lunaticfringe

It's not meant like that. The Hoser spin thing has been out there for like a decade. I see JData, who if I recall, worked on sims (if not sims for Navair, no less) mentioning it. The technique was built into Aerosoft's F-14X, which went through multiple SME review. It's an anecdote that's out there, and like I say- may stem from a lot of people not fully understanding what was said. By the same token, a lot of knowing people didn't reject the idea up till now. So it's an oddity.

A misunderstanding of his own words, perhaps?

Only with abbreviated AI FMs that don't honor the Ps charts below 25k.

Master Caution in the F-14 is mostly there to confirm your suspicions that something is wrong with the airplane, whereas later aircraft feel the need to tell you there's something wrong with them- as though you couldn't figure it out already. You're expected to aviate in the former, diagnose in the latter.

You get what you pay for.

It doesn't matter the age, nor does it matter the lack of AUTO performance. Running around in WVR with TWS shows you nothing reliably actionable, and more often than not, nothing at all. Use the systems designed to kill people up close or stay out of the environment.

1. Mirage and BMS are overmodeled in field and track maintenance reliability. 2. The AWG-9 literally will not do 60 degrees azimuth in TWS. 20 degrees at 4 bars, or 40 degrees at 2 bars. 3. Who do you think you're tracking for an extended period of time when WVR for TWS track files to be reliable? A hypothetical TWS field of regard at a range of 5 miles and 60 degrees width is less than 4 miles by 2 miles- do you honestly think you're going to keep multiple bandits in a field that tight while maneuvering in a pattern to reliably get radar paints on them every three to five seconds for worthwhile tracks? 4. What do you think you're going to shoot multiple opponents with in that maneuvering box with? Sidewinder won't switch over that fast, Sparrow requires STT, and Phoenix is faster off the rail using boresight in ACM mode- and you don't have to worry about a lost round in the high probability the bandit moves out of the TWS field of regard. Understand the environment. Your demand isn't just unrealistic for the systems, but unrealistic for the situation you expect it in.

Guard up with a lock, the Phoenix will follow the beam. Without a lock, it will launch on the heading of the ADL cross.

Telling us you're good at improper technique with overmodeled systems doesn't convince me that the AWG-9 needs to grow an extra horn and Jester needs to do the wrong thing to placate you. Coupled with the mentioned point you don't realize PAL is the same scan volume as TWS with faster acquisition and no need to generate multiple frames to be useful and I'm really unimpressed with the contention.

TWS is not a magic salve, and the propensity of folks to expect it to be the superior option up close is far too pervasive based on the experiences of other overmodeled types. The F-14 and F/A-18 are hopefully going to break this trend over time. Every TWS mode short of an AESA setup lacks the angular rate and coverage to progress into the sub-10 mile region to be effective. As proximity closes, the chance of an opponent moving outside of the coverage area for at least one frame increases. That probability goes up exponentially the number of enemies you're facing. And any time a TWS radar misses a contact, whatever it presents is false- hence the nickname "track while lie". Intercepts need to be taken from a progression not just from BVR, but from phases. TWS is small. Actual search modes such as PD, Pulse, and RWS cover far more volume. You find the bad guys first using a true search mode based on your current priority. At this point, you begin your ID process. From here you step into TWS to manage the intercept to weapons range. Phoenix gives you an option to progress through this time period while shooting- something the other guy can't do, which means in many respects you can control both your own closure rate and angle, as well as theirs. At the point where things get critical, 20 or so miles when he's got a decent chance to reply with a weapon is where you need to make sure you're in STT. You can't risk the loss of a lock under the false hope you can keep some measure of SA against everyone in the airspace. Your entire job up to this point was to thin the heard and get control of the intercept to a point closing into Sparrow range is survivable. And if you have to progress into Sidewinder range, that target certainty is even higher- meaning if you're not locked you need to lock instantly- hence the ACM modes beginning with PAL. Guard up, because if have any AIM-54s left you want them not needing your support and off the jet faster. Same with Sparrow. Look at what the systems actually do, the area they cover, how quickly they cover it, and how reliable they are at maintaining and recovering a lock to determine what you should be in at a given phase of the intercept.

PLM is pure boresight, instantaneous lock attempt on the cross at the top of the HUD within 5 miles. PAL is the 15 mile twenty degree search. However, the diamond only appears with AIM-7 or AIM-54 selected.

It's not something they can fix. No pilot in a designated pilot aircraft slot causes a kick.

Wow. Now that was a snipe for all time! Glad the man himself got it first. :)

Like this. Spiceman's got you covered.

The ability to activate/deactivate on the fly with M is nice- you get to see them when you need to (deck salute, looking cool, screenshots, etc), and put them away when you don't (the rest of the time).

Wouldn't matter. Tacview interpolates G load between timestamps. Perform the sequence again while recording with a screen capture like Shadowplay. Use CTRL-Y in the cockpit to display the info bar.

That was the shortest offensive of all time...

*waves* I'm up in ur cockpit, indicatin' ur Gs...

Lower right above the leg well.

Because the Tomcat doesn't have an OWS- that's why.

Because seat time is OP.

It already has these things. Learning has everything to do with acknowledging and understanding what those cues are telling you, and how to utilize them effectively. If you disagree with that, stay away from the 6DOF gear because even that doesn't get the seat of the pants correct.

All the feedback loops in the world are immaterial if the user fails to assimilate themselves to their application; that is very much the "learn to play" aspect. Refusing to attempt, or even acknowledge, the depth of additional feedback available to a F-14 crew member in this simulation beyond any other type while demanding more is an invalid argument. And invoking arbitrary balance to do so- in an environment where actual repetitive skill and cognitive situational recognition is the final arbiter is the worst argument one can make. Non-argument. If you fail at managing the existing feedback loops in a 6DOF and keep augering short of the threshold because you're not honoring the cues, they don't add a 150% flaps and throttle trainer to get you to wheels contact; you are told, and made, to keep learning and practicing approach technique until you get it right or fail to make certification. You pay your dues with time. The time spent on this argument is valuable time that would have gotten many of you past the wall you're currently hitting if you'd actually pay attention.

It is the correct answer. How many hours do you have in HB's F-14B? Buffet in game is a wonderful indicator of G state if you know what you're doing relative to the airplane. If you're at 10 G at low AoA, you're missing the low transsonic sound and visual cues as you get there. You're missing the grossly diminished nose rate. You're missing the audio breathing cues. The massive initial deceleration is a dead giveaway. And unless you simply went from dead center to full aft instantaneously, you've missed the initiation of gray out. Every bit of this stems from the right hand trying to set effective AoA not knowing the left hand doesn't know how to get out of burner. Everything you see and hear is literally telling you that you're underperforming the airplane, and you need another cue? And it's a fabricated OWS, no less. Because the airplane in your example would tell you everything is wrong, and it still wouldn't be enough. It's clearly not enough, given the propensity of people to keep breaking the wings off. No other plane in DCS provides more organic audible and visual feedback as to the current performance state of the aircraft as the F-14B- non-FBW or otherwise, yet it's the only one expected- within two weeks of release, mind you, to add even more because it's full capabilities and indications aren't fully understood and practiced to yet. I guess we could just call it being blessed with an overabundance of exuberance at the onset?

1. The RIO is busy doing his own AGSM. 2. Tacview interpolates G between timestamps. I haven't found symmetric load wing removal in DCS during test below 10G at half weight. 3. Realistically, structural failure is a function of load times weight; it doesn't necessarily scale perfectly based on external forces applied, nor aircraft imbalance properties. Thus, tying a response like breathing rate or a call from the back seater is inappropriate, and frankly, impossible for the number of permutations. That said, when someone states they're breaking the wings off this module without any warning, I have to wonder what they're actually doing with the airplane, how low their speakers are set, and whether or not the feedback audio is muted with the "hear like helmet" setting. Because either someone's pulling back entirely too fast to hear the feedback, or are yanking far too hard when too fast- and neither of these things are the fault of the module.