BlackLion213

Looks like an AN/ALQ-167 ECM pod. Used to create training specific emissions and deceptive jamming. http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/equip/an-alq-167.htm -Nick

Thank you for the update, the AIM-54 modeling seems very comprehensive. I really appreciate these thorough updates. -Nick PS - Love the update banner - VF-1 circa 1987 (1987-1991ish) while deployed from USS Ranger. :D

Not really from what I have read. Flight testing demonstrated transient AOA readings of around 40 degrees (I don't have the source near me - I think it was degrees and not units) during level flight nose pitch up maneuvers that were still controllable. Wings level transient AOA readings can be higher without control issues than banked AOA readings, but the Tomcat does not have the high AOA capability of the Flanker or Hornet. As an indication of expected performance, the AOA gauge pegs at 30. Pitch authority and high AOA stability are better with the wings swept (stability meaning less wing drop, but harder to judge the transition to departure), but trying to generate really high AOA at speeds where the wings are swept (according to the wing sweep program of the air-data computer - not manual) tends to generate G forces above the max rating of the airframe. You could perform a high AOA maneuver with the wings swept at lower speeds, but the airframe really bleeds airspeed and there are fewer warnings before control departure (an issue when Tomcats would perform over-ship breaks during CAT III recoveries - they had to watch the AOA guage carefully). Also, though AOA may be higher with the wings swept at lower speeds, the resulting rate and radius of the turn will be inferior to that of the wings swept forward. There are plenty of pilot reports of higher AOA during low speed ACM maneuvers, but these often led to control departures (or were pitch up events once the aircraft had departed). The real Cobra requires AOA in excess of 90 degrees. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pugachev%27s_Cobra Fortunately, the Tomcat generates excellent turn performance at lower AOA than most modern fighters, largely because of it's large, relatively straight wing. The Tomcat in that video is probably 45 deg of AOA or less from what I can tell. -Nick PS - Disclaimer: the above post is based on my readings of pilot tales and F-14 literature. I don't have NASA tables or official aerodynamic data.

I'm quite sure that it didn't. However, it could emit on a frequency band that could allow for ground mapping (IIRC), though the necessary software (and hardware for the AWG-9) was never developed. The APG-71 with it's false aperture could perform ground mapping, but the F-14D never had the proper software or development to use it. As far as I've ever read (which could be wrong...) no version of the F-14 had A-G radar modes/capability. -Nick PS - I love your new avatar. :)

Actually, just 2 weeks ago: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=171014 The last "detailed" update (lots of pictures, etc) was less than 4 months ago: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=163752 -Nick

Not of my favorite livery, but a nice collection of vintage photos from VF-301: http://oldro.com/?page_id=114 VF-301 was a reserve Tomcat squadron at NAS Miramar and these photos date from 1984-1987. -Nick

Looks great! :thumbup: Pacific fleet had some nice markings in the 1970s too... -Nick

Why not both? ;) -Nick

So it seems that I am running out of excuses....:music_whistling: I think its time for the plunge, plus my Birthday is in 3 weeks! :D -Nick

Quite sure that RIOs (and now WSOs) go through the NFO route and do not have any flight training. Same for NFOs in EA-6Bs, A-6 BNs, E-2Cs, EA-18s, etc. The USAF does have flight training for their WSOs and requires that they maintain a certain number of flight hours. All USAF Phantoms (and export F-4Es and F-4Fs) are dual control while all USN Phantoms lack rear-seat controls. Of note, the IIAF chose to go the "GIB" approach with their F-14 RIOs - meaning that RIOs where pilots who received extra training and spent more time in the rear seat than other pilots. Most considered this undesirable as pilots pretty much always prefer to fly. USN RIOs were much more dedicated to their role and therefore, more proficient in RADAR operations and intercept tactics. The "GIB" approach was a point of US criticism concerning the IIAF Tomcat program. Also, thank you for the outstanding AMA Oversweep! :thumbup: It was fun to read and very informative. I hope you hang out around here and help to educate all of us. :) Discussions like your AMA are especially good for dispelling the long-standing myth that the Tomcat was a "truck" in the handling department. Glad to hear that it stacked up very favorably with the Rhino / Super Hornet. Thanks again and welcome, Nick

Not a good engine above 10,000 feet, for sure. Plus, the Tomcat - TF30 match was judged (by Secretary Lehman I think) as the worst airframe-engine mismatch in US Navy history. But it certainly was photogenic. :D -Nick

Actually...no. :) Part of it is nostalgia and part is the distinctive appearance of the TF30. No other aircraft has a similar convergent nozzle. Conversely, the F110 nozzle is shared with the F-16 and looks much more like other tactical aircraft. Also, the F110 powered Tomcats don't take cat-shots with afterburner, so there much fewer pictures of the F110 in afterburner. I think it looks great: But so does this :thumbup:: The TF30 in zone 5 is the classic Tomcat look, even if the F110 was a vastly better engine. We can care about aesthetics around here. :) Those who flew the real Tomcat had higher priorities! -Nick

All I see is FIRE! :D Which is how it should be. Here is a link of a J79 from pretty directly astern (you know - without cameraman death). I only see flameholders, no rotating fan section. :) [ame] [/ame] -Nick

Hello, I am thinking of making the switch to VR in the near future (hopefully a couple of months). I spend the majority of my DCS time in the MiG-21Bis (with the rest spread across the Mirage, Mi-8, and WWII fighters). Are there any issues running the MiG in VR (save for the lack of a pilot figure in the cockpit)? I am mostly wondering about unique performance issues or something similar. Thank you for the info! -Nick

You forgot to mention that the afterburner animation is fixed! :D Its the best looking afterburner in DCS by a wide-margin, so nice to see it again! I really have far too much fun with this delightful machine: Things seem to be running quite well after the recent updates. :) And not too much longer: I bet this module will have a mighty fine looking afterburner too! :D Have a good night. -Nick

Thank you for the update Cobra, glad to hear that things are moving despite a few bumps in the road. I'm also glad to hear that the Tomcat is a fairly conventional project - that bodes well. :) Is Jester AI still in progress? That seems like one of the bigger hurdles for the project? I appreciate all of the detailed information in your update! -Nick

Good news, thank you for sharing! :thumbup: -Nick

I agree about the forests, that would make a lot of sense. Although: Sounds like ED might be thinking about such a distinction already. That would be especially helpful for things like shadows as well as the object count. It will be interesting to see how things change. The screenshots look mighty impressive. The new water render in particular looks perfect. I've spent all week in the San Juan Islands (off Washington) with lots of time in boats/ferries/small aircraft. The water matches what I'm seeing here perfectly. :D Well...they are still releasing aircraft modules and I think that the 2.0 Alpha can accept maps besides Nevada (as long as they are T4+). Though even if ED delays new maps till the merger, it would probably only be a delay of a couple months (as things stand right now...). Waiting till DCS 2.5 might be the more elegant approach. Things like the carrier DLC probably would likely be release-able into 1.5. I think there are aircraft modules set to be released before 2.5 (LNS Viggen, VEAO P-40F, Spitfire IX?), so other DLC may be possible too. Belsimtek just released the F-5E so I don't think this news changes much. -Nick

Any product could be defective, but the Rift also requires much more "fitting" than a normal computer peripheral. If the lenses aren't properly aligned with your pupil they will distort the image. Have you checked to see if the blurriness equally effects both eyes? If one eye is clearer that could easily be IOC adjustment issue. Much like binoculars, rotational mal-alignments and IOC/IPC issues could mess up the appearance, but without a prior baseline its harder for you to know what should be expected. I haven't heard of anyone else finding that the image is blurry even when zoomed or leaning in. Plus, most users (including Bunyap) have stated that their Rift image quality is much better than the recorded video. It seems like something is amiss in your case. -Nick

From what I read it has a "hybrid fresnel lens" and finer facets than the vive. Same tech, but the lens shape is slightly different. http://www.pcopticalengineering.com/fresnel-lenses-and-the-oculus-rift-cv1/ -Nick

At least for me, this thread has been extremely helpful for understanding the pros and cons of switching to VR (which I hope to do soon). Thank you to all who contributed! It is also clear that DCS in VR is a different game from DCS on a monitor - there are different strengths and weaknesses. Also, long-term DCS players need to change some aspects of their work flow and certain tasks are simply harder to do (am I right?). Practice helps, but not every part of DCS translates into VR perfectly. However, by my estimation, something like 95% of those who have posted are really impressed by VR and "can't go back to a monitor", which says it all. Not everyone feels this way, but most seem to. I am also hopeful that new techniques and tools emerge to help VR users cope with some of the visibility challenges. Overall, it seems to me that if your favorite part of DCS is flying, carrier ops, utilitarian tasks, and ACM - then VR makes DCS a better experience. If you love system management/MFD operation or are really serious about MP and WVR, then it might not be the right choice at this stage (since those tasks are harder or will require technique changes). Lastly, though I have not yet tried VR, it's worth mentioning that fresnel lenses need to be well-centered over your eyes to give a good image (since they are "straightening" the light from the displays) to maximize image quality. Malpositionedlenses will probably work looking straight, but even very small changes to view direction can causes a lot of blurring of the image. Just my 2 cents on the basic science of Fesnel lenses. -Nick

FYI, 1.5.4 change-log mentions the AIM-9 FOV problems as a known bug. Not sure if that is the same issue? -Nick

Thank you for the answer and the new change-log.:thumbup: -Nick

Well, I don't think the actual landing is harder, but the approach requires more attention. When I watch video of real tactical aircraft landing, I see there control surfaces deflecting with lots of small movements. With the last MiG-21 FM, if you trimmed it, it would fly itself down to the flare with almost no corrections at 340 kph. Now the aircraft needs small corrections during final, more in line with my expectations. There may be more ground effect than before so I flare less on touchdown, but have not had any landing gear damage or crashes on the approach (I had one crash right after the new FM where I allowed the MiG to get slow turning onto final - I stalled and crashed, but I wasn't watching my speed carefully :)). My only FM "curiosity" is with stall behavior. It seems that there should be more roll off and instability while stalled (just an uneducated guess...:music_whistling:). The MiG-21's stall behavior is actually quite similar to the F-15C (lose airspeed and AOA pegs, but the aircraft still flies - sort of), but the F-15C has more uncommanded roll and the nose is wanders much more - even with the help of CAS deflecting the rudders the whole time. The F-15C also seems to bleed more energy. I also have another question about the FM: is this new FM an example of a "back-ported" feature from upcoming aircraft? Meaning a more sophisticated FM overall or just a "fine tuning" of the existing FM? It seems much more nuanced than the prior iteration. -Nick

I really like Razbam and thought the same a couple months ago, but in reality LNS and Razbam are pretty similar. They both release similar amounts of WIP content, but they do it in different ways. Razbam has periodic posts with a few WIP shots and relatively little information, while LNS has big posts with lots of info and many pictures every few months. http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=163752 http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=165928 http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=157420 These posts are pretty comprehensive in terms of explaining the project and showing screenshots of what is presentable. Really, the sense that LNS is not communicating is all about the Swedish Elephant in the room....the complete lack of visuals on the Viggen (and a lesser extent the F4U-1D). LNS has talked a bit about the Viggen in scattered posts (by both RagnarDa and Cobra) and the overall amount of information substantially exceeds (IMHO) the amount of info that I have about Razbam's upcoming AV-8B (which I also want). Not to mention the pretty minimal information about the inbound Mirage III - like what is the intended use of this modules without a 60s era Middle Eastern theater. LNS answered that question for the Viggen - they are creating a theater for it (which seems to still be in progress from what has been said: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=2839222#post2839222). I think the discontent is all about the lack of visual media. This makes sense - we humans are very visual (our most trusted and developed sense) and not seeing Viggen or Corsair images makes fans cranky, especially knowing that something could be shown. I'm pretty sure there is a good reason for holding back (why else would they put up with all of these comments...). But I hope their future work will be more of a hybrid approach between the Tomcat and Viggen/Corsair (if possible). Lastly, part of the problem is probably the fact that these three upcoming modules have never-before-created features and they don't want to announce a feature before it works. Otherwise they get endless posts about the lack of MiG-21 flood lights (almost released :)) and fogging/icing for the windscreen - even though doing it proved less feasible than originally thought (at least in terms of it looking good...). They also probably don't want to show Viggen screenshots while they are fine-tuning the art, lest someone complain about "bait and switch". In the midst of all this, VR also became a reality. It wouldn't be a surprise if more VR optimization of the artwork was part of the hold-up. It's one thing to plan for VR, its another to try and get things working smoothly with the release version of the Rift and Vive. My 2 cents, but I don't think things are as different as they may appear...its all about the pictures not the communication. -Nick PS - I do really like Razbam's detailed change-logs, but the last patch had a same day post with the MiG-21 change-log - a good sign.