Blaze1

Nice video Emu, thanks for posting it.:thumbup:

There are other avenues e.g eBay, online sources etc, however you're generally at the mercy of what is available.

That wasn't nav data, he'd just been 'inspired' after watching Iron Eagle.

To model an aircraft to the level of say Heatblur's F-14B, you'll need maintenance manuals in addition to the flight, performance & weps manuals.

How about an accelerated time function with realistic refuelling and rearming times?

You're right of course. It's a GR9 with heterochromia.

A ha.:thumbup:

Thanks Naquaii. The reason I asked is because in some videos of your F-14B, the azimuth indicator isn't present.

Do all F-14Bs feature the IP-1276/ALR-67 azimuth indicator or will the only threat indication for some aircraft be presented via the PMDIG?

Double Fox 3!

That was already announced in the Heatblur fortnightly magazine.

I wonder how long it takes just to model that section!?

shagrat, I've been thinking about the ALR-67A(V) again recently and your specific question. I wonder if the changes were made, simply due to a change in the primary threat display type. Initially, the primary display for the ALR-67A(V), was the IP-1276/ALR-67 azimuth indicator and at around 3 inches or so in diameter, the display is rather small. Having critical threats (the most important) within the innermost ring, particularly in a high threat, multi-emitter environment, could make the indicator difficult to read, as well as making it more difficult for the crew to determine the azimuth position of the threats, thus the critical ring was placed furthest from the centre. Later on, aircraft such as the AV-8B introduced the MFDs/MPCDs as the primary RWR display. The vastly increased display area over the IP-1276, afforded threat symbols the benefit of much more room and radial separation, mitigating a lot of the overlap that may have occurred with the older display. Because of this, the software engineers probably decided to go back to a common sense approach, of having the critical ring threats closest to the inside and the non-lethal threats on the outermost ring.

:shocking::lol:

:thumbup:

It may be an idea to have them in off position on occasion, perhaps simulating a post maintenance situation, where the switch has been returned to the normal position.

'Meh-16'! You need to chill with that blasphemy!

.

WinterH, that's a strong wishlist you've got.:) Why is 'F-4E' in red?

Great post mytai01 and very timely indeed! It was only yesterday I wondered about how close to a jets exhaust another aircraft would have to be for it to suffer the effects and how such an incident would look!

I see. I don't really have a problem with it myself, however there's a strong chance it wasn't authorised later because of separation issues. Both the F-4 and F-15E started off with loadouts that were even used in combat, but later revoked. In the case of the F-15E, it was due to separation issues in one case and weapons damage in the other.

Or Heatblur can just stick with carrier ops and Grumman Ironworks, meaning ....................... ;)

I've just checked the tactical manual and 14 Mk82's doesn't appear to be a valid loadout, at least not from 2004 and later.

Naquaii's already confirmed my previous post. I agree with the philosophy of allowing users the latitude of loading the jet atypically, so long as it was an authorised loadout.

Heatblur have stated that they have manuals/documents showing 14 Mk82 in the pancake as a valid loadout, although never used in practice?