captain_dalan

Also make sure the handle clicks into the detent before resetting the CADC.

Let's say i do, or better yet, let's say they do. Let's say they are allowed to implement that knowledge, but they are stopped by the IP. Solution? You tweak the parameters to match what your paper simulation tells you the missile should be capable of. Let's say i don't and they don't. The solution? You tweak the parameters to match what 2nd hand data imply the missile should be capable of...... Patterns emerge.....

1. Good luck finding the relevant data and then presenting it on a public forum to justify your flight model. 2. That is exactly why you test and tweak. So you can reproduce desired behavior in an environment in which you lack exact data. Iterative method.

Yeah, someone asked that question i think it was Hey Joe that chimed in.

That should make things "easier"

We can never know. And we SHOULD not know. Such things should not be available to the public. EVER. What we can and should do, is try to find the most optimum curve parameters that would give the missile best terminal properties for given kinetic capability. I just did some quick tests on my standard missions and my initial (based on very very limited sample size) impression is that the curve is much smoother and gives the missile much better kinetic properties when going active. Both against maneuvering and non-maneuvering targets. The missile is still well defeatable (i got a 50% pk in the limited tests) with proper missile defense. What has went away is the tendency of the missile to defeat itself, especially against non-maneuvering targets. Right now, the tactical use resembles largely what anecdotal claims seem to imply, adjusted for altitude and mach of course. Once proper EW is implemented in DCS, developing proper tactics will be even more fun. One word of warning when using it against tactical targets though, do note that while the new steeper loft gives better missile terminal performance, it also means longer flight time, which could be used against you with missile that go right after you with a more shallow trajectory. But all this is a very, very, VERY early impression. More tests are needed. Just tested and i see what you mean, upwards or downwards, as soon as you hit it, the handle stops and needs further input to continue moving. I like this implementation, it will takes a bit getting used to, but it's highly intuitive.

By the tail shape, you mean the removal of the dielectric panels? Why were those removed? Structural reasons?

I never payed too much attention to those, but after it was mentioned, i re-watched some of the scenes in the movie, and for the life of me i can't tell for sure if the logo is in the same position at all times. It seems like it moves around from scene to scene, especially on how it transfers to the rudder

65's? Those were the ones with the stiffeners on the wing gloves?

I've been researching early F-14 variants the last couple of weeks, and to my surprise i found out something new on my all time favorite VF-1. I knew from before they started losing the anti glare by the start of the 80's, but i never knew how early this process began. Namely, it seems that by the start of the first cruise, the black anti glare was gone from the hump, side panels and canopy frames and was only retained in the front. Also, it appears that with the first cruise they got the brown radome as well. Anyone more versed in the history of the Navy paint schemes knows why this came to be? Was black anti glare in scarce supply at the time? Was it purely squadron aesthetics? But the latter doesn't make sense as this was a newly formed squadron without previous "traditions" and the scheme was if memory serves designed by a Grummanite. Looking forward to your opinions and info! Relevant info attached as a picture bellow:

That's awesome news! Can't wait to see this latest fruit of your labor in-game, kudos!

That's good to know, thanks for the info mate! Will try to test this evening.

Never had the chance to run DCS in the last 24h, how does one know that the handle has caught on the detent?

I did notice two Top Gun skins, one with dark and one with light paneling on the top of the wing gloves (like what we see in the movie). So only the latter will remain? Any other expected changes?

I certainly hope so. As for the other jets. i've seen photos of FV-1 and VF-2 packing Ferris schemes, but those seem much darker and with greater gradients between the 3 base colors then the VX-4. Haven't yet seen a photo of a PMTC jet though.

Holy thread revival Batman! Sorry, but i just had to..... so as not to open up a new but related topic. My question: Any chance of getting an AIM/ACEVAL VF-4 skin with the early F-14A? I know it's not the appropriate block of aircraft, but then again, none of the really cool late 70's and early 80's paint schemes are

It just so happens i practiced some case I's last night after more then 2 months of being a landlubber. To my surprise i had no issues. I guess the best thing is to get a feel for anticipating the effects and act accordingly. Generally i do so by reducing power beforehand and then gradually increase it. Note that i fly the A with the slower engine response times, so my power corrections are generally done before the actual effect hits me. I don't use the DLC to counter it. I reserve it for extremely minor slope corrections either at the start of the grove or very close just before i go into the wires but still cleared off the deck. No clue if this is the proper way, it's just the way i do it.

I just assume my bird is in fleet defense configuration pallets are always on

I forgot how pretty the black aces can be!

Although i did participate in that discussion, i had to revisit it, as the topic about approach speeds was good ways back. However, i didn't find anything that provided decisive info on the pallets. It seems the consensus was that adding external tanks removed effective weight. But the pallets could still be or not be always on. As we base all our tests on gross weight, they might as well be there. After all, we don't know the empty weight of the bird we are simulating in DCS

Just checked and indeed, adding the missiles only adds the missile weight to the total aircraft weight. But what if the palettes are considered on at all times? If an empty F-14A is 40100lbs and the one we have without fuel and internal ammo is 42086, that's about 2000lbs extra, right? Did those pallets weigh about 500lbs each? If so, it would account for the extra weight.

Tacview-20220618-201511-DCS-F-14 A high level clean EVAL.zip.acmi Tacview-20220618-202352-DCS-F-14 B high level clean EVAL.zip.acmi Tacview-20220618-203355-DCS-F-14 A high level clean EVAL no pylons on A.zip.acmi Removing the pylons is a purely cosmetic act in DCS on the F-14. The test starting conditions: -36000ft; -mach 0.75; -full internal fuel no external stores; Both A and B were tested. The A was tested with and without what the mission editor call pylons but are actually IIRC Phoenix palettes. Neither the plane mass/weight nor its drag changes due to their presence or absence. In both scenarios the A reached mach 2.31 under standard conditions until reaching the bingo state of 4000lbs. The B got to about mach 2.14. My guess is that the palettes in the F-14 are either always present or added to the missiles when those are mounted. Both drag and mass wise. As for the OP, if mach 2.31 is what we can reach with the shoulder pylons on and with tank stubs, then (palettes or not) i can easily see how a completely clean F-14A could get up to mach 2.34 or possibly even more. One question still stands though....... are the palettes always added to the plane, or are they added to the missiles? EDIT: screenshots and tacview files attached

Call and wait for backup if AWACS or radar reveals you are badly outnumbered? Or change the ROE if you suspect forward quarter capabilities by the bandits/bogies?

All the tests are performed in the latest open beta. The original tracks from the previous version and the mission are attached on a post in the Phoenix goes vertical (or to space) or something like that (a paraphrase) topic. In short, the shots are meant to recreate the 6 on 6 firing test. Not gonna go into the details of the test as they are already mentioned twice in the previous posts and the tracks are available for all to see. Link to original post:

As i guess your question is meant to be in context of the game and not real life: - The Phoenix is big and heavy, the more you carry, the more they will impact your performance; - The Phoenix is fire and forget at ranges you would usually launch a killing Sparrow; - The Phoenix is mush faster, longer ranged and has a longer burn time then the Sparrow. With the above 3 in mind, one has to look at the costs and benefits when planning their loadout. An example, do you plan, expect or want to be ready to enter a merge during your mission? Then you want to have no more then 2 Phoenix missiles on you when you do. Which means if you had 6 to start with, you better got 4 of them launched before you start to turn and burn with the bandits. In such a scenario 4 or maybe only 2 Phoenixes may be preferred. Why taking Sparrows at all? While the Sparrow isn't as fast and long reached as a Phoenix, plus it requires support all the way in, it still covers a nice range between a very close range Sidewinder and not so very close range Phoenix. Also, the Sparrows are hardly a hinderance in a merge, so having 2 or 4 of them still around, might even be helpful. They after all have longer range then Sidewinders and are much more lethal. So what should you bring with you? That is entirely on what you want to do with what you have. If you are a dedicated "sheep herder" on a typical air-quake server, you might have no use for a Sparrow after all. At altitudes these folks like to hang around, your Sparrows will hardly hit anything past 5 miles, and supporting shots from that range will often get you killed in neutral scenarios. A phoenix fired at 10 miles on the other hand, is fire and forget, something that in the old era was called SPAMRAAM, because the AMRAAM was the only missile that could be used this way. So if air-quake is your think, knock yourself out and don't take Sparrows. Does that mean you should bring 6 Phoenixes with you? Most folk in this demographics did, i guess because they didn't feel like landing to rearm after 2 or 4 shots. It's up to you. In a more serious environment however, with more structured missions and goals, the Sparrow can be a valuable tool for the reasons mentioned above. Hope this helps! Cheers and clear skies!