captain_dalan

That's a strawman right there. Not dying when you lose in a game is no base for arguing against dying in games. Or trying to implement more authentic-realistic rulesets in game design when such design is called for You mean like every time i take an AI F-14 with me and he refuses to engage with his 54s at any meaningful range? Or when he runs out of fuel during the ingress? Welcome to the reality of SP that has been broken as long as the MP has, if not longer. Yet we still do SP (some of us, though in my case not exclusively) and soldier on waiting just like everyone else for bugs to be fixed or features implemented.

That's only been around since the 2.7 though. Like i said, war has become sport. For better or for worse. And with it, come terms like fair-play, buff, nerf, balance.......

So noted. And as mentioned by others before, sometimes the missile does guide and hit and other times it doesn't. My question: Should the TTI symbology remain the same? As in the numbers counting down to impact and flashing when the missile does go active? Cause right now the numbers never flash when missile is guided on a held track. Even when they hit.

Also, let's not forget two other things: 1. We are talking about the plane and the team that first incorporated jetwash, AI RIO and carrier burble effects in DCS. So just the level of innovation is something to be considered; 2. We are also talking about one of the most famous/infamous (depends on how much of an aviation hipster you like to feel you are) in history and thanks to it's public exposure by the media, almost a global phenomenon. Thus the demand is high. And as you know, if the demands goes up, so do the dollars.

Also, maneuver flaps will retract on their own when certain alpha and/or airspeed are reached.

Awesome! I guess some filling of educational holes is in order! Thanks mate

The amount of g's you pull before the wings fall off will never be the same. EDIT: just watched you video. You are way too slow to sustain those high g's for any meaningful period of time. Your excursions into 12+g as transient at best.

Awesome footage!

Yeah, but you won't be going much past 1.4 if that at 5000ft.... As for the 2nd part, this is how i assumed they worked, by unloading the tail. But the charts don't seam to show it. Well, moving the center of lift further forward would make the plane less stable in the pitch.

I don't think a sustained turns performance above a few g's is possible, glove vanes or not. At least not according to the V-N diagrams XI-9-5 and XI-9-6. I don't see how you can turn 4g at 25kft and just tad bellow 3g at 35kft (between mach 1.3 and 1.7) into 7+g. But then again, as @Quid mentioned, we don't see the available lift drop either, so once it reaches the structural limits (in these charts around 7g) it never falls back.

Ah, thanks for the input everyone!

There's also VR and 1000's of $ worth of GPU's. Wish i could afford them. Or that someone would even sell them where i come from....

I've never done a speed run in the F-14 actually, and since i've been flying the A exclusively after it came out, i never ran an intercept faster then mach 1.2 or so. Recently, in a now closed topic, the role of the glove vanes was mentioned and how they helped by adding lift and reducing stability at high mach numbers, allowing the jet do do 7.5g turns at mach 1.4+. If i understood the discussion correct, this means that without them, at say mach 1.6, no matter how hard we pull on the stick, the tail just can't generate enough down force-pitch authority to allow for 7+g's to be generated in a turn. Is this stick-stab deflection behavior actually simulated in the current implementation? I would test, but unfortunately i'm not likely to get any sim time in the next few days...... Cheers!

Damn....now that's how you spoil your customers! Should have went with the "If i push her any harder, she'll blow up captain"!

Here's some of my recordings, not great examples of CASE I's (because i suck) but half decent burble handling IMO, including an example of what happens when you DON'T handle it properly. Used Bankler's mission for this one.

It's not just the cinematic effect, it's the feedback required to know your power setting during "nose-out-of-the-cockpit" flying situations. Just like the flutter, rattle and clicky sounds. I know many people don't care about BFM and edge of the envelope aerobatics, but without any tactile feedback it's almost impossible to max perform this machine.

What would be the unintended consequence of resolving this temporarily by making nose-on the default setting?

I kind of reported this a while back in form of a question if too much closure is a bad thing, as i noticed during some Instant Action missions, that i lose tracks when i fire missiles with too closure rates being too high (like scrambles and intercepts), which resulted in me dropping to high subsonic during most missile shots.

Quoted for truth...

You'll find many people around here not only don't share your opinion on this, but actually disagree with it.

Confirmed both SP and MP, the autopilot works as advertised.

In an even more odd case, i had the freeze with the compatibility mode on one time, but only one time, so it may have been a fluke.

MH worked on the previous patch, at least in SP. Haven't encountered any 24's in MP yet.

Actually he both didn't recognize the relation between Excess power at mach/alt and sustained turn rate AND incorrectly associated compressor stalls with g limits ON top of allowed g due to over stress. The future is indeed not bright with engineers like this

Good to know, thanks for the info!