captain_dalan

Thanks for the info!

Aye, you got that right

Wait guys, i need to make some popcorn!

Don't forget the pigeon!

Sorry to be this late for the conversation. You probably got most of the answers already. I'd just like to add a few thoughts of my own if you don't mind. Regarding face-shooters IRL, as much as i know, pretty much everything mentioned above isn't really F-14 specific. It was one of the conclusions of the AIM/ACEVAL that once forward quarter capability is brought to the merge, statistically speaking, the kill ratio tends to gravitate toward 1:1 long term, regardless of the plane capabilities. That is, the capability of the weapon system becomes the primary factor, not the plane you are in. Hence the above mentioned, you don't merge with a bandit you suspect can shoot you in the face. You shoot them in the face. Or if you must merge, you do so from some position of advantage. If however, you were referring to fighting HOBS capable missiles in DCS, yeah, there are ways to counter them. This usually involves fighting the kinetics, the sensors and the guy flying the other plane. For obvious reasons, i would not discuss them here.

That does look rather close to the photos. Did it change over time?

I've been using them as well, back in the day when i was writing some flight models. And yeah, we usually didn't let planes fly pass their stall speeds. The good thing is, the latest newsletter from ED mentions the ne FM treatment for AI's. And it looks great. I have high hopes.

Good to see i'm not the only one. I have no issue with them going vertical, my issue is with them not being pure ballistic at sub stall speeds.....unless they were updated with maneuvering thrusters

Went to my DB and found these 3, that should be representative of the high-viz schemes for the early 213s. First one is Kittyhawk 1977-1979, second is America 1979-1981 and the last one is Enterprise 1982-1984. There doesn't seem to be any difference between the color palette used in this period, at least for standard birds. The one with the Varks (1984) appears to be the latest photo i could find with this scheme. They probably transitioned to the low-viz schemes shortly afterward. 1280px-F-14A_Tomcats_on_USS_Enterprise_(CVN-65)_1984.jfif

Yeah, i know, pure lookup tables. I just never noticed behavior this extreme before. Gives a whole new meaning to the term UFO

Wishlist: Anyone willing to tackle the VX-4 Ferris variant used during the AIM/ACEVAl in the late 70's and early 80's? It would be much appreciated!

Ooh, just what i needed! With shiny helmets as well! Thanks! Question: Shouldn't the blue rudders be less indigo and more ultramarine-lapis?

Maybe this should be merged with other AI threads, but i couldn't really find one that addresses this issue exactly. It is related with the recent under the hood changes in AI behavior. I've noticed that in some training missions, at times the AI will abandon its long standing tactics of vertical loops and instead try to go pure vertical, stall you out and then do a hammerhead on you.......which is great! What isn't so great though, is that it seems the AI never stalls out or departs for that matter. Namely i can go along with an F-16 hanging on its tail at 50 knots and not falling out of the sky, after all, it does have a T/W ratio greater then one at some altitudes. What i find puzzling is how is that plane perfectly controllable with so little 'wind' over its aerodynamic surfaces . So i did make several tests and i could see that thing make controlled over the top maneuvers with as little as 30-something knots.... Here's a snapshot of the lowest i've seen yet. It appears that there is no limit as to how low the AI wants to get. It will get as low as possible until it is you that has departed or stalled out. Anyone else noticed this as well? Is this working as intended? Or is it WIP? Cheers everyone!

Alas, i've lived to see the day when a GS video will be considered a yard-stick by which airplane performance will be measured.....i dread to think what comes next? Maybe the Nobel prize committee will give me a personal call to tell them who the next recipient should be?

That would have been my next question.... Thanks mate, i appreciate it. I'll drop you a line the next time i plan to dedicate some free time to DCS. Cheers!

My thoughts on your methodology of testing. There are some pitfalls in the relative comparison tests, especially when based on interpretative indicators. For one, we often test a plane for a given configuration. Say clean with 50% internal fuel. Why? Because it's the configuration we fight in on most dogfighting servers. But, when we use this to reference the difference in performance between two planes mentioned in this or that source, is this comparison valid? How often would a Viper or Bug fight without any pylons? Or tanks? How often would both be at 50% fuel states? Isn't most of the training done based on bingo states and time over target? When dealing with such situational contexts, choosing an arbitrary state of evaluation may lead to skewed data samples and conclusions. I.E. it might not be the planes that perform different then they should, but the mission. To counter the above mentioned issue, IMO a much better choice is to test the actual performance data. Yes, i agree, STR in ITR is not always enough. You need the portions above and bellow the state of equilibrium to make sure the plane performs as it should. That is bleed rates and recovery rates. And you have made some attempts of doing this. But again, the choice for the test initial states is rather arbitrary. For one, just pulling on the stick and bleeding to 250 knots may be beneficial for some planes, but not so for others. And for the other, configurations (externals, dirty wings etc) must be take into account. Now as much as i'm aware, there are two ways to test a planes' performance based on performance manuals. If the STR's match, then you need to test climbs, dives, glides and acceleration rates with PRECISE climb and acceleration profiles described in the manuals. IF these numbers match, that the plane is probably very close to what it should be. That's the first way. The second is closer to what are attempting. But it much more tedious and harder to pull (personally i can't do it, i'm not that good of a pilot and i have tried). Namely, you need to take a page of the performance manual with the E-M chart of the state that you are testing. Find the starting condition for that test. Say (purely hypothetical) 450 knots, 10000ft, drag index 0, total weight <some number here>. 1. Now, step one. You want to see how much you bleed at full AB. Find the -200f/s curve. See how much g you need to pull to bleed this much. What does 200ft/s bleed mean? It means you either need to: -lose 200ft of altitude every second to maintain your g at this (450 knots) speed; -alternatively lose this much speed in a level turn (a bit less then 120 knots) every second. Both can be hard to do. This is transient performance. Bu definition it can't be sustained as the conditions change during the test. If say, you can sustain 6g at 450, but pull 7g to bleed 200ft/s, then after 1s of doing this, you are either at 370 knots of airspeed and at 10000ft or at 450knots but at 9800ft. So you have to either decrease g as you bleed to stay on the -200ft/s "curve" or maintain constant descent as you dive. Whichever you chose, your runs can't be longer then a second or two, as the longer you change your state, more irrelevant you data will be. 2. Step two, find the -400ft/s and do the same. Then the -600, -800 and so on. 3. After testing the bleed rates, it's time to test the recovery rates. Now find the 200ft/s curve. This means that your plane will need to either climb at a constant rate of 200ft/s or gain speed (roughly 120 knots every second) when under the said g-load. 4. repeat the same tests for other recovery rates available in the charts. And, of course, the final problem is chart availability. For the F-14 and the F-16, such detailed charts can be acquired. For the other planes, not so much. Not even for the F-15 do we have them. The F-18 is even more elusive as we lack even STR's for it. But in the end, it's the only way to have a relevant test result. You can't just pull on the stick and say, this feels wrong. Feels play no part here. This is a computer game from a sim genre. The only measure we have is performance values (that are often approximations themselves) and the input of people that flew them to cover the grey areas. Hope this helps and sorry for the long post! EDIT: nearly forgot, because your runs must be so short, in order to minimize the room for error, you gonna have to reset and do them over and over again, and then average out the results

To the OP: First, a big disclaimer, i only do A-A. Second, in MP i generally have one main mount and fly other planes just in simplified scenarios, like say dogfighting, aerobatics, basic around the boat ops That being said: I am of the mind that inferior planes, make for better pilots. As a result i usually fly the F-14A. So when i jump into the F-14B (as i did last weekend) or the F-18, i'm like.....whoa, you guys fly this? And complain you have it hard? And then i'm like "look ma', no hands!" Like seriously, if you can fly a Spitfire, or an Alpha Turkey, everything else is, well.....easy. Cheat mode. Just before that last MP session last weekend, i was flying the Zone 5 campaign. And i was feeling especially proud of how the hop went. I was managing burner extremely conservatively to conserve fuel, i never pulled more then 6g's and i ended up splashing 3 F-16's while my wingmen and the other section scored another 4 F-5's. And this was in a 3 V UNK, as we lost one to the SAM's on our way in. I'm just used to flying with restrictions now. Pull to hard and your radar/ins brakes. Above angels 20, your engines are loud......and you fall out of the sky. And then i hop in the F-14B and the F-18C for the MP session (i was forced, the server didn't have F-14A slots) and i'm like, you guys launch in mil? You can climb to 35kft without burner. You kick the throttle and your plane just accelerates? (for the Hornet) you guys have all that info on your HUD? You don't need rudder to stay coordinated or flip a wing in a hard break? Man this is lazy flying! Now i if we need into systems management, yeah, i can see the issues. Stores management, sensor management and sheer ordnance options related to modern planes like the Viper and the Bug is intimidating. I can only guess it is so with the A-10 as well. I've dealt with it by staying away from it, but that isn't really a solution. The only plane i was half-proficient in A-G was in the Harrier, but that plane changed so much in the last couple of years, i no longer have that wither. And time is sparse, so i can't requal that easy or quickly. For guys with limited time on their hands like me, i guess, more then 2 planes to be fully proficient in (systems wise) is hard to accomplish. But just flying the thing and A-A? Learn the hardest and everything else will be easy in comparison!

1. First thing first, to get this right out of the way, that is just wishful thinking for many of us. I fly seldom and in erratic time intervals. When i do fly and it's not SP, it's usually with one of two other guys, that just don't want to fly the F-14 for whatever reason (it's their reason, so i'm not going into why), they are Viper drivers. On occasion i fly with 3 other mates (but never more then 3 of us at the time), one of them is again, a VIper driver, and the other 2, FC3 drivers. You see mate, i can only be RIO in SP at times. We are all middle aged people with obligations on all fronts. We are lucky if get a MP session twice a month. 2. Now, the crux of the matter. For me, the greatest current issue with Jester doesn't come from lone-wolf-ing mate. In fact, 3 times out of 4, a good pre-joust setup, both in SP and MP is enough to solve most Jester limitations. My problems arise from flying in a group. Essentially every session i find myself in a situation where me and a human wingman perform an intercept in a 2 V UNK scenario. These generally turn out to be 2 V 2 or 2 V 3. What we would like to do most of the time, is sanitize the airspace in such a way, that one of us would engage the left bandit, while the other would engage the right one, and even more often, one would engage the closer one while the other the trailer. As an F-14 driver, i would be the logical choice to engage the farther target. I can't. My WCS always prioritizes the closest target. I can't chose to engage the higher or the lower target. I am always constrained with what the radar choses. And my wingman has to go for the other one. However, that other one, is less then optimal. Vipers and Eagles don't have our sticks. Finally, we can't sort left or right. Once the WCS builds its track, it will center the cone on it's primary target/group and again, my wingman has no choice but to always go for the other, even when this is not required or desired. Don't get me wrong, is the F-14 unplayable as a result? Heck no. Even if you guys don't do anything to improve the situation, the F-14 is good enough as is, as far as RIO AI is. But it does limit tactical use severely, because i don't think that Jester can communicate and coordinate with other planes, no matter how clever he is. Certainly nor with humans, and very likely not with other AI. In SP, i can direct the other AI to attack specific targets, but in MP, not so much and not without a cost. And the most direct and straight-forward solution would be: 3. This. This solves all conundrums and solves many of the hiccups other people are having. No matter how clever he is, Jester just can't know what's going on on radio. By radio here of course, i mean player radio, SRS or Discord or whatever. I could see him receiving info from comms menu while i delegate the AI wingman/men, but speech recognition? That's just wishful thinking again. 4. On this topic, i would LOVE for a backseater to tell me go right, or drop nose, or guide me to an intercept. But that's just too much to expect. Even if doable, i don't think it's fair to have such expectations from Jester. On the other hand, if i look at a portion of the sky, a portion Jester can see a well, and i see contrails there, why shouldn't i be able to say to Jester, point the radar there? Or point the TCS there? And if out of bounds for either, then i don't have issues with the dreaded UNABLE! 5. What the LANTIRN did however, was showed us just that. He can point a sensor in a desired direction. He can make small adjustments left or right, high or low. That is often just what we need. For sanitizing and for engagement. If i can scan just forward and left, that leaves forward and right for the wingman. Same goes for all of the above gripes. Well, enough of my rant. Sorry for the long post, i'm not around here as much as i'd like to be, so things i like to talk about, tend to pile up Cheers and keep up the good work!

Pure perfection, as always! What about the other variants you mention in your video on Youtube? Are those published as well?

Doesn't DCS allow it?

Teaser!

Nah, it's not you, i was trying to be politically correct to an extent that i worded my statement way too ambiguously. What i meant is, most of us DCS users, wouldn't get pass ground school, let alone be allowed in a jet trainer. And yet, when we read some article or an interview out there, we expect to be able to replicate the outcome of the content of said interview/article ourselves in the sim. In the case of ACM, let's say there is a wide consensus on what the "best" or at the very least "better" fighter is out there. Then based on that consensus, the average user will grab that module and expect to be better then the opposition by default. In what way is our AC better? What rules of engagement are in place? What tactics are being used? What configurations are being loaded? What fuel states? Who are we fighting? The short answer to all these questions is: "don' kno', don' care". And when i lose i fight, it wasn't because a screwed up and keep screwing up, but it's because the jet isn't properly modelled. Either mine or the bandit's, or most likely both. And yet, you go to a random open server, and what do you see? Paint scrappers and bird watchers. If only they had the foresight to ask their "pilot friends" how many fought DACT at treetop level and how often. And that's just the start. I am willing to bet an "internal organ" that 3 out of 4 people that read Boyd don't really understand energy maneuverability. And i think i'm being generous here. But, it's a game, and people need their ego fix, so they come here with their gaming mentality of nerfing and OP-ing, because let's face it, it's much easier and more FUN to do that, then actually learn how to properly fly your jet EDIT: oh, if you meant my use of barrier of entry, i meant that some planes don't suffer fools. And bad flying will kill you in them. I mean the plane will kill you, no need for bandits. These are mostly warbirds, and people being good in warbird flying are IMO much better on average then the rest of the community. For the record i neither am nor consider myself to be one of them. The modern FBW jets have no such barriers. Therefore people don't need to "get good" before they think they are proficient enough in their plane of choice.

And they(ace) tend to stay at higher alpha for longer. Yeah, that makes sense and would actually explain why in a protracted fight, the veteran would win after the ace has bleed itself dry. What people are referring to is their own inaptitude. Unlike RL there are no barriers of entry for most planes in DCS, so unless the plane is actively trying to kill you, virtually everyone and their pet can grab a HOTAS and dub themselves pilots or what not. They they go online, meet someone in a machine that has a barrier of entry, and suddenly it's the machine's fault they get shot down.

Mostly ego clashes. And certainly not worth the bother. For one the FM isn't final and also the differences are minuscule if any. Certainly beyond the threshold of detection except for the most die hard of fans to look for them. And even then, when compared with the accuracy of the chart, they could easily be attributed to statistical variation.