lunaticfringe

Grumman wasn't claiming; they were literally losing millions on every F-14 from the initial fixed price order based on the energy crisis from 1973 forward. The initial contracted buy covered multiple blocks across years, Navy wouldn't renegotiate, and it was ultimately the sale of airframes to Iran that kept them afloat.

And we also know the fundamental root cause of that issue, too. But I don't see anybody barking up that tree.

Yeah- what they need are another two cooks to join the first to stand over the lone FM pot, getting in each others way and stumbling over ingredients because you're impatient.

How dare you invoke facts into such a conversation.

The Hornet and Viper have had their discrepancies discussed in their subforums and in other venues. You want wailing and gnashing of teeth on those subjects, look there.

You thought it came down to a couple of pylons that don't affect drag one iota; you also begin with the false premise that everything has been somehow nerfed with a patch previously, so in sum- your childish hyperbole isn't doing much to make your case for you. And I hate to tell you- as has been exhibited by others, repeatedly, the F-14, in both types, run as close to their subsonic EM charts as any other module in DCS, if not closer. That is- the model is doing exactly what it's supposed to do. It was fractionally ahead or behind the curves in prior patches, and remains so- down to single digit values in net Ps change in the regime you state you care the most about, irrespective of the comments of people who think they can magically ascertain other regions and substantiate nonexistent tests by extrapolation. Your inability to deliver isn't indicative of the FM or the module. Now, you can blame that on your own skill, the track record of other types having larger variances from their EMs (or simply being authored without them), or whatever you like to explain it. The fact of the matter is that you've got 13 posts since you opened your newest profile, and the point that 10 of them are in here just tossing pure unadulterated noise about factors that in no way deny you from being capable of winning guns only, give ready explanation as to why you can't.

What you're being informed of is that those pylons didn't come off operationally, ever, and that there is no aerodynamic data points to begin to attempt to model the drag change because the test aircraft were always flown with them installed. So not only are you chasing an immaterial point, but for one that could never be presented in a fashion you think would apply.

Again, define what constitutes "worked". Working IRST with a diminutive detection range with 50's technological background on a clear day for US based interceptors when compared against a radar with perhaps a 40 mile seems like a relative nicety. Now pair it with a platform detecting bombers out to 130+ nautical miles with a weapon to match, and add in the realities of naval ops. The -23 was hot, unreliable garbage, even for its time- even when it was comparatively better than those aforementioned systems on a perfect day. They were willing to remove them and fly no secondary sensor until the TCS matured and was available fleet wide.

Have you considered switching to decaf?

You need to define "worked".

The problem is that it isn't on par content-wise. On release, the F-14 promised two free campaigns, scenarios for every map, LANTIRN, Jester, and four airframes- including full FM adjustments for a different set of engines. It dropped with a minimum of five instant action missions on every map. We're now at three official free campaigns for competition, because the South Atlantic mini-campaign was added on in a moment of inspiration. Multi-crew out of the box. Jester on release. And even the M won't give remotely the depth required to make up the difference. The F1 is a nice and useful module in the scope of DCS and fills in necessary holes. The promises made don't rise to the levels of the other $80+ tier modules, and don't match up to where those were on EA release. If the F-14 is going to be the standard folks point to, it's got a lot of work to do beyond the terms that have thus far been set.

*knock knock*

The F-15A and C did, in fact, come with them installed on their F100s originally. The USAF found them to be a maintenance issue, especially in Europe, and accepted the drag penalty induced by their removal. You can validate this by looking at line aircraft upon delivery back in the day, as well as the test aircraft, and then soon after having the covers gone- whether by maintenance after delivery, or gone from the factory. Conversely, you'll note their installation on 15As, Cs and Es of the IAF in many instances. The difference, while marginal, is considered worth the effort for some users and applications.

The 7MH has 13 launch modes. The 7P has 20. Only three of these in either variant are accessible to the flight crew, and the only way to negate the loft profile in any of them is the ACM switch.

Not only was that statement incorrect, TALD has been working properly on the F-14 again since the last patch, as noted in a number of topics. Go release a few and have fun.

1. You're not effectively trimmed. You think you are, but you're not. The amount of oscillation is based on how far you are off level trim, versus how large your throttle adjustments are. 2. You're approaching too fast. This is observed by how hard the drogue model snaps to the probe once the bounding boxes align as valid, and still you're moving well forward of the contact point before finally getting the closure to stop. And the instant you finally get the drift towards the refueled to stop, the PIO kicks in because of how far off trim is; any throttle correction changes relative trim based on the minor speed change, so the farther these values are off to be correct, the bigger the shift is going to be as you go on and off the gas. Trim it up. Walk it in. Walk. Don't run. You will confirm how far off of trim you are by taking one foot per second bites, rather than the whole gulp. If you're stable enough to plug at a slow approach from pre-contact, you're going to stay in the basket. As to visibility, lower your eye level using the control keys found in the view menu. This will provide proper visibility of the cues required to make AAR work.

It's not being marginalized, and it's disingenuous to claim such. We just witnessed the same situation with the TALD. Months of back and forth, claims it was in the hands of one or the other, while a simple review of the files showed the world at large that the HB code was using the ED TALD from the start. Over a year later, the TALD gets fixed in a patch on the ED side, and the decoy magically works again for the F-14 without a change by them. Everybody knows what the problem is, but rather than holding the party where the fix resides to actually get it done, the argument is that somebody else needs to work around the error. And then, at some indeterminate point in the future when things are made to work exactly as they should to begin with (ie, no more double drag or transonic crazy), they'll need to fix it again. Or, folks could hit up the correct forum with the details and evidence of the 1.0+ Mach and weapons drag issues, and get it solved once. Instead, they're here, because HB interacts more at the dev level. Only, said familiarity in this instance is hitting the contempt phase.

It is very close, whether you like to acknowledge it or not. And at the same time, as illustrated- there are factors that they do not have control over which will preclude their ability to perform an exacting match to the 1.1 charts. In a properly modeled atmosphere, with the attributed drag values from the 1.1 stores tables and the unclassified weapons tacman, their model matches. Import it into DCS, where there are known minor issues with pressure, and ED controlling weapons drag arbitrarily rather than an aircraft to aircraft basis- and also changing those without consistently informing third parties of these alterations, plus the aforementioned issues with wave drag and weapons drag being doubled in some areas, it's a permanent state of cat and mouse. Now you, as a casual observer gazing over the E-Ms might think that 200 fps variance is a huge factor as to how hard you can flat plate the airframe; tactically speaking, it's a slightly deeper slice in the regime you should even be thinking about trying it. Straight line high Mach runs- there's not much they're going to be able to do to control the large variances because they don't have direct control to solve them. And no- permanent need to correct, observe, and recorrect isn't "controlling" the situation. So it is what it is. You don't have to like it, it's simply what they're contending with. And again- when they're done, you'll know.

Creason provided an answer back here: It'll be done when it's done, maxsin, and you can be sure he'll let you, and everybody else know when it's so.

The HUD is not a primary flight instrument. Level flight is found on the VVI gauge. You can trim the HUD versus the horizon line once trimmed, but as the HUD cannot compensate for the relative pitch angle based on altitude and speed for level flight, you'd spend your time spinning the dial every time your current flight regime changes.

Not at all. The A-4 Community mod is an exceptional mod; it's not, however, a full on module, built with SDK access and the systems and flight model benefits that provides. There are systems and aerodynamic properties of the Skyhawk that the Community team cannot access due to lack of contractual terms. They admitted that up front, and are comfortable in not having made a module for sale; it was never their intent, and they worked within those limitations. And what the current A-4E mod offers makes me, as a fan of the Skyhawk, want for an actual module, as it does for most everyone who enjoys it. For the rest, they would suffice with the mod. As to the hyperbole, the work done thus far has not been tossed aside or wasted. The only one who can determine if he wants to move forward is OP, and anyone else who signs on to assist. The diversity in interest and income in the community is such that a mod would still be welcome to many. What matters is if he wants to push ahead; a full module has a long window to release. There's nothing stopping him. That's not remotely how IP theft works, and if anyone holds the IP it's Sukhoi. OctopusG didn't hack OP's PC to illicitly secure the model from him, thus stealing its recipe and intrinsic qualities from him to announce their release. That's a claim that has no basis in reality regarding this situation- unless, of course, we want to get a vertice to vertice comparison to confirm whether the actual work was stolen. It's akin to saying that because one artist painted the sunset at the Grand Canyon, no one can ever rightfully do so again, because somebody's feelings might get hurt since one is better than the other, sold for a higher price, etc. To whit: Monogram Revell has a F-14A in 1/48 scale. Hasegawa has a F-14A in 1/48 scale. Avant-Garde has a F-14A in 1/48 scale. Tamiya has a F-14A in 1/48 scale. Nobody stole anyone else's IP. The market is broad, and the qualitative versus cost diversity makes a place for all of them, nobody is complaining about a market glut, and none of them backed away from making a model for release because they all felt they brought something of value to the table. Same rule applies here.

How many people are in OctopusG is immaterial to the conversation, and ED is under no obligation to protect mod makers because, hey- they see a conversation. Seriously- do you legitimately think that a mod maker, or a team of developers making a mod, somehow blocks out aircraft from being worked on by actual third party firms? As an example, there used to be an F-14 mod using the FC F-15; there's an F-4 mod bouncing around if you know where to look, and an A-6 mod as well. Do you believe that Heatblur shouldn't be allowed to produce these aircraft, then? Is it unfortunate work may be lost? Sure. Does that mean that the rest of the world is simply supposed to stop moving forward because somebody might get around to producing a mod sometime in the next decade? No. Life is short- for everyone. If someone wants to step in and get it done to a degree befitting official release, it's their prerogative.

As someone that has hoped for a Su-17 in DCS, how is it a slap in the face? There's a team looking to produce a module as a product for sale, versus a single guy working on a mod in his spare time. If a team is investing the time and resources to develop a mod, having secured the necessary documentation to model it correctly, what behooves them to target something else rather than what interests them to make? Further, under what terms would it be in EDs interest to stop a Fitter module from being produced? You have a team that has the SDK and is making ED an income stream through their percentage cut from module sales, versus a mod. Eagle has to defer to their third parties based on that basic arrangement. DCS exists to make ED money, and ED isn't going to block mods when others are willing to buy in and ante up at their table. Now as has been said, this doesn't have to be the end of this work if OctopusG is interested in a partnership. This situation does, however, underline the risk of mod making. Three years is a long time to invest and not actually have something for public access. Unfortunately, it doesn't look as though anyone was willing to come forward to assist in the other areas needed to bring this to completion. Perhaps that can change, even with it now presumably on the schedule. Nobody is going to look a mod in the mouth and say "no" if they don't want to pay for something, so there is still value in moving forward.

Not particularly. Climb out on the tracked timestamp shot is pushing a 60 degree pitch angle on its lofting ascent.

The TALD has always been EDs code. And it's why it magically works again, right now in OB, without HB having done anything.