BlackLion213

This is a really interesting discussion, the bolded portion below struck a particular chord: Human perceptions are quite flawed, especially for fine details of things like acceleration, etc. Our minds are nonlinear and most perception seems to be proportion based, meaning that our perception thresholds steadily change with magnitude as well. Add to this that recollection and perception are heavily influenced by our emotional state, focus of concentration, and seemingly unrelated secondary factors. There are some interesting videos on Netflix that discuss these issues and give some specific examples. Our brains use some fixed algorithms that can override an accurate perception despite our best efforts or awareness of what it "should be". Then we have to remember things accurately...which really doesn't happen as often as we think. Or a real pilot goes to test the FM in the real aircraft, but his perception of the dynamics can be influenced by his hope that computer FM is accurate. Not to mention that he/she is trying to match a real experience to something that he/she is seeing on a small screen (maybe this part is now better with the Rift/Vive...). All that said, pilot input seems best for things like control responsiveness, especially with small inputs, or bad behaviors during the approach phase, classic "gotcha's", etc. But for true performance, real measurements has no equal. Pilot input my encourage the FM modeller to change it a bit (say if they found that the aircraft never quite performs as well as measured due to detuning engines, maintenance issues, or the like). The best is when you have real world measurements, real world control response data (NASA did this type of work on many Western aircraft), and pilot input. This type of data exists for the Tomcat...I'm hoping it is put to good use! :) -Nick

This new sound is fantastic, thank you for the excellent work! I'm glad to hear that it will be formally integrated into the module, it really adds to the experience. -Nick

Great stories Renhanxue, thank you for sharing. The kind of Viggen flying described here (40' and 650 kts) is unbelievable! I'd say it's a sea story, but I've now read 4 or 5 stories which all describe the same thing (many from exchange tours), not to mention a photo in a book of mine from the 1980s showing a Viggen doing a (as described) 600 knot pass at 30' for a tactical demo (it looks like less than 30' in the photo!). At least some crazy pilot stories appear to be true...:D -Nick

If its anything like the Ohio summers of my youth, then the other problem is that the dewpoint is at 31C. So....time to re-shoot those interior shots and post the teaser video, right? ;) Can't wait to see the final product! :D -Nick

Doh! :doh: Sorry about that. :) -Nick

Yes, the LANTIRN was able to project an image on the original Tomcat PTID when they first started testing. The whole LANTIRN integration story is quite interesting as it was done on a VERY small budget and good fortune with compatibilities allowed the system to function with the Tomcat's existing avionics and some modest, previously tested additions. However, it seems that every Tomcat that used the LANTIRN operationally had the MFD installed prior to deploying with LANTIRN, along with the necessary side-stick/hand controller. I'm pretty sure that LANTIRN could project onto the original RIO PTID, but I'm also pretty sure that this didn't happen with operational aircraft - from what I've read. I think its more a matter of what was done for operational aircraft as opposed to what was possible. My 2 cents, Nick

Luckily it looks good on the F-14A too! :thumbup: And this is just a regular "line bird", not a CO or CAG. :) -Nick

Possible, it's hard to find definitive evidence. Its also worth mentioning that the F-14B never really had any significant avionics upgrades. Even the F-14B Upgrade model was the addition of LANTIRN, Digital TARPS, large MFD replacing the PTID, and new improved data bus - but the existing avionics were essentially untouched. Excluding the databus (IIRC), these upgrades were applied to F-14As later. Here is a VF-154 RIO cockpit from 2003: It's Modex 104 (see "BKR 104" adjacent to the MFD) and in addition to the MFD you can see the upgraded ALR-67 RWR on the right of the cockpit. The F-14B and F-14A more more less aligned in terms of avionics/equipment by the Mid-90s. Excluding the Sparrowhawk HUD (which really entered the fleet ~2002), the F-14A and F-14B underwent similar upgrades during the late 90s and early 2000s. I think that the LANTIRN could project through the original PTID, though there was a doc (I think found by FWind) that showed that the new MFD was a requirement for LANTIRN integration. It seems that the MFD was likely present on all operational LANTIRN Tomcats, even if it was possible to use LANTIRN without it. Also, at a very minimum, operating LANTIRN requires a sidestick hand controller that was mounted on the left side of the RIO cockpit (where the TARPS control panel is placed on TARPS jets). So even if the MFD is not "necessary", a LANTIRN equipped F-14B needs a different RIO cockpit from the F-14A. None of these things preclude a LANTIRN equipped LNS F-14B, I don't think any of us know what the deciding factors will be. There is still hope, whether on release or later. -Nick PS - I also favor the idea of a late-model F-14 "update package" for the LNS F-14 that would include LANTIRN, 3D model changes (GPS Antennae, gun vent changes), and cockpit changes for the late-90s/early-2000s F-14A and F-14B. I think it would be fun to be able to operate both aircraft in modern-ish conflicts (though the F-14A/A+ during the Cold War is still most intriguing for me). I don't think my view on this is widely shared, but it would have advantages in terms of creating more sub-models in DCS for a specific time frame (late-90s/2000s vs mid-80s vs mid-90s). :)

Indeed! :D So glad you agree. :) -Nick

Yes please. :) Especially since we will likely be able to operate from USS Independence. All great choices! I also really like VF-31's sister squadron VF-11, especially from the Forrestal era of the 1980s-1990 (also coming with the LNS Tomcat). I see a mobile IFLOLS at the bottom of the pic, I think this is a little FCLP - I really hope we can do that as well! -Nick PS - Some of the VFA-25 emblems in the movie say VF-213...

The Tomcat's operational A-G ordnance options were pretty narrow - basically iron bombs (Mk 82, 83, and 84 - rarely CBUs) and GBUs. The LNS F-14B will definitely be able to carry iron bombs, CBUs, and GBUs as early renders from the announcement included the BRU-32 bomb racks mounted. The important remaining question - will the F-14B be able to self designate GBUs with a LANTIRN pod or will it depend on buddy lasing. Rockets, Mavericks, HARMS, or any guided A-G missiles were never operationally cleared for the F-14 so they won't be available for the LNS F-14B. We are all waiting to hear if LANTIRN capability will be included. Hope this helps. :) -Nick

:megalol: -Nick

This might be a silly question, but is that 640x711 preview window what is shown for Oculus youtube videos, etc? Is the real resolution higher than what is seen in say a Wags or Bunyap video of Oculus? -Nick

WOW! GORGEOUS! :) Thank you for posting. -Nick

34,154 lbs is the installed thrust of the TF30 (thrust installed in the airframe at 0 knots and sea level). The comparable F110 installed figure is 23,000 or so lbs. Airspeed and altitude can have a big effect on jet engine thrust and the TF30 was particularly sensitive to these issues. It made big thrust at sea level and higher airspeeds (28,000 lbs at Mach 0.9 and sea level vs 30,200 for the F110), but suffered more at higher altitudes. Especially at military thrust, output could be pretty paltry at lower airspeeds and high altitudes. A Tomcat pilot once said that the only thing the TF30 does at mil power below 250 KIAS and above 30K' is convert JP5 into noise. The TF30 performed pretty well below 10K' feet, but no ACM training ever took place down there for safety reasons. This also influenced other pilot's perception of the F-14. I pilot once told me that the F-14A's weakest ACM performance was between 15K' and 25k'....which is where nearly all ACM training takes place! TARPS crews got to enjoy the TF30s capabilities much more often since they trained at low altitudes. In fact, for most aircrew, the operational differences between the F110 and TF30 were even bigger than the numbers would suggest. Most pilots spend the great majority of their career in mil power above 10K' - the F110 performed MUCH better in those regimes and the difference in mil power was quite profound above 25K' (I think the F110 made nearly twice the thrust under those conditions). At low altitudes and full burner, most would think there is nothing wrong with the TF30. But under normal operational conditions, it left a lot to be desired. -Nick Very true.

Thank you for all the data Hummingbird, I really appreciate the introduction of real data to these classic internet discussions. Remarkable how much the story changes when commenting on performance charts instead of pilot stories....how big was that fish again? :megalol: -Nick

Thank you for posting the video Grunf, I also see the jump on landing/take-off. It seems to happen right as cockpit shake is initiating or stopping (during take-off or landing respectively). I haven't seen it at any other times. Also, landings are slightly trickier again. :) Though I'm quickly getting used to it. For me, its just that the controls are a bit less precise and responsive than before (during landing speeds), the nose also wanders more (which I like). -Nick

I'm pretty sure the B's and D's never had glove vanes, only the F-14As. Many F-14A's had nonfunctional glove vanes by the mid-80s, largely due to a decision not to maintain them (decided squadron by squadron in many cases). If the vanes acted up (which they did often), maintainers would disconnect and cap the hydraulic lines. The weight of the vanes held them in, though sometimes a Tomcat would return with one vane extended a couple inches and the mechs would simply push it back in. In the mid-ish 90s, the Navy elected to formally deactivate the F-14A's vanes and then they were wired shut or welded. But most F-14A's vanes had been nonfunctional long before they were welded. The F-14Bs and F-14Ds never had vanes and were built (or rebuilt) without them. About half of F-14Ds and more than half of F-14Bs were rebuilds. I think there were about 30 new build F-14Ds out of a total of 55 operational aircraft. With the F-14B, there were ~36 new build F-14Bs out of around 87 operational aircraft. So most of the "new" F-14s were rebuilt F-14As...from what I've read. :) -Nick

I just finished re-installing 1.5 open beta in anticipation. :D Can't wait to try out the FM changes. Thank you for the upgrades and change log. -Nick

I would buy an earlier variant of the MiG-21, but currently there isn't the right infrastructure to support an earlier MiG-21. The current maps aren't totally ideal for the MiG-21Bis and this would be compounded by adding earlier versions that are more out of place. The Mirage III by Razbam helps as it is a classic opponent for mid-life MiG-21 variants, but there is still no theater and few other AI aircraft from the era. That could change and there are probably a wide-range of unannounced theaters that are being considered (or even in progress on some level). But for the foreseeable future, the MiG-21Bis is the version that fits in the best (IMHO) and it would be better to add more "Bis" content such as new campaigns or even a new theater than add different MiG-21 variants. You could also make an argument for upgraded variants (as you and others have mentioned), I'm less excited about this though I would consider it. However, these variants only operated with a few countries and in small numbers. The allow for "prototypical operations" you would also need (or want :)) a new theater. My feeling is make the most of the good work done already by adding content to the MiG-21Bis, then add other variants if there is still interest later in the future. My 2 cents, Nick

As usual (or often :)), nice post Tirak - I think you captured the gist. The first training mission for the A-10C is pretty awesome, its a narrated overview of the aircraft and is fun to watch. It also seems to be the only tutorial that takes this form (from what I've seen, I haven't tried every training tutorial). I think that more tutorials like this would be great as it does build enthusiasm for the training process. It also doubles as a first "classroom style" introduction to the aircraft which is a central part of training in real life (as far as I know). I am hopeful that ED considers a similar overview for the Hornet and Leatherneck for the Tomcat, however this is a stylistic decision on the part of the developer. Considering that no other recent aircraft has a similar tutorial, it's hard to declare this first mission a "standard for all DCS modules". I wouldn't mind if it were, but its not currently. Pitot - I think people would be more receptive to your suggestions/request if you framed it as such. This isn't a quality issue IMHO, this is a preference. Trying to convince the developer that they did a bad job on something is going to be an uphill battle (even more so when its untrue - such is the case here), you might have more luck convincing them that something else would be appreciated. FWIW, Novak (dolphin) mentioned some time ago that he created the training missions to reflect his own experiences with training, including the formatting and conversational nature. These tutorials are a reflection of a real MiG-21 pilots training experience. It's fine to say that you like another format better....but why not just leave it at that? -Nick

I agree and that makes great sense to me. The part that has me scratching my head is the "trainer" part. The WWII modules are also about the same price, as are the Korean war era modules. Why not just say "I prefer modern weapons" instead of calling an airplanes something that it is not? -Nick PS - I feel the same way, but I am really biased on the topic. :)

Also known as a joke... :) However, all the things you mentioned (excluding the A-G radar) are technology that was not available when the F-5E was developed. It is also worth noting that the F/A-18 was derived from the F-5E via the Northrup N300 (a modified F-5E). If you built the F/A-18 in 1972, it would look just like the F-5E. So would you make the same deriding comments towards the F-86F, since it is not even supersonic and has even fewer available weapons? What actually makes the F/A-18 less of a trainer than the F-5E? Honestly? Excluding the advancements in weapons and sensors - they are effectively the same concept executed at different times. This is not Strawman, this is an honest question. The F/A-18 is easier to fly, it actually makes a better trainer for new pilots anyway. Wow, we drifted far off topic...:) -Nick

Yes it did. :) I think you and I have a very similar perspective and use case for DCS. I care little for MP and like DCS because it gives an unprecedented insight into what it was like to use these tools. As such, I like modules that offer a varied experience, challenging characteristics, and cover a wide range of eras. As such, the Viggen seems perfect as it will offer (I think) a very different experience and mission from anything currently in DCS. However, the Tomcat will also bring some very unique experiences to DCS. It may not seem like it on the surface since it's general capabilities (meaning A-A) are very similar to the F-15C, but generally older with more primitive avionics. But the aircraft's handling will likely be quite different from anything currently in DCS. Frankly, the Tomcat was a cantankerous beast! It's low speed handling was quite messy with lots of adverse yaw, floatiness, slow control responses, and engines that had to be operated strictly by the book (speaking of the F-14A). Even though the Tomcat could generate a tremendous pitch rate with excellent rate and radius of turn, it's pitch response on normal flying was a bit sluggish and less precise than other 4th gen fighters (and less so than the trainers that most aviators started with...). NATOPS emphasizes that pilot must give the nose a chance to respond to small stick inputs before further adjustment/correction or there was a tendency to get into OIOs. Also, pilots who flew it emphasized that it was "no sports car" of a fighter - very starkly contrasting with the "Alfa Romeo 4C"-like experience of the F-5E. I don't think there is a fighter in DCS that is quite like this. Every fighter I've flown in DCS is a sports car of sorts. Add to this the fact that this monster is meant to operate from a ship...with this kind of handling and laggy, finicky engines....carrier ops will be tough! :) Actually, the Hornet will probably be my trainer. :D It's just a glorified trainer too...right Tirak? :music_whistling: And we haven't even touched on the F-14A's engines....or combat operations with 2 crew members in DCS.... I'll get off my soapbox. :) But if unique flying experiences are your thing (stick and rudder operations), then the Tomcat will be quite unique in DCS (my guess). I think many will find that it flies very differently than they expected, in both good and bad ways. -Nick

Such harsh words directed against these two lovely aircraft. :P To me, they are very complimentary designs. They were designed around the same time, but had very different missions and different design focuses. The Viggen heralded the eventual layout (aerodynamically) for subsequent European 4.5 gen fighters, broke new ground on systems integration and ergonomics, and offered profound Anti-ship strike capability. The Tomcat added some new tech, but mostly took existing concepts and turned them up to "11" (Spinal Tap reference :)). It also heralded the future of BVR by carrying the first ARH, fire and forget weapon, and multi-shot capability. These features plus it's powerful radar granted unprecedented Air-to-Air capabilities. I understand just wanting one if you only have an interest in Anti-ship/Strike or only an interest in Air-to-Air...but if you like more than one thing you really should consider both. They will offer two very different sides of the Aviation coin from the 4th Gen fighter stand point. Hard to know what you will enjoy till you try it... :) -Nick