BlackLion213

Thank you for the information. That was exactly what I needed, especially the option to create it in the mission editor (even if laborious). I appreciate the help! -Nick

Yes, what we really want is a mobile FLOLS so that we can practice FCLP. Plus, as you said, catching a wire isn't a challenge on a runway (you can simply roll into them), but touching down in the perfect location for a 3-wire takes a lot of practice - especially in the Tomcat. Laughlin airport in the NTTR is probably the best FCLP option in NTTR (closest to sea level at 700'). It also is roughly the same distance from Nellis as El Centro is from Miramar. Hopefully this will be an option for learning the pattern and learning to fly the ball. It would make the next step easier. :thumbup: -Nick

Hello, I've read that the northern Caucasus was (or still is?) an important region for Soviet/Russian oil production dating back to the early 20th century. Are there any oil refineries or large oil storage areas on the map? Is it possible to create something like it using the mission editor? Thank you for the help. :) -Nick

Thats funny....I thought so too. :D Here is that section on trimming FWind: -Nick

It must have some limitations. The flight characteristics section of the NATOPS manual states that max power acceleration runs require continuous trimming to maintain neutral stick position. It also states that neutral trim is hard to achieve at speeds where the wings will sweep and expect to make a trim change with any power setting changes. Sounds like it needs plenty of manual trimming. I'll try to post a page on this topic from the manual tonight. If you have the manual, go to section 11.3.7 and it details these characteristics. -Nick

The pitch trim compensator in the F-15 manages the aircraft's trim at all airspeeds and really reduces the number of trim inputs needed during normal flight (I barely need to trim the F-15C when I fly it). The mach trim system in the F-14 only activates during transonic and supersonic flight. It does reduce the degree of trim inputs required to maintain level flight, but does not fully trim the aircraft (which depends on load and configuration of the aircraft). F-14s have a lot of mach tuck at transonic/supersonic speeds so this reduces the amount of trim required. There also an Integrated Trim System that provides automatic trimming of the aircraft during flap extension/retraction and speedbrake deployment, but it only functions during these activities and does not provide aircraft trim changes during normal flight. Overall, the F-14 is a manually trimmed aircraft that has a few functions to help during events known to cause major pitch/trim changes (transonic flight and flap/speedbrake operations). The F-15C's pitch trim compensator provides automatic trim changes throughout the flight regime and minimizes the need for pilot trim inputs. At least this is how I understand it...:music_whistling: -Nick

I'm not totally sure. Both pilot and RIO can dispense chaff and flares manually (pilot uses the DLC activation button on the side of the control stick), but there are also automatic dispense modes that the RIO can select. Plus the F-14A/B has the ALQ-100 or ALQ-126 (depending on block or upgrade status) internal ECM system which is primarily managed by the RIO IIRC. -Nick

The F-14 had very analog controls and its SAS system was much more basic than the F-15C's CAS system. The SAS system could only reduce the magnitude or rate of an input, but could not add inputs (like rudder inputs in place of ailerons at high AOA in the F-15). Flying the F-14 should feel quite analog and comparable to the F-5E in terms of assist. The CAS system in the A-10C and F-15C are more sophisticated than that of the Tomcat. It also did not have a pitch trim compensator so expect to trim the aircraft with any significant change in airspeed or change in wing sweep (such as manual sweep changes). Also, the Tomcat could be quite a handful at low speeds and in the approach configuration. The airframe had tons of lift and a tendency to float. Dutch roll was also quite prominent as were difficulties with precise lateral control. Pitch response in the F-14 was also a bit slower than other 4th gen fighters - the Tomcat's pitch rate was excellent, but the response was a bit slow and imprecise at times. This something that would be noticed during tasks aerial refueling or carrier approaches. Later in life (late-90s) the Tomcat received the DFCS upgrade that greatly enhanced SAS functionality and brought the system close to the CAS in the F-15C. It solved a lot of the low speed handling issues and improved responsiveness throughout the flight envelope. The Heatblur F-14 will have the regular AFCS/SAS system, not DFCS. Well said. From what I can tell, the first F-14 deployment with A-G capability was 1991 aboard USS Nimitz with VF-211 and VF-24 flying F-14Bs (just redesignated from the original F-14A+ moniker). These F-14Bs were fitted with the BRU-32 bomb racks allowing them to carry iron bombs (Mk 82-84) and cluster bombs. However, this upgrade didn't mean much operationally with every airwing still deploying with the mighty A-6E. By 1992-93, every F-14 squadron would gain A-G capability, but only unguided bombs (no rockets or A-G missiles) delivered via CCIP. (Heatblur's F-14B will be more or less like the VF-211/VF-24 deployment in 1991) It wasn't till 1996 that the F-14B first deployed with LANTIRN (with the near simultaneous retirement of the A-6E) that it became a credible precision strike platform. By 1998, all F-14 squadrons (A/B/D) had acquired LANTIRN and the PTID to become what most consider the "Bombcat". As near blind said, it was a progressive process and Tomcats were dropping bombs 5 years before LANTIRN, but wasn't until LANTIRN that the capability became relevant and essential for the airwing. Also as near blind said, all versions of the F-14 essentially had the same capability and received similar upgrades. There were a few exceptions: the "F-14B Upgrade" was an official USN designation that included a new databus in addition to PTID and LANTIRN that only the F-14B received (F-14Ds were built with a better system and the F-14As never received it). The F-14A never carried JDAMs, but I otherwise haven't found a difference in capability. Also, the F-14A never received the sparrowhawk HUD. This HUD was an attempt to bring F-14D levels of HUD functionality to the F-14B and was operational in the fleet around 2002 (though in development since ~1999). It was a very late upgrade for the F-14B and most equipped squadrons only went on 1-2 deployments with the new HUD. The Tomcat was a true "2-crew" aircraft and the pilot had nearly no control of the RADAR - the lone function was the boresight PLM radar mode for ACM. The pilot did have a repeater view of the TID displayed on the HSI screen while in A-A mode, but no true radar controls except the PLM button on the throttle. Otherwise, the RIO essential for all other radar tasks. Having Jester AI work properly will be critical for good F-14 gameplay. Having tried with the AS F-14, jumping back and forth between seats (given the manual and involving nature of both flight and radar operations) won't be viable IMHO. A human would be best of course, but the radar will probably take some effort to learn compared to other DCS modules (again, very analog). RIOs also handled navigation, countermeasures, commanded most BVR engagements, and handled comms. All INS controls are in the RIO cockpit for example, though the pilot does have control of TACAN and can change loaded INS waypoints (from what I can tell). Hope this helps answer your questions. -Nick

The new lighting is very complimentary to the AV-8B cockpit - gorgeous! Thank you for sharing and good luck with the FM tweaking. :thumbup: -Nick

In fairness to both sides of the debate, a video of an ACLS approach in dense fog is probably not the best video for judging carrier and ball visibility. -Nick

Even with placeholder artwork/effects, it looks absolutely awesome! Thank you for sharing and things seem to be coming along very nicely! :thumbup: -Nick

I have only seen videos, but it looks to me like the Spitfire looks very right while some of the older cockpits (like the P-51D) are more likely to look washed out. Perhaps the newer aircraft have textures that are better optimized to the new lighting system. Maybe the newer textures reflect less too - different specularity or something like that? Just my 2 cents. :) -Nick

The AIM-54 and AWG-9 were both fairly susceptible to notching and ground clutter, consistent with an earlier generation RADAR with analog signal processing. Also, the AIM-54 does not necessarily use a lofting flight profile, that is just for long-range shots. When engaging fighters, AIM-54 shots were expected to take place at more of a medium range (figure ~30 nm), which isn't medium range for other available missiles. :) These medium range shots would have a direct flight profile like this: It is hard to know how the AIM-54 will do against fighters, we'll have to see how things shake out once the F-14 is released. That said, it does have some tricks up it sleeves. People tend to think about the range, but the real asset is the fact that it is one of very few ARH missiles in DCS. It also has a warhead larger than that of a SA-6 SAM, excellent ECM resistance in the AIM-54C, and novel guidance techniques - namely datalink guidance or boresight launches at ~10+ nm (so no AWG-9 emissions or launch warnings). It will be interesting to see how it all works about. :) -Nick

I'm not sure if the statement concerning NVGs still applies. The F-14 fleet received NVG compatible instrument lighting as part of the LANTIRN upgrade in the mid-late 90s. Since the current goal seems to be oriented towards the initial configuration of the F-14A+/B (~1988-1994), it probably shouldn't be NVG compatible. That might be more of a feature for the "next step in the F-14 journey" that Cobra referred to. Just my 2 cents. :) -Nick

Great stuff Captain! It is interesting to know that the skill of the AI only seems to effect aircraft handling instead of a change in tactics. -Nick

Post a pic in this FB thread: https://www.facebook.com/RazbamSims/ Here is a pic if you need one (of a line bird). Also, you have a leg-up - almost everyone has posted a picture of an AV-8B Plus! :P -Nick PS - Q3?!! That is quite soon. Keep it coming! :D

Of the many things coming to DCS, I am most excited about the inbound USN aircraft (Tomcat and Hornet) with the Strait of Hormuz map. I wanted to make a request for consideration that would expand some operational opportunities for the map. Currently, there are few opportunities for open ocean operations in DCS. The Black Sea has a very large area of water (and a huge low detail area that includes the entire Black Sea and that I am thankful for), but is not an area that US CV's can legally operate (barring exceptional circumstances) or would wish to commonly enter. The Northern Arabian Sea was an area that the USN spent a lot of time. The current chart map posted on the Battle Simulator (I realize that the actual map may be much smaller, even with the low detail area) offers a really promising scope for CV operations. However, including part of the Northern Arabian Sea would really open up some additional opportunities to simulate some of the routine carrier ops in addition to SoH combat ops or patrols. CVBGs operating in the region would often move in and out of the Gulf of Oman and operating east of Masirah was very common. The coastline could be very low detail (like the current Black Sea map) and still serve the player very well. Also, I was very excited to see Southern England added to the Normandy map as a less detailed, but still excellent looking area. A similar opportunity would exist with Masirah island - it was a common divert base for carriers operating in the region and frequently hosted US units stationed in the region. The island is pretty sparse and would be a great place for an airfield surrounded by some detail (few neighborhoods and small infrastructure, etc), but would still work well with a medium or low detail shoreline 10 nm away. It would not seem low detail if created this way, like Southern England. Also, because it is a isolated island, it would lessen the feature creep of modeling more of the eastern Omani coast. This would require a large low detail area off Oman, that is even larger than what is depicted in the chart map, but would also make the map a truly flexible CV play ground. Allowing for things like intercepts of patrolling Soviet Bears and shadowing vessels, which is not so likely in the Gulf of Oman. The island may be to far south or involve too much work, but I figure it's worth a mention. In any case, I will truly enjoy this coming map and thank you for the opportunity to post suggestions. -Nick

How are things running in VR? Are the visual improvements (lighting, etc) also quite noticeable with VR? -Nick

I meant for single-engine Navy aircraft. :) Many F-14As have landed aboard ship with one engine (wasn't a rare failure, but not common either) along with scores of other twin engine Navy airplanes. For the USN, twin engine is the better way to go if you have a choice, but I don't think that single engine aircraft should be excluded from the naval environment (and they haven't). I'll clarify my above post. -Nick

Indeed, the Navy has fielded many single-engine aircraft, including the A-7 that the F/A-18 replaced. Twin engine is a nice feature for Navy aircraft, namely because emergency landings for engine failure is not as readily available as it is for the USAF. Viper pilots spend a fair bit of time practicing engine-out emergencies, but USN aircraft have to contend with an airfield that is often unavailable (deck needs to be respotted, delayed or behind schedule launch, carrier needs WOD, but is running out of operating area) and CV aircraft have a draggy approach config that really does not facilitate a engine-out approach. For single-engine Navy aircraft, engine failure means ejection, no other options are viable. But there are other reasons that the F-16 was not a great choice for the USN, even if it is perhaps the best combination of capability, cost, and flexibility of any fighter available today (IMHO). First, the single-engine nature was probably a deal breaker, but do to inadequate thrust with a single engine once the airframe was scaled up to USN requirements. The F-16A that the USN would be looking at had 23,000 lbs of thrust from a single engine - which was one of the most powerful military turbofans available. The Navy would need 30,000+ and no powerplant existed. The Navy already learned their lesson with Westinghouse and building aircraft around "expected" engine performance. Most USN aircraft carry a 25-30% dry weight penalty compared to similar land-based aircraft. This is a combination of chassis reinforcements, larger/higher-lift wings, heavy lift gear (flaps/slats), very robust landing gear, etc. So getting enough thrust probably compelled designers to choose twin engines, especially since the Navy likes twin engine designs for safety. Plus, there is more growth potential in a twin engine design for increasing thrust - it may not seem like it in an era where the F-35 has a 43,000 lb engine, but things were different once. Also, the original F-16 was a really simple aircraft from a weapons stand-point. Only IR missiles and iron bombs, the Navy needed to replace a light attack aircraft with a much broader scope of capability than the original F-16. So choosing the YF-17, which was already the larger of the two options, seemed logical when you have to put a bunch of equipment onboard (original F-16A was 16,000 lbs while the YF-17 was 21,000 lbs). In fact, the Hornet would grow another 10% while becoming an operational fighter (even while forgetting about little things...like fuel:)). The F-16 would grow to have a very wide variety of sensors and capabilities (thanks to technology and miniaturization), but it probably looked like a higher risk program in the late-70s. The Hornet has a lot more room for growth and equipment. In the F-16, the pilot doesn't even fit without leaning back the seat to 30 deg (vs ~12 for most aircraft). I know that General Dynamics claims it helps G-forces, but this is probably isn't meaningful and not other aircraft has made similar choices. Plus, most Viper pilots complain about having to lean forward to look around, it is not a loved feature of the aircraft. Perhaps the F-16 could have been navalized, but by the time the airframes is reinforced, larger wings are added, and room for more equipment, and likely twin engines to keep a reasonably comparable T/W ratio - it would have been a totally new aircraft and probably would have looked and operated like the Hornet. -Nick

Do you know what "Cockpit Global Illumination" means? Is this the option to retain cockpit shadows while turning off exterior shadows (or flat shadows)? -Nick

Well, I have a bit of a bias towards a particular squadron....:music_whistling: That issue aside, I think that Heatblur should focus on squadrons that served on the Forrestal class ships during the timeframe for the initial release (mid-80s to early-90s). USS Forestal: VF-11 and VF-31 (F-14A) USS Saratoga: VF-74 and VF-103 (F-14A+/B) USS Ranger: VF-1 and VF-2 (F-14A) USS Independence: VF-21 and VF-154 (F-14A) This would nicely align their carriers with available skins IMHO. However, they have already said that they plan a wide-variety of skins covering a wide timeframe beyond that of the initial release (so probably schemes ranging from the 1970s to 2000s). Also, they are planning around 20 skins for the initial release (post from a while ago), but they expect that more will be available later. The Tomcat wore a lot of markings and schemes over the years, so Heatblur has a lot of variety to choose from. :) -Nick

What else can I say? :D https://www.facebook.com/heatblur/?hc_ref=PAGES_TIMELINE Absolutely amazing stuff here! -Nick

WOW! Looks great! :) Lighting does seem different to me....but it could be placebo effect or the fact that I am seeing brief glimpses. But all the recent Wags streams/videos have been with the new lighting system and it looks like the screenshots. I bet it is the new one. :) -Nick

Have you tried it with the CV1 yet? These screenshots look awesome. With the lighting improvements it looks to be every much as big of an upgrade as DCS1.2 to 1.5. Thank you for sharing the early look! :) -Nick