's either live in, or rework the calculations every time they alter something. It is what it is.

In what realm of flight simulation is bringing the FM even more in line with the performance charts "nerfing"? Amazing. It's been stated that temporary alterations occur as they chase down a higher level of fidelity at different ends of the model, yet will be adjusted to make the entire FM correct when it's done. This is a temporary situation, it's been confirmed as such, and you're complaining about nerfs like its permanent- and worse, a function of balance. fat does the FM stuff. Grover the EW systems. Cobra the visuals. Everybody has things to do, but the process of making one even better, even when it temporarily causes a minor issue, causes such consternation. Absolutely amazing. If nerfing is your concern, I'm not sure this is the right environment for you.

Comes before the point where there's That is to say, fat is en media res. He'll provide the update as to what has changed and why, once everything is locked in. And then, from that point, there is no expectation to see major changes. It's not at the latter point yet.

Who made the recommendation, what gear are they using, what type of extension are they employing (if any), and how far is their lateral and fore/aft stick movement? The FM being neutral ratio to the control setup within the airplane has nothing to do with what *you're* using. Thus, if you're comfortable without curves, don't use them. If you need them, use them. This should be obvious. (note: sniped while commenting) Personally, I'm running a Hall-effect Frankenstein'ed ancient Suncom setup with mostly Otto/Mason switches and no spring; extension isn't an option based on the garbage plastic, so I have to run with a 3% deadzone on both axes and no curve- because there isn't enough travel to make one matter. Works for me, and I've been comfortable with the FM for months. It's a strange thing to offer a judgement on an FM when you haven't begun to acclimate yourself with the aircraft in the first place.

A previously mentioned minor shortchange on the top end. They'll resolve that, then adjust the small difference made in the subsonic area while keeping things aligned around M 2. These aren't gross changes, but minor adjustments. And the heart of the envelope, like I said, is always brought back once the current area of concern is tightened down. Give it a bit.

If HB were working purely in a vacuum with their own engine and model, yes. But there are other factors at play, such as the aforementioned drag dynamic that they don't necessarily have full control over, stores drag values, etc. Right now the chase is on top end at certain points it's not properly reaching. Once that's done, the low end will get its bump back. Give them time. There's been some gentle massaging of it for a bit since the test group got their hands on it, and a bit more during the expansion. This isn't just single lever pulling, and the subsonic numbers have always come back home to roost shortly.

Switch to STT and squeeze twice.

Because Tacview interpolates G from point to point and you already destroyed the aircraft, so between the two frames it captured you ramped the G, were damaged, and the aircraft immediately unloaded- hence an average report of 2-3 Gs based on 12+ G for an instant, and 0 G the rest of that time period.

I recall reading in one of the technical pubs that there was a technique with an umbilical pin that was unused with the AIM-7F (since it didn't require a certain signal the 7E did) to force PD function when loading, either by leaving it open or grounding it. Would that have been done on something like a jet with a known down horn to eliminate the chance of failure in combat situation, so the RIO would simply key for SP PD and leave it?

What's the bug?

*laughs in R-27 service record* Were those bad pilots, bad maintenance, or a bad weapon? He doesn't analyze because he doesn't want to analyze; it's simply easier to dismiss analysis by professional in their roles. And nine times out of ten on this side of the world it's the people who make the mistake fessing up to make certain that others learn from their error- filling the contents of the numerous in-service safety and training materials with their own name. Meanwhile, half a world away it still remains the CO or higher doing the public name and shame routine- never invoking the circumstances and decision making that caused the error. Because its not like anyone else could ever experience the same situation...

Right lower panel, put the HSD switch into the middle position, which is TID repeat.

You need to adjust the elevation using the vernier control while at half action to find the target when making the swap to STT. The return is only maintained two seconds, so you have to manually adjust the elevation if you don't peg it as soon as the return hits the DDD.

HB keeps stating this explicitly: turn *off* "hear like in helmet". That setting dampens the audible response.

"...a USMC study..." That which is written in crayon should be treated accordingly. ;)

Ergo, it matters.

I'd suppose the Ps loss values would be horrific, but perhaps not enough to scare people away from the monster turn rate DpS numbers. I then wonder what the original, reputed, CL-based CADC sweep program would have looked like on that score rather than the Ps one. To be fair though, after the first week of messing around with the F-14B module in test, I can't honestly say that I've intentionally looked at the G gauge, and even the former was with CTRL-Y just to (poorly) run performance book profiles to get a feel for the thing. The audible/visual feedback is clear- I've never understood why some felt it wasn't enough. And if it indeed gave enough cues in that fashion, one can see why the accelerometer could be moved for the ALR upgrade.

Everything but speed and altitude in Tacview is interpolated, and it grabs raw degrees like DCS itself. For turkeydriver, the absolute best thing to do with regards to the AoA rate is turn up the In-Cockpit volume, put the jet into burner at 10 or 15k, slide right onto 15 units, and look out of the canopy to the horizon. Then hunt for it. Relax the stick, return to 15 units. Pull extra, recover back to the sound. Use the pedals just below that sound for your roll, and everything through and above. Listen to the plane talk. And as Nick says- if you overshoot, you spoil the energy state. On a full tank you can do that for about five minutes. Do it for ten to fifteen minutes until that sound is burned in your mind. Then go flying and see what changes.

Corner, 55,620 lbs, based on a 4x4 configuration in the charts (lightest drag profile available) at 5k is just on 6G sustained. 10k is a shade over 5. But you answer a bit of your own question: the F-14s maximum Ps is roughly M 0.2 to 0.25 higher, and as a byproduct of the sweep programming, you lose CL as you progress into the power. You want to hold 6G, you need to be above M 0.8. But at that point you're surrendering your advantages.

What altitude are you seeing that "clean and low weight"?

You know what outranges a SAM against an air-to-air target? It's 13' long, 15" wide, and about 1000 lbs. Take a few of them. Take a couple more for their friends.

Neither of these are F-14B specific, yo, but actual DCS engine issues. Tracks outside of server side recordings simply aren't reliable, and the flicker issue has been ongoing with multiple attempted fixes. For the latter, the only choice until it's finalized is to lower water settings. And the F-14B won't work on prior builds.

http://www.lulu.com/shop/tomcat-sunsetorg-staff/hoser-hereshoot/hardcover/product-20298856.html

FTR, I'm not disagreeing with you, or your instruction. You asked where it came from, the public not properly understanding those passages seem to be it. Cobra and IronMike should put all of your handling notes in the HB manual in its next version so it gets even wider distribution. That'll help move the correct gouge forward, since a lot of people involved in DCS don't browse here.

Like I said- people misunderstood, and opportunities to rectify that weren't taken by other people in the know previously when they had them, for whatever reason. That it's being corrected now is good, especially in as public a fashion with the exposure HB's F-14 has gotten. Unfortunately, its going to take as much time for the clarity to be acknowledged as it did for the original misreading to make it out there. So it's a thing that will likely be mentioned for a while to come.