Cobra847

Also; if I may indulge for a moment- interestingly there are some features that are straight up shared between F-4 development and F-14. A great example is the synthetic tone generation for the ALR-45 (Early F-14A). This is of course great as we're working on it for the F-14 but sort of means we're developing the F-4 at the same time. Conversely, there are things we're developing for the F-4 that are unannounced that will make their way back into the F-14 (Jester v2, anyone? ). It's not a zero-sum game, thankfully. Long term, we think of our products more as living platforms (sort of like DCS) which benefit from "platform improvements" down the line (e.g. some future aircraft tech being useful for earlier releases). We haven't fully realized this vision with the Viggen and F-14 yet though, since they're quite different, but it will become a bigger element in the future. Even something as small as us developing ways to better render curved displays is going to make it's way into the F-14 from the F-4. RE the Iranian F-14A (because I realized I didn't actually answer the question in this thread at all!) We will be doing something feature-wise for the Iranian F-14A. Likely we'll be doing the pod + lack of fuel pylons + other minor changes to make it more authentic + hopefully some ancillary elements like the older pilot equipment. When we get the -135 Early out and get closer on this we'll make a more detailed list. Sorry for the wait, we just want to get the early -A out before we nail down the above.

We get plenty of emails about the Alicat and TARPS Which is my way of gently saying that it's not always as clear-cut as knowing what is in more demand than something else. I'd also note that the IRIAF F-14 has prerequisites (Early -A) which adding a graphical representation of the TARPS pod does not have. But to answer your key concern, it's coming! don't worry.

Interestingly, in reality when measuring in spend and developer manhours, the Viggen and F-14 have seen an investment of manhours in 2021 and to date in 2022 that is about equal to what was spent in the year preceding release. This is mostly possible because we added 8 full-time engineers to our team through 2021. I see that tapering off as we complete features through summer and call these modules done however (and cards in our roadmap get moved). Thanks for your support so far; but I feel it is difficult for me to feel shame today in predicting a launch of the F-4 in a situation where both the Viggen and F-14 have most of their remaining elements delivered but the EA tag remains due to new features and/or minor elements missing. I hope the state of both modules will be to your liking at that time as much as I hope that we'll have removed the EA label. I simply consider the overall quality and completeness of a module far more important than whether a label is attached or not. And a minor feature missing or new features added cannot be unfairly weighed against the total. Importantly, just because I'm discussing this doesn't mean our stated goals have changed: we want to move both modules out of EA ASAP - but we consider the actual label far less important than the state of the products themselves. That's what we wish to be judged on; not a tag. I have to very strongly protest. What you'd call feature creep; I'd call passion, engagement, fun, creativity and a desire to do better. If we tightly and rigidly scoped our projects you wouldn't have JESTER (to the current extent), wake turbulence (First in DCS!), Burble (First in DCS!), trap kneeboard, roadbase support (first in DCS)- etc. The list goes on. Some of these features were even a driving point in developing them in DCS itself (wake turbulence is one example) - and all of them were the result of playfulness and creativity during the development process. Many things people enjoy the most in our modules are the result of being comfortable with going out of scope, and we will never change in this regard- even though it frequently has a negative financial effect as the long term benefits are quite evident.

This is simply not true - for neither the Viggen nor the F-14. Just last patch (April) we completely rebuilt the entire FC/AP system. This might not seem like a major undertaking, but it's larger than even some other features like the Forrestal and has taken months of full-time engineering resources. FWIW; both the Viggen and F-14 will certainly be in a better state come F-4 launch, but there are no guarantees that we will have removed the EA tag by then. We're not very traditional in our use of the EA tag, as feature-wise the Viggen has been complete for a very long time on the total balance (we've added a lot of unplanned or unannounced features to the Viggen over the years!) and the F-14 is in a similar position (does anyone think the burble or new mass dynamics were on the development roadmap before 2021 for example? ) I think you'll be shocked at how much novelty is coming to the F-14, even excluding what we've already done in the past 12m. Since beginning development of the F-4, we've actually expanded the F-14 roadmap significantly, but more on this later. I think it's important to judge "launching another product while existing ones are in EA" based on this. The goalposts are constantly moving and while counter-intuitive, I should hope it's seen as a positive. It is - but there are higher priorities in the F-14 still that we're working on executing on; e.g.: In-cockpit VR Pilot body. TARPS Jamming/associated radar simulation F-14A (Early) with ALR-45 LAU-138 + other minor missing art assets ALR-67 bumps Representing the IRIAF F-14A properly is a wish of ours, but we do not consider it to be a part of EA exit criteria, thus we wish to square away other items first.

Hey guys, it's not in this patch which is a smaller maintenance F-14 patch- the wording in the newsletter is a bit confusing. It's close now though- and unless something ignites, you should see it in the May F-14 patch.

We'll talk more about Navy variants post release of the -E (and maturity!). Variants are TBD; but expect us to share much of the sentiment in here regarding the Navy variants and thus that does strongly lean towards something like S + J.

Hey everyone, Don't expect to hear much, if at all, until we actually "unveil" the Phantom. While this may seem somewhat strange - it was always our intent to not announce the phantom until our unveiling later this year; but the high volume of requests and interest kind of precipitated the need for an announcement trailer ahead of time. As an additional compounding factor, Russias' invasion of Ukraine has impacted us severely, and this will have an outsized impact on our time availability for updates before we're fully ready. Thanks for all of the wonderful interest and support! We won't let you down.

I generally agree - we'll look at this quite soon

We're working on a brand new tone synthesizer, both for the ALR-45 and the Phantom RWRs. Short answer: yes; it should be much much better and a lot of effort will be invested into it

Correct, we had too little time to spend on it and wanted to avoid breaking something by rushing it; but we're confident we'll get it migrated quickly.

Dear All, Happy Apache day! Congratulations to the team at Eagle Dynamics for another amazing DCS module release. While not as exciting as the Apache, today’s patches for the F-14 and Viggen include a couple of key new features and/or overhauled features. We figured we’d give you a quick, more in depth rundown than visible on the changelog as they’re far more comprehensive than they may seem from the changelog itself: F-14 Tomcat Autopilot Overhaul One of the biggest features for this new patch is a complete rewrite of the F-14 Tomcat’s Autopilot Systems. This has been a massive undertaking and should have a significant impact on your flying of the F-14 Tomcat. Key design considerations for this overhaul were to bring it closer to reality, make the code more modular, future proof and extensible and to ensure it is flexible enough to handle any future Flight Model updates and handling tweaks still planned. The Autopilot will now be a far more accurate representation of how the real F-14 autopilot would function and work. Not only on a superficial level, as we took extra care in trying to simulate this particular system as it would function “under the hood” in the real aircraft, yielding the same emergent effects that the real F-14 Autopilot would exhibit. Artificial limitations that may have existed previously, for e.g. engagement zones no longer exist - and it is thus your responsibility to engage the system within operational limits and apply best practices regarding suggested parameters. To delve into detail; here’s a brief overview of the overhaul, what to expect and the changes introduced: ATTITUDE HOLD: Still works as it used to, but will feel much more responsive now and “grab” quicker. Limits for this mode are 60° bank and 30° pitch - exceeding these will return the aircraft to within these limits. Note that speed loss during extreme operation may very well lead to a stall of the aircraft or potentially a spin. Additionally, exceeding 2.25lbs of longitudinal and 1.25lbs of lateral stick pressure applied during ATT HLD will engage CONTROL STICK STEERING. In this mode, the pilot’s stick inputs override ATT HLD and allow him or her to adjust the ATT HLD, which will re-engage if stick pressure is released again. Trimming is not available during ATT HLD, however if control stick steering is engaged, trimming is available and can help you set your attitude even more precisely and relieve some effort of the autopilot having to “catch up”. ALTITUDE HOLD: After further research, we were mistaken to introduce a limit for the engagement range between +/- 200 FPM and thus this has now been removed. Engagement even at very excessive values, say 6000 FPM, is possible, but it is very ill advised. For proper use of Altitude Hold, it is suggested to engage it when the aircraft is at or close to level flight or put simply: within approximately +/-200 FPM. The further outside of this limit you will engage it, the bigger resulting oscillations may be, trying to return to the altitude that has been captured on pressing the autopilot reference button. Depending on your speed and AOA this may result in unpleasant, unwanted or downright dangerous behaviour. ALT HLD will disengage if 10lbs pressure on the stick’s longitudinal axis is being exceeded or for some reason pitch exceeds 30° plus/minus. If 10lbs pressure is exceeded control stick steering will set in, and once it is released again, will be followed by ATT HLD. Re-engagement of ALT HLD will require pressing the AP reference button again. Note that if 1.25lbs pressure of stick input is exceeded on the lateral stick axis (roll), ALT HLD will not disengage, but a combination of ALT HLD and control stick steering will set in until pressure is released again, at which point a combination of ALT HLD and ATT HLD takes over again in absence of other modes such as HDG HLD or GT HLD. This allows the pilot to adjust bank levels while holding altitude at the same time and is very useful for orbits. New is also that altitude hold indeed takes a reference altitude it tries to return to - so during steep banks or engagement outside of best practice limits, it will cause it to oscillate (slightly during bank to more severely if engaged outside of suggested limits) until it returns to the captured altitude. If engaged outside of “sane limits” (meaning what no real life pilot would realistically attempt), it very well may not be able to capture the altitude anymore. Noticeable is also that when ALT HLD is engaged the control surfaces cycle at about 1 degree amplitude and about a one hertz rate. It is not noticeable from the cockpit, but you will be able to see if your lead has it engaged looking at the horizontal stabs, when flying in formation. This is due to its limitation in update rate, which in return means that you should not roll too fast or too steep when ALT HLD is engaged, or it may not be able to keep up very well. As always, discipline is required and smooth and steady inputs - as one would use in real life. HEADING HOLD: Remains as was, although it has the same new inner workings as the other modes, including update rates and limitations, which means that releasing the stick within 5° bank might feel just a touch clunkier, or more immediate with a more distinct “set in” than it did, although this will be barely noticeable in comparison. Please note that currently there is some minimal drift present, which has already been fixed and will be rectified in the next hotfix or patch, unfortunately we were not able to include this fix last minute. HDG HLD can be used both in combination with ATT HLD or ALT HLD, and will allow for both lateral and longitudinal control stick steering during ATT HLD and lateral control stick steering during ALT HLD. The heading itself gets updated, when the stick is released below a certain threshold of lateral stick pressure within +/-5° bank. The lateral stick pressure needed to override it (while being held), is small enough at 1.25lbs so that you can even bank at one or two degrees to adjust your heading precisely until the stick pressure is released again. GROUND TRACK HOLD: This is a new feature and has not been present in the F-14 before. GT HLD works similar to HDG HLD, with the difference of holding track over ground versus adjusting for a HDG, if a heading drift is present for example due to high winds aloft. The other difference is that it needs to be engaged at wings level with the autopilot reference button. It can be used both in combination with ATT HLD and ALT HLD. However: if the switch is flipped to GT HLD on the autopilot panel while ALT HLD is present, it will disengage ALT HLD and return the autopilot to ATT HLD with the autopilot reference light coming back on. After pressing the autopilot reference button again, and if the ALT HLD switch has been left in its on-position, both modes will engage at the same time. This means that it is in such a case best engaged while both wings level and within +/-200 FPM. Note that when both switches for GT and ALT are in their respective on-positions, engagement of the ALT HLD mode is only possible, if criteria for both modes are met, meaning the pilot has to hold the aircraft wings level. Additionally, due to both modes being connected to the AP reference light (and button press), exceeding 10lbs longitudinal stick pressure or 30° pitch will also disengage both ALT HLD and GT HLD, while engaging control stick steering by applying lateral stick pressure will also disengage both modes and return the autopilot to ATT HLD on release. This needs to be kept in mind, if only one of the two modes is intended to be disengaged or overwritten, in which case it is better to return the respective switch on the autopilot control panel to its off-position first. Overall, our new overhaul of the autopilot is now modelled in a way that it much more accurately reflects the functionality, limitations and emergent effects of the real system and associated control systems. As a large added bonus; this rewrite is a part of our next generation Heatblur codebase and will pay dividends for future aircraft. A final task to complete remains a revamp of the ACLS. Responsiveness and reliability of the autothrottle has already been greatly improved as a first step, and we now look to a full completion of ACLS based on this new autopilot system. Enjoy! PD-STT MLC Filter Removed We’ve removed the MLC Filter from the PD-STT submode. While digging deeper and researching further, we realised that the MLC is designed to be used in PD search modes, where doppler filters are used, and thus not used in PD-STT, as it uses the velocity tracker instead. The PD-search modes use doppler filters to determine target speed, so what doppler filter the echo matches is represented with a square brick on the display. In PD-STT the radar instead has a velocity tracker that looks for target returns within a rate gate centred around the target speed. This means that ultimately PD-STT locks should be more stable now and less prone to losing lock, as is now more congruent with the real radar and systems. New Feature: Switching Seats in Multiplayer This has been a long standing and frequently requested feature that we’ve wanted to introduce since before the release of the F-14. Only recently, structural changes to the DCS codebase made this actually possible for us to implement. You can now switch between pilot and RIO seat online, just as in Singleplayer! Please be aware however, that currently 2 players can occupy the RIO seat at the same time. The pilot should in such a case switch back to the pilot seat to prevent any bugs. We hope this can be inhibited in the future, so that when a human player joins an aircraft with only one player in the RIO seat, the “plane’s owner” will be automatically returned to the pilot seat. Please also note: joining the pilot seat is not possible, unless spawning the aircraft fresh, and in order to prevent oddities that our code was not designed for, the aircraft should always be spawned by the pilot. Enjoy the world of DCS Multiplayer with a seamless transition between both seats! Enjoy these major changes in this patch - we continue our relentless march forward and our focus has now turned towards the early -A, features such as TARPS, in cockpit pilot and more as we start ticking off the last boxes towards an exit out of Early Access. Thank you all for your passion and support. We’re long overdue for a general update, especially after our latest announcements- so stay tuned as we try to squeeze an update out in between our packed roadmap! Team Heatblur

We're forging ahead on engineering and programming of systems on DCS: Eurofighter using placeholder assets, and in the meantime TrueGrit Oliver Michel's work on the new Eurofighter cockpit model draws to a finish! The cockpit was modelled by using a mix of photogrammetry and more traditional measurement techniques taken from real active duty Eurofighters as reference. This will yield a highly accurate visual representation of this modern fighter, especially important of VR. Systems development will continue throughout this year in tandem with the new artwork as we grind away on our most complex module to date. Our roadmap has the Eurofighter releasing after the F-4E, but we'll keep you updated over time as we grind away. Thanks for all of the support!

Do not worry. This entire roadmap has in the works for a long time, and we know exactly when each thing slots in! This is a good thing, even if there's a longer wait between things, as it simply means we're planning ahead and understand the base technologies that we need to create for each aircraft. This way, development remains synergistic and supportive from module to module, which gives us a greater chance of delivering the quality that you all expect.

The AIM-54 has not been grossly overperforming for years. With older guidance on the old API; the missile would immediately bleed tons of energy on initial flyout so the performance profile looked different. Heck, for a time, we even had to limit max-g to avoid this utterly insane energy loss making close shots significantly worse. And no, it wasn't changed just because a forum user did the math- we were already in progress of tuning and moving the missile to the new API, it just moved it to the top of the priority list. The CFD is not gospel- no research is. Anyone who knows anything knows that there can be limitations of margins of error to any study, that includes the CFD work done for the AIM-54. The modeling errs on the side of conservative because it lacks key considerations that would make the missile better. Your attitude are getting silly at this point. Truly. Take a step back and reassess how you're communicating with us on these forums. Constructive discussion is wonderful, but you're missing the mark every single time.

Our intention is to have a more general Iceman-like entity that can take control of the aircraft which will also be used in the F-14 and A-6E, however this may not be a day 1 feature.

Guidance changes will be introduced in a hotfix tomorrow. There should be significant improvement in the performance of the missile, though it is certainly not yet definitive.

Guidance changes will be introduced in a hotfix tomorrow. There should be significant improvement in the performance of the missile, though not definitive.

This is a funny one, as when I was making it I had the same feeling; but we did indeed simply try to emulate the video

For now, the only product we'd like to announce is DCS: F-4E which will include the two aforementioned -E versions of the F-4E. We're being purposefully vague for now, because while we've conceptualized where we'll be going, the exact details may still change. We don't see huge value in making any variants that would differ only slightly in gameplay/interest if they would require a substantial investment of time and effort, however we certainly would like to balance that vis-a-vis the enjoyment and passion of seeing "your" Phantom come to life. It's very safe to assume that an equivalent Navy/USMC Phantom package is a natural part of the roadmap as mentioned previously, of course- but we'll need to certainly prove ourselves to everyone with the -E first!

We do not believe the current performance to be realistic due to guidance issues. Less than when we adjusted numbers to avoid these issues; and yet enough to cause lessened performance. Unfortunately this has turned out to be a multi-step process and we'll be working hard to rectify this with urgency where we are able.

We do not believe the current performance to be realistic due to guidance issues. Unfortunately, this turned out to be a multi-step process and we'll be working hard to rectify this with urgency.

Yes! We'll share more in a FAQ shortly.

We are proud to announce the development of the legendary F-4 Phantom family for DCS World, starting with DCS: F-4E, due for release in 2022. We can't wait to share more with you all. Enjoy our announcement trailer, and stay tuned for our full unveiling later this year!

There will be progress on this topic with the next DCS Patch, it's obvious based on this latest testing that guidance and/or missile changes even in the old API are adversely affecting performance in-game- now in the opposite direction. That said, there seems to be no interest in reading what we're actually writing in this thread. Previously, the AIM-54 underperformed severely vis-a-vis reality with CFD based values, due to DCS guidance issues. These issues are no mystery or unknown to the DCS community and were well documented and discussed at the time. I'm not sure how more straightforward we can be in this explanation. A missile's FM/Capability is a result of all components coming together- with poor guidance, the other two elements needed to be adjusted to achieve appropriate performance. This was and is no secret and is even documented in the whitepaper to some extent. Sometime (hence why this thread is a good thing!) - DCS guidance changed. This seems to be yielding a much improved AIM-54 (due to the aforementioned adjustments). It's not a conspiracy, just divergent development threads converging in errors when one is not in sync with the other. Stop riling yourselves up in squadron/competition/SATAL discords and please communicate findings with evidence. The first post of this thread is a fine example. We have no interest in spending thousands of $ on CFD just to end up with an unrealistic missile and we certainly don't care about "lost sales due to a worse Phoenix". By that logic, we'd remove every accurate limitation of the F-14 itself to make it better.

We will reverify whether these FM coefficients are intended when the team returns to work next week, however many changes to the in-game FM were entirely intentional, and are rooted in (at the time of release) and currently (to various extents) persisting guidance issues (primarily an extreme loss of energy due to extremely aggressive guidance early in flight). With inappropriate guidance, adherence to CFD figures yielded a complete inability to execute standard and documented AIM-54 shots. In order for the missile to behave realistically, maximum allowed G and other airframe parameters were changed to accommodate known capability through empirical testing. Some of this is touched upon in the whitepaper on Page 9. Any such changes are slated for revision when we are able to appropriately control the missile in flight, and this effort is currently underway together with ED. Updates to follow soonest. Currently, we don't expect the performance of the AIM-54 to change noticeably in any tactical scenario. Normalized FM parameters and corrected guidance will lead to the same overall capability in known shots.