JupiterJoe

Here is a Track file (thank you @MAXsenna), that may feature previously unidentified problems with the Autopilot. Please note that I use a Microsoft Sidewinder FFB2 stick. Just after take-off ATT-HOLD wouldn't work. Cycling the three SAS modes managed to restore some functionality, but pressing A/P Ref still resulted in an un-commanded nosedive. Very similar to what happens when you try to use ACLS with a FFB stick. A Zone 5 mission out of Nellis: Saved Track.trk Unfortunately this track does not show exactly what I witnessed whilst flying the mission (I didn't get shot for a start), but may still give some clues. You'll see some shaking occurring when trying to engage the A/P for example. This is not what I saw at the time, but may represent the problem. Perhaps better representative of a problem with ACLS and FFB sticks will be this saved track, where pressing the A/P ref button results in certain doom (last 30 secs of the track): Saved TrackACLS.trk

Here is a Track file (thank you @MAXsenna), that may feature previously unidentified problems with the Autopilot. Please note that I use a Microsoft Sidewinder FFB2 stick. Just after take-off ATT-HOLD wouldn't work. Cycling the three SAS modes managed to restore some functionality, but pressing A/P Ref still resulted in an un-commanded nosedive. Very similar to what happens when you try to use ACLS with a FFB stick. A Zone 5 mission out of Nellis: Saved Track.trk Unfortunately this track does not show exactly what I witnessed whilst flying the mission (I didn't get shot for a start), but may still give some clues. You'll see some shaking occurring when trying to engage the A/P for example. This is not what I saw at the time, but may represent the problem. I've also noticed if you have A/P on and jump from RIO to Pilot's station, the plane nosedives and will not recover unless you disconnect A/P. I believe this might also be related to ACLS not currently working with FFB sticks. Perhaps better representative of a problem with ACLS and FFB sticks will be this saved track, where pressing the A/P ref button results in certain doom (last 30 secs of the track): Saved TrackACLS.trk Could @IronMike, @fat creason, @Naquaii, or whomever take a look at this please? Thanks.

How do you do this with One Drive? I have uploaded the Saved Track to my One Drive, but don't understand how I can post a link to that on here. The file is 65Mb.

Perhaps a menu slider (apparently the F-4 Phantom has one) that adjusts the amount of moment in the stick you can have before the A/P Hold is overridden.

It's a credit to Heatblur that it's been five/six years since the release of the F-14 and I didn't initially realise that wasn't a screenshot from their simulation. HB hit this thing out of the park at the time. The standard by which all subsequent modules are judged. I've yet to to 'fly' their F-4, but it must be quite something if it's better than the Tomcat. I've been around since the earliest days of home computing/gaming, from the Atari 2600 onwards. I've seen the best from the heyday of Microprose. I've witnessed some spectacular landmarks in simulation and enjoyed many incredible computer games besides, but nothing has brought me more pleasure than HB's Tomcat. For that I will always be grateful. Thank you HB. This post is not really apropos of anything; I just felt like taking the time to give credit where's it's due. EDIT: Uh-oh, never drink and type. I wrote this late last night, after celebrating completing Dry January

That's an understatement. The A/P ref/NWS is a self-destruct button if you have the ACLS activated.

Can anybody who flies the F-14 module and uses a FFB stick confirm that ALT HOLD won't hold under the following conditions? At roll angles exceeding 10 degrees. During level flight above 20k feet, when the wings sweep back past 40 degrees. This is the case with my Microsoft Sidewinder FFB2 and I'm wondering if this is due to a worn FFB stick (yea I am aware how old it is, but I was under the impression mine was un-used when I bought it second-hand), whether this is how the A/P behaved IRL, or there's a software issue on ED's/HB's end. My stick rocks fore and aft slightly when A/P is engaged. Not sure if this is normal either. I suspect this is what causes the ALT HOLD a problem under the above conditions. The exterior view shows the tailerons twitching a considerable amount under these circumstances, as if there's a spurious signal, but strangely the A/P ref light does not illuminate. If this does prove to be a worn stick, I can then make the leap to buying a Moza, because after you've tried FFB you realise it's essential.

Jester says my landing may've been a little too hard that time:

I think we're currently able to lower the hook at any speed. Wouldn't there be restrictions/consequences for doing that in real life? Be nice to have that modelled. I love that the hook can shear off if you try and trap at too high a speed. Makes a cool/frightening sound too.

...and ACLS does not work with FFB sticks. Pressing the A/P ref/NWS button results in a non-recoverable nosedive into the sea. I am unable to post a track because this forum says I cannot exceed my 3.194Kb limit

Why aren't fighter planes from World War I (bi-planes and whatnot), considered first generation fighter planes when they were literally the first generation of fighters?

I have used the Campaign Builder for the first time and have added all the missions. This is just for my own use of course. I have never really mucked about with the Mission Editor before. When I complete Mission One it says I've failed the campaign. @jmarso It says the score is 50 for completing the mission. I changed this to 100 and the mission compete trigger to landing back on the carrier. I can't get it to work though. Any ideas? Is the following correct? Mission Complete (100, Offline) Unit Inside moving Zone (Player, Mission Complete, Stennis_AI) Type: Unit Inside Moving Zone Unit: Player Zone Mission Complete Zone Unit: Stennis_AI

Don't make me flick peanuts at you.

I am thrilled for any new F-14 content. I believe HB's F-14 is is a big factor in DCS' success. A landmark in simulation.

Fantastic news. If you ever need a voice actor to read some of your wonderful dialogue, I'd be happy to oblige.

Come on Dude! I'm saying you can land vertically and conventionally. What's not to love?

@jmarsoYour dialogue is the best I've encountered in a campaign and I've played 'em all. Enjoying your missions thoroughly. I think you could easily sell this as an official campaign via the website. It would be a crying shame if you don't do more F-14 content.

Fair enough. With its vast amount of automation and awesome tech, I don't picture the A being that interesting or challenging an experience. A simulation of a simulation.

Four of the maps you mention have oceans for carriers to operate in. The Naval variants can do both land and sea ops. Why restrict yourself and everyone else? Plus I wasn't just talking about the F-35C. I was talking about any aircraft that had a naval variant. HB's Phantom is an example. If you're going to all the effort to model an aircraft, why not model the most interesting variant, that gives you the most scope for exciting and interesting missions/campaigns in DCS? If they don't have access to the technical documentation (likely in the case of a modern active asset like the F-35C) to make that happen then fair enough.

Note to developers: If a Navy variant exists, build that first. Sure, it's a little more work initially, but you end up with the best of both worlds. More versatility = more fun. Landing on a carrier is the most challenging thing in aviation.

Note to developers: If a Navy variant exists, build that first. Sure, it's a little more work initially, but you end up with the best of both worlds. More versatility = more fun. Landing on a carrier is the most challenging thing in aviation.

Huh? That's the Sparrowhawk HUD for the F-14B.

The F-35C is the fun version. Why go to the trouble of modelling the F-35 without going the whole hog? We have the Supercarrier, with its deckcrew, airboss, elevators, hangar deck, briefing room, LSO etc. Why go the trouble of creating the infrastructure, but not the very aircraft that currently uses it? I hope HB are working on the Navy version of the Phantom too. Did any improvements to weather feature in this video? Weather is a huge factor and effects all aircraft modules. I thought we were going to get huge thunderclouds etc?