lunaticfringe

A plane turning 1000 m/s is doing roughly 1940 knots, or just under Mach 3.

Take it up with physics. All those noted circumstances, and yet, the one in your contention has never taken place. The maintenance documentation was discussed in the accident report. You're not showing a possibility, you're stating it as fact, and expecting everyone else to disprove your nonsensical contention that you support with a ridiculously poor grasp of the concepts and math involved. This is quite literally devolving into flat earthism on your part. For clarity, which claims? The math confirms one set of claims. Footage reinforces said arguments.

Considering your attempt at the math, that's understandable.

He reported "430 knots, cans are off, you're fast" at 2:57. He began the level out at 3:08. That is, he was in that pull the entire time, while you claim he was leveling when he made said call. You have nothing to resort to except the falsification of what is put in front of you, as though the rest of us aren't watching the same footage. Nah, man- he's saying "430 knots" like it's just a topic of conversation to help make the time go by with his RIO. Again- sus.

The video, had you watched it.

You've been making the argument in this thread for two days, and a week in your previously deleted thread, that the Tomcat blows up in excess of 6G. Now you move the goal posts when disproven by your inability to perform basic math. You're trolling, and you're not even competent at it. Closing time, everybody. Last one out, turn off the lights.

From 2:46 to 3:11, this Demo Team F-14 turns in excess of 270 degrees in fifteen seconds- or, greater than 18 degrees per second. Consult your copy of that AAP-1.1 you shared to see what that works out to at 2:53- when he's doing 430 knots from a 380 knot entry with the burners lit and maintaining that turn rate. By your argument, the Tomcat should have exploded within seconds, yet, she persisted, at over 7.5G. Your argument, as my kids say, is sus. Thanks for playing.

None of his citations ended with a destroyed aircraft. He read his cited material just fine; you did not.

Screw that. I want to put a cow on Forrestal CAT 2 set as "takeoff from ramp".

Is it a bug when I drop a LGB 30+ degrees off alignment and the seeker fails to capture, thus gliding off unguided into the ether, to fall on some completely unsuspecting patch of terrain, or is the simulation accounting for bad shot parameters? This isn't bad physics on short final into touchdown and rollout. This isn't even "don't fly the helicopter upside down, because reasons"- this is limited loft and guidance logic (both DCS and the AIM-54A) coupled with bad technique; only, the SMEs, devs, and testers are saying it's a bad shot, while users believe they should be able to get away with it, because... well, just because. Launch and release envelopes exist with the express understanding that a round has limitations as to what it can cope with once it goes hot; squeeze off a round substantially outside of them, and there is no telling what is going to happen. In this example, a weapon has been fired outside of parameters to a degree that the seeker could never attempt to maintain or reacquire guidance during the loft- which is a requirement. Doesn't have enough of an INS to compensate for losing its bearings, so it has now become the pre-teen girl screaming while riding the Wall of Death, while the carnie intones to the crowd- "round and round and round she goes, where she stops, nobody knows!". The Phoenix is literally losing all relation to where it is (the missile does not know where it is, because it doesn't know where it isn't), has no way to compensate for it, and is thus doing a grossly unexpected thing, which is what happens. Now, down range, API change perhaps at some point with maybe the ability to better shape the loft profiles and possibly compensate somewhat for ownship orientation? Maybe a bit of this gets shaved off. Perhaps not- the viable shot basket is what it is. The fact that the missile is can do goofy things when shot unrealistically is a known factor; how much of that can be adjusted in the future is as much a matter of the handles that become available as it is how bad the shot taken actually is.

Exactly what I said- that's a manual loft; put the nose on the horizon. You can even see your smoke trail has an incline at the point of ignition in your original shot image.

The reality of the situation is that the larger F-14 main gear stance (roughly 2-3 feet by scaled blueprints and mk1 eyeball) is going to have risk of clearance and interference issues with the chocks sized to Su-33/MiG-29s. With about a foot to spare on the outside of each chock with the -33 lined up, there's a probability that, if the Tomcat couldn't catch it, it would be hitting a main gear mount rather than rubber, and that's not going to fly. And that's if the Russians could figure out the corrections for the F-14 hook eye distance with their landing area length and optical system; in reality, you have to get it on the boat in flyable condition first.

My man- if that black spec near the center of the image is the launching F-14, that was a manual loft. One can draw a near perfect intersecting line based on point of ignition and the nose angle of the jet. Now I don't disagree that having a Phoenix go over the shoulder is goofy, but the fundamental problem is that with the limited loft biasing available to the current (see: non AIM-120) Phoenix, the missile essentially adds pitch relative to ownship nose origin when it initiates its loft flyout, roughly in the range of 45 to 60 degrees (ascertained through hundreds of test launches myself from valid loft range). It's A+B, and it's taking what it calculates as the necessary loft to make the intercept based on when you pulled the trigger with the intention being it a roughly horizon oriented shot- of which this literally doesn't appear to be based on your images. And to be fair, as was expressed by their own Tomcat pilot SME, and then reiterated by myself, other HB testers, and their own staff- Phoenix needs to be shot centered and level. The INS was essentially nonexistent on the A, and while the C had the bonus of monster capability on that front, the weapon still needed to be babied with as quality of a launch arrangement as can be provided for long distance lancing- as much for its RL counterpart as the idiosyncrasies as to what can be modeled in DCS. Now you don't have to like that, but such is the situation. Take the shots as instructed, and you're going to see it work. And very, very soon- you're going to see a C that is worth carrying, in both variants.

See? Substantial unrealism already exists in DCS, given the Kuz can run flank into the wind reliably- we don't need to double down with the chocks. Deck runs it is!

HB and the testers have been clearly explaining for months to stop manually lofting, which is what this passage here seems to imply. Change your method of employment. Get up to speed, get the altitude you can, level the nose and drop the hammer with a centered dot on the T.

Do I think an internal wing torque tube failure roughly 30 feet from the nearest crew member is going to make a sound audible in the loud environment of the cockpit when a control surface is frozen in an extended postion? No, I don't. It's like overtorquing the head of a cheap bolt with a breaker bar until the point it shears off. The bolt didn't make a sound, and depending on how many ft/lbs it took, you or the wrench might not even go far, either. Further, the aerodynamic loads at the breaking point aren't substantially different than those in its normal operating position, and more importantly- the wing was originally engineered to be open roughly 0.2 Mach higher in the schedule at near full unsweep than it was reprogrammed for in the mid-70s (you can see this by comparing the schedule in the initial F-14A -1 against that from later documents). That is to say- while the flap torque tubes can't deal with the load required to draw back in, the wing as an assembly was designed to withstand higher unswept loads without substantial vibration or loss of control authority. It's not until the aircraft reaches even higher speeds before things start to get hairy. The FLAP light is on. Master Caution is on. You can't manually sweep the wings back. The flaps indicator is frozen marking down. The airplane won't accelerate through the Mach, and it starts bouncing once you start putting real knots on it (DCS starts with substantial vibrations as low as 280 knots/Mach 0.6 at 15,000'). How much more indication that you broke it do you need? The instant you try to go somewhere fast- or, as you say, configure the jet properly for landing (manual aft), or even just do a good post-combat cycle, you can tell its broken.

It's not weird at all. You're supposed to land it straight and on speed, with a higher descent rate than land based airfraft as to engage the hook with an arresting cable. Naval aircraft are configured specifically to get the mains in contact with the deck prior to the hook engaging. Flaring would bring the hook too low relative to the gear arrangement and risk in-flight engagement. The flipside of this is that for safety the gear require a larger impact force to properly compress at the point of landing. Failing to get that transition can cause the mains to skate or drift, or risk other issue on the rollout.

Meteor has started a pledge campaign through for another LP pressing of DOTF, the official soundtrack album to Heatblur's F-14 module. If you didn't get one of these the first time, now is your chance. In one day the album has reached over 50% funding, and will go to press early next year if this kicks off. The campaign ends mid-September, so don't wait around if you want this album. Base price is $30 USD plus shipping. https://meteormusic.bandcamp.com/campaign/defender-of-the-fleet-heatblur-f-14-original-soundtrack

Pertinent to the matter. https://forum.dcs.world/topic/306559-f14-lights-on-the-side-consoles-and-instrument-panel-just-too-dim/?do=findComment&comment=5030926

Wanted to take a moment to illustrate the problem with some of the complaints people have regarding this issue, using an actual F-14 5v bulb backlit panel. The images are from in front of my kitchen window about an hour to sunset. First is with illumination off, second, on, full brightness. You'll note that illumination isn't helping you with panel legibility during the day, as the only place you can see rhe light is where the paint is either covered up by mounting equipment (mounting holes) or scratched away. Thus, if you saw red during the day through one of these panels text in daylight in DCS, it'd be wrong. Second, the micro mount bulb sandwiched inside these panels are of the same output and draw as those found in Korry switches (Gun Rate/Missile Prep/Norm-Bore, etc) as well as the warning annunciator panel. Look at those illuminated (red) mounting holes. Now add a transparent panel over the top, but with a material that isn't perfectly transparent, crazes, clouds, and yellows over time. Then add a couple years worth of dirt and grime. That's all of your panel illumination warnings and lit buttons. They aren't easy to see from the start, and any time in service is going to make it worse. Lastly, consider the amount of cast illumation from the light outside. Scale that up from just a window, to that provided through a massive bubble canopy. And now compound this issue as a whole by far too wide of FoV values from those on monitors, and too low illumination, pixel densities, contrast, and shallow FoV for those in VR headsets. Those photos were taken at 10-12" from the camera. Looking at them from an FoV that puts you where the DID glare shield is, or through a pair of glass Coke bottles, isn't making it any clearer.

Sharks with frikkin' laser beams attached to their heads are OP.

Do the conversation a favor and stop with the actual passive-aggressive act regarding the testers identifier. We don't add our titles; they're afforded based on the substantial amount of our time and energy we put in to make the sim better, whether or not you agree with the outcome, or our personal opinions on a subjective topic (of which this is). Pull up a copy of Danny Coram's "Uncovering the F-14" if you have it, or search for it online. Or get your hands on one of the multitude of Tomcat fan magazines the Japanese put out in the mid to late 90s and forward ten years into the end of service period- you'll find line jets at Oceana, Fallon, and elsewhere with clearly worse condition cockpits based on the scratches and wear to the surfaces enclosed in those pages. Unfortunately, your experience isn't comparable, and the evidence is there to disprove it. You don't have to like that, it simply is what it is. Doesn't mean it isn't valid on the types you were around, and if and when those come into DCS- I'd hope they're presented in the condition you recall. As for the Tomcat, I expect it to be in the condition the SMEs HB worked with recall- and that's exactly where it is. The bottom line is that the jet as exampled isn't beyond servicability indicated by the evidence and conversations that have been had, and that HBs version of the F-14 is a line jet during a mid-life cycle deployment period, being used like the weapon it was; that is to say, what they romanticize about the jet is different than you. This has been a topic of conversation since well before release, and their choices regarding its condition were made clear here and elsewhere repeatedly before anyone ever had a chance to spend a dime on it. They explained what they were doing and why. They showed it off extensively. The photos validate what they were looking for, their crews and maintainers confirm it. The aircraft is presented in the form they want it shown. You don't have to appreciate it, but by the same token- you, or anyone else, repeatedly making the same argument over and over to that point isn't moving the ball forward, either- play is stopped, that particular game is over, and they've made that clear. The solution now is to request the servers you like to fly on to option in the replacement cockpit you want to use under their IC settings.

So what do they do from midnight to noon?

The IAs are all editable in the ME. Place a carrier, move the starting waypoint and edit it to "Takeoff from Parking Hot" or "Takeoff from Ramp" and go!

Picking through the mission file, the trigger for the T-55 looks to be targeting the wrong unit. Submitted for correction.