BlackLion213

Taking pictures... :) TARPS does several good things for the F-14 module, though these benefits are largely confined to single player missions (my preference). It diversifies the F-14's mission set for campaigns and missions. It also requires a very different flight profile and utilizing unique avionics functionality for the pilot and RIO to stay on target. In many ways, recon missions are strike missions without secondaries. You still have to penetrate enemy air defenses and arrive over a target with the correct parameters to obtain the right photos. It is a great reason to fly low at Mach 1 and TARPS crews were quite proud of what they did. They also got to enjoy the much better performance of the F-14A at low altitudes, ACM hard decks limited appreciation of the low altitude power among regular Tomcat crews. Don't you want to photograph a Silkworm site while evading I-Hawks? :D The tactics and techniques are little removed from dropping bombs on them. It also is another skill to learn for the F-14 and will make things more interesting. Also, it's worth mentioning that signs point towards the initial release of the F-14A/B module to favor "mid-life" F-14 operations (~1985-1995). The announcement of the Forrestal class carrier for the F-14 reinforced this - nearly all of the Forrestal class carriers were out of service by 1994 with only Independence still operating (and never operated F-14Bs). This means that the classic F-14 mission of maritime air superiority with TARPS will be the primary mission with the recent addition of iron bomb capability. But I wouldn't discount the possibility of a LANTIRN/late-90s or early 2000s upgrade for the future. I can imagine an upgrade that creates two new versions for the F-14: F-14A LANTIRN and F-14B LANTIRN. This would mean cockpit upgrades/RIO MFD, 3D model upgrades, LANTIRN functionality, and possibly DFCS and/or the sparrowhawk HUD for the F-14B. This would be a great way to further expand the module while offering the classic F-14 for the initial release. The popularity of the DCS: F-14 will likely facilitate a lot of future add-ons and DLC for the module. I'm sure that different users have different hopes for the module, but it is already a monster project even without the features of its final decade. I'm very interested to see how things will grow in the future. -Nick

Not so, I have many potential uses for TARPS...(cue diabolical laugh). :D -Nick PS - TARPS is really good news!

Have you read the manual? There is no information concerning the radar, weapon systems, TCS, IRST, minimal details on the RWR, ECM, or countermeasures. Would it be a DCS level module without these features? That said, I think a F-14D module is likely doable if a F/A-18C module is under development, but it is way more work. From a programming standpoint, the avionics are all new and way more sophisticated than the F-14A/B. Also needs an all new cockpit, FM changes, new and much more complicated radar, and a host of other things. It would be a huge project, but if the DCS: F-14A/B does well then maybe Heatblur would consider it in a few years (if they can get the right info). -Nick

On a more serious note: This video is the perfect way to inaugurate the new Heatblur forum! :D It was awesome. Keep it coming and thank you for all the recent updates! Hopefully some shots of USS Ranger on the horizon? :music_whistling: As for this part: It's not crazy, I am more excited about the F-14A than the F-14B (though I plan to love them both!). The reasoning is simple: The F-14A was the F-14. It was the only model for the first ~15 years of operations and continued to be roughly half of the F-14 fleet through 2001. To understand the F-14 you need to understand the F-14A IMHO. Also, the F-14A was the model of the F-14's heyday. It was also the model of F-14 that I saw growing up. I want to know what it was like to fly her even of the F-14B performs better. Lastly, my favorite parts of DCS and flight sims is the basic stick and rudder stuff. The F-14A offers endless enjoyment because those aspects are challenging, but rewarding. In addition the difficult low speed handling of the F-14A/B with AFCS (especially in the approach configuration), the finicky engines add another layer of challenge and interest to handling the aircraft. I like aircraft that are hard to fly and reward the investment learning them. The F-14A epitomizes this IMHO. There are a very diverse set of interests in DCS and many people want different things, but these are mine and the F-14A fits them perfectly. :thumbup: -Nick

You don't like compressor stalls? WTH! Next are you going to tell me that also don't like traffic jams, burned toast, or syphilis? -Nick :megalol:

True, only a few years separated their manufacture start dates, but the F-14B is really just a re-engined F-14A so 20 years separates the avionics and weapons systems of the F-14D. It's also true that their were some other small additions to the F-14A+/B such as the new ALR-67 RWR, AFC731 (new gun vents for better sustained M61 operations), and the absence of wing gloves, but these were all things planned for the F-14A anyway. These changes were retrofitted to all F-14As in the early 90s and the F-14A and F-14B were pretty much feature aligned throughout their careers in the 90s and 2000s. Of course with the winking emoji this may be stuff that you are aware of....I'm never quite sure of what someone is saying when they use one...;) -Nick

Awesome! Thank you Captain Dalan! :D -Nick

Thank you renhanxue, that answers the question for me. :) The difference in DCS seems bigger than what I would expect from the description you posted. Also, when Hummingbird was posting in-game performance test results RagnarDa asked him to ensure that all tests were conducted with the fuel regulator set to manual. Maybe the current implementation gives more accurate performance with the system in manual? Well the Viggen can comfortably cruise up above 10,000 M in military power and climb in mil with the fuel regulator set to manual. In manual it is much closer to what I expected. In automatic, the max pressure ratio I can attain above 8,000 M is 1.7ish with max engine RPM in the mid 80s%. If I select manual mode the pressure ratio climbs to 2.2 and RPMs climb to about 95%. Down low the difference is minimal, but above ~6000 M it makes a big difference. Now I'm even more curious as to why. :) -Nick

So what is the purpose of the automatic fuel regulator on the Viggen? It seems to seriously reduce military thrust, especially at altitude. In fact, I can't maintain flight above ~7,500 M without turning it off (without afterburner of course). So what purpose does it serve since it seems to effectively "de-tune" the engine? Does it improve fuel economy? Help with engine preservation (reducing time between rebuilds)? Improve stability during throttle transients? I haven't seen anything in the manual explaining its purpose and I don't understand why Saab would intentionally reduce engine performance during normal operations. I really prefer flying with it in manual. Is there a benefit to leaving it on? Thank you for the insight! -Nick PS - It reminds me of the E60 BMW M5 where you have to select in iDrive if you want 400 bhp or 500 bhp....of course I want 500! :D

Perhaps, but odds are that it relates to issues beyond the module or DCS. Business partnerships are tough, especially as they grow larger (like 4 equal members). A group may form around a particular project, but it doesn't mean that they share common circumstances, views, or financial/lifestyle needs. Once a business starts to grow (or some members want it to grow), there can be hard decisions and a lot of stress created. Especially with issues like finances: how much net income should be re-invested vs taken as salary, what are reasonable risks for expected rewards, how much debt can be tolerated versus working capital kept on hand... These things can get intense when it is your livelihood. If someone feels that they are taking too much risk or taking risk for someone else's priorities; it gets uncomfortable and some may want out. Even when everyone agrees on a plan and it seems like a great way to go, living it can be very different than planning for it. Thats my guess, though our guesses hardly matter. :) -Nick

Thank you for the specifics Novak. It's very helpful! -Nick

Shouldn't have any effect on the DCS: F-14 - the F-14 team and Magnitude team haven't overlapped for a while. -Nick

Looks great. Thank you for the update! -Nick PS - finally changed that darned avatar...the tremendous appearance of grumpiness is the reason that every statement needed a smiley face. Much better now. :D

Best of luck with the new company and I'm very excited about the upcoming F4U-1D! -Nick

Whoa....good luck with the new business and congrats on assembling a big team (17!). :thumbup: Your new FB page looks great as well! -Nick

A lot of strong emotions swirling around this release and many different opinions. A detailed announcement like that of the Normandy map and the WWII asset pack is bound to deviate from some expectations. For me, I was pleasantly surprised since the variety of upcoming AI was FAR better than I expected. I figured that my Spitfire would be battling Doras and Kurfurst while teaming up with P-51Ds (and eventually P-47s), but thats about it. Instead I find that there will be excellent and diverse AI options for very complete missions in Normandy 1944. Others found out that things might be more expensive than expected and more complicated for the type of missions they prefer. There is no perfect solution for the future growth of DCS and every step will have pros and cons. The dissenters are a really good resource for poking holes in existing plans and revealing potential problems. This is a valuable perspective and they should speak up. However, some diplomacy goes a long way....but the potential problems should be voiced so that ED can consider the pros and cons of their chosen approach. This helps DCS to draw the middle ground between competing interests and perspectives. My personal belief is that more choices is better for DCS, but those choices should be packaged in a way that allows broad access. I do feel like many forum goers overlooked the fact that the bundled cost of the map and assets was more or less what was expected ($60) and focused too much on the option to separate them - which few are likely to do. But I think that much of it was a reaction to a possible future where everything is itemized. This seems really unlikely to me and I kind of doubt that ED will end the bundle for Normandy/assets anytime in the near future (IMHO). I think that mission designers will need to be more careful in the future, but the opportunity to really expand the AI library of DCS will have real benefits. Overall, I think the heated discussion is what you expect when different people with different interests, priorities, and finances talk about something important to them. No reason for hard feelings or surprises. :) -Nick

Thank you! I can hardly wait. :thumbup: -Nick

You have a good point MBot, but bundling of products can probably address most of this. Having units connected to a DLC campaign may raise the price some (like from $10-15 or 20), but still seems reasonable. But this new scheme also solves some issues. Currently, there is no way for a campaign creator to add units for their DLC campaign and recoup the development costs. Instead they need to do the work to add the units to DCS and hope that sales offset the time and cost. Say you wanted to make a new campaign for the F-14A and have it take place on USS Enterprise. You can only add CVN-65 to DCS, but can't charge for your effort and every player has access whether or not they supported the work. Starway faced a similar issue where he wanted to sell texture as DLC, but there was no mechanism or protection in DCS to support it. He worked around it, but I doubt others would try a similar approach. Now if someone wants to create a campaign with matching units they can do it and sell it - I think this new model will facilitate more projects like this. Seems like a good thing to me and the process will make more sense as more product come out. -Nick

The map looks awesome and so is the trailer. I am particularly impressed by the combination of the new lighting, water effect, and overcast/rain - looks beautiful! I was expecting the B-17G to be the only new AI with the rest of the action coming the existing DCS WWII birds - this list is a massive upgrade! It also addresses one of my long-term questions: how will the need for an ever-growing variety of AI for new modules be supported? With all of the new and diverse modules coming from ED and the 3rd parties, DCS will need a lot of new AI to offer a complete experience. This new form of DLC supports the creation instead of it being an after-thought (or development burden with an unclear ROI). The proliferation of high-quality DLC campaigns is a great example of how product diversity in DCS can really benefit players. Without DLC campaigns, players would be limited to the campaign that accompanies the module since there is no clear benefit to the devoted time and expense of creating a new one. It also opens the door for a new type of DLC developer to enter the fray or for certain 3rd parties to expand their product line - improving their financial viability and speeding development of future products. The variety of DCS AI mods speaks to the idea that many would be excited to create DLC by offering a product that is much smaller in scope and complexity than a Module or Map. It might also offer a means for a new developer to gain proficiency with the DCS development tools (3D modeling, SFM, ASM for AI) before taking on a project as huge as a new aircraft module. This may seem like a pretty optimistic view to some and I can understand others worrying about the need to buy something else. But the opportunity to have more content and make choices will lead to a much better sim than staying with limited content that is homogenous across all players. Thats my 2 cents. -Nick

Best guess is that it will be a "Q1" update like last year - so figure some time in April as a safe-ish bet. The Viggen paint kit is set for release later this week and there may be other things to do on the Viggen (like the in-cockpit pilot) that is occupying LNS' attention. Let's hope that next month is a good one for Tomcat updates. :) -Nick

I don't doubt your expertise on the matter and it seems that many of the F-14's maintenance challenges improved as Navy doctrine changed - at least in terms of mission readiness/availability. I also agree that many may not realize how much changed with the Hornet. As you pointed out, the Hornet actually left performance on the table in exchange for new benchmarks in reliability, a rather unprecedented move compared to prior Navy fighters. But with it, the Navy also accepted a lot of operational challenges and performance concessions. The Navy almost didn't accept the Hornet as it didn't meet minimum specifications for acceleration in the approach configuration. Not to mention the real limitations in combat radius. The Hornet was the airframe that compelled the Navy to adopt a policy of greater inter-service cooperation/dependence - since the Hornet could not meet many of its obligations without USAF refueling assets. It was funny that many Tomcat crews started their careers with the Tomcat being the fuel critical portion of the airwing only for it to have by far the longest legs by the end of its career....says a lot about the operational situation. -Nick PS - Nice bit of info!

[ I think we can reasonably guess that the EA-6B pilot's first cruise (when he made his Tomcat observations) was ~2000 based on a few bits of info. He described an Airwing with 2 F-14B squadrons, but no A-6E squadron (so after 1995). There was only one Airwing that operated two F-14B squadrons without an A-6E squadron - CVW-7 with VF-11 and VF-143 from 1999-2005. So he probably garnered his impressions at the end of the Tomcat's career. True and certainly the aging F/A-18C fleet has proven that failures are fairly proportional to airframe wear, etc. That said, even when the Tomcat was new, it was known for poor general reliability and frequent failures. It wasn't a total outlier compared to the similarly complex A-6E or even the simpler Phantom, but it was still, arguably, a low point for maintainability among USN aircraft. This makes sense since the F-14A /B were the last aircraft built around analog avionics which simply don't have the durability of digital avionics. The F-14 was perhaps the most mechanically complicated aircraft that the USN ever employed - this distinction comes with real drawbacks. Even in 1980, when most pacific fleet F-14As were only 2-5 years old, RADM Paul Gillcrist referred to the maintainability and reliability of the F-14 as "terrible". And he is a strong advocate for the Tomcat! Plus there are things like this: http://www.upi.com/Archives/1989/09/13/Navy-blames-F-14A-crash-on-maintenance-problems/9382621662400/ The hydraulic system was a weak point and per the US Navy, couldn't be adequately serviced under operational conditions. I'm not sure if it was better for the F-14D, but it certainly was a major issue for the F-14A/B. To me, the F-14 is a bit like a Shakespearean character: mighty strengths, but significant faults! It makes the aircraft an excellent topic for a simulation or story telling since life in the F-14 certainly was eventful, even during normal operations. But these faults also tarnished the aircraft's image over time and no doubt added to crew stress. It's easy to see how the F-14 could have so many passionate supporters and still many vocal detractors. :) -Nick PS - All of that said, the F-14A/B/D could be maintained to a high standard with excellent mission availability rates. VF-154 in 2003 (equipped with F-14As), operating the oldest F-14s in the fleet, had a mission readiness and sortie completion rate higher than any of the F/A-18C squadrons in the airwing. F-14A squadrons in the mid-late 1980s averaged deployed full mission capable rates (FMC) and mission capable rates (MC) in the 80s and 90s respectively. So I'm not saying that the F-14 was a total mess, but it demanded much of its maintainers and supply chain than subsequent aircraft.

I'm quite curious about this too. But we can make some reasonable deductions given the announced timeframes for the F-14A (mid to late 80s) and F-14B (mid-90s). By 1990, the AIM-54C was the deployed version for combat operations, though the AIM-54A was still used for training shots, etc. So if Leatherneck was to choose one version to support both the F-14A and F-14B, it would need to be the AIM-54C. Sub-models like the AIM-54C+/AIM-54C+ ECCM sealed would not match the F-14A's timeframe. So there is a ~95% chance (IMHO) that LNS will create at least the AIM-54C. But I am also wondering if there will be more than one model, such as an AIM-54A to support more early-mid-80s for the F-14A or an AIM-54C+. One quick amendment to this statement: Though the AIM-54C was complete from a R&D standpoint by 1982, it didn't reach fleet units until 1987. This was due to serious quality control problems with the initial run of AIM-54Cs produced by Hughes. In fact, the problems were so bad that the USN engaged another contractor (Raytheon) to begin parallel production as a hedge against Hughes. The problems were eventually ironed out and both Hughes and Raytheon produced the AIM-54C for a time (not sure how long or how many units), though I believe that Hughes still produced the majority of units. The first deployment of the AIM-54C was the summer of 1987, so any intended operations before then would benefit from an AIM-54A version. I'm not sure how challenging it would be to create the AIM-54A along with the C. They were very similar of course, but the AIM-54A had fewer modes, was more susceptible to ECM and chaff, and had more operational limitations. -Nick

Sounds like you have a pitch trim problem here. The MiG-21's engine is susceptible to flame-out from 2 common causes: prolonged negative Gs (5-10 seconds depending on throttle settings) or very low airspeed - less than 200 kph and generally with the nose pointed vertically. My guess is that the aircraft is not trimmed at the start of these missions and is persistently pitching down leading to zero or slight negative Gs for too long. The other possibility is that your trimmed nose-up and consistently pushing the stick forward to level the aircraft and generating negative Gs. If you promptly trim the MiG for level flight, the problem will probably resolve. Also, the prolonged negative Gs leading to flame-out is very common and effects the majority of tactical aircraft including the Mirage. The MiG definitely has more "secret handshakes" than the F-5 and asks more of its operator, but with a bit of practice you'll get the hang of things. -Nick

True, though the F-14D shares it's radar with the F-15E (some small changes), but the LNS F-14 is the A/A+/B models which has no commonality with the F-15E. Also, the F-15E is planned by Razbam, though they are waiting for the A-G radar to be sorted by ED with the F/A-18C module. The F-15E (along with A-7E and A-6E) are probably a few years out. -Nick