BlackLion213

Yes, absolutely! As a new user, there are several thing that immediately come to mind. BTW, is this an example of the first A-10C training mission that is essentially all narration? I love that and wish all aircraft training regimens started that way 1. Many people (like me) are visual learners and many of the complex tasks in DCS would be easier to learn if the player could watch an example first. Watch, try, and repeat till proficient. :) 2. Real briefings (from what I know) are interactive affairs. The briefing process could be more fun and engaging if there was a visual overview for the mission with key points and map data before each mission. Especially since many briefing docs are not accessible in game. This would lower my threshold for running through missions - BTW, the faster that a player runs through the missions the more campaigns he/she will buy. ;) 3. Finally, campaign intros would be a great way to convey the background story for each campaign (which could be complex or a good story). It would engage the user and encourage players to really get into the campaign. My 2 cents, but I think these things would make a big difference for encouraging new-ish players to really use content and aapreciate some of the benefits of a campaign over instant action missions, etc. -Nick

I see. :) Maybe its a little late for Limericks. (as in late in the day for me) I'm pretty content when I "Miggen", but still want a Viggen - those don't have to be mutually exclusive. ;) -Nick

Alright, now I have a headache. I'm pretty sure Tom had it right, except that any predictions are merely that - a prediction. So glad that weatherman aren't held to the same standard...or surely all would have burned at the stake by now (imagine the deleterious effect on picnic planning ;)). -Nick

What's a Plinkett...? What's a Miggen...? Now I'm worried that this day has been a bit longer than I thought...I should probably drink something besides coffee... -Nick

Are you returning the gear lever to the neutral position after take-off? If not, you might be bleeding off your hydraulic pressure during the flight (if I have that right). Something to check, there are more and more "gotchas" reaching full implementation on the MiG. Interestingly, I also found that the RSBN switch is now in the off position be default (used to be on by default). I keep thinking there is a bug, then looking down and seeing it off. Maybe this is something similar. -Nick

Google search led me to Cobra's reddit page: https://www.reddit.com/user/Cobra8472 -Nick

Great shot of the Tomcat's natural habitat: -Nick

Yes it is. To your credit, the cockpits are really similar. There are only about 3 small changes, otherwise they are identical. Also, the post-1992 (or so) F-14As have the same changes as the F-14A+/B. But the only cockpit that LNS has shown us was on the F-14A in her mid-late 1980s configuration. -Nick PS - The Tomcat doesn't have a WSO - they call it a RIO (USN used the RIO designation for both the Phantom and Tomcat, but changed it to WSO for the Rhino/"Super" Hornet). :)

Actually, the only published renders are of the F-14A cockpit. The two are very similar, but there are a couple of small differences. http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2356192&postcount=1 Pilot's F-14A cockpit: Glad to hear that. Hopefully you'll also post a few F-14A renders in the not-to-distant future. :) -Nick

HOLY HELL!!!!! Looks so damn good! :D -Nick

They certainly are still working on it. The radar algorithm was just revised, for example. We'll see how it works out. -Nick

Yes we do! ;) That's a VF-213 (NH204) from 1987 wearing watercolors for a detachment to El Centro. Those disruptive splinters were applied by crew-members and washed off with soap and water a week later. Here is NH200 of VF-213 wearing the same scheme during the detachment. Maybe Leatherneck would consider doing this one along with the base scheme for VF-213...:music_whistling:(since they need it for for the special splinter version :D). Seems popular. :joystick: -Nick

Sort of... The Tomcat has a lot of systems, that's true, but many of the components on an individual basis are not so complex. Part of the F-14A's (compared to the F-14D) heritage is a large number of inherited systems. In particular, the AWG-9 and TF30s were direct carry-overs from the TFX/F-111B project (which date to 1965). After the F-111B project fell apart, Grumman came forth and had a design proposal ready in short order and claimed that it could deliver a first flight and development aircraft in short order. This was partly due to the R&D work they did as a subcontractor for the F-111B and because they planned to use a lot of systems that had already been developed. They were using the weapon system and RADAR from the F-111B (with only very limited updating), interim engines from the F-111B (the 17th aircraft off the line was supposed to receive the F401 - same core engine as the F100 in the Eagle), the wing was actually the same basic wing used on the A-6 along with the A-6's landing gear. Many of the avionics were new, but not cutting edge. Most of what I've read on the topic states that the F-14A/B's avionics were really 1960s vintage. Because the Tomcat was to be a 2-crew aircraft, there was less pressure to create novel systems to reduce crew workload. The cockpits were much more ergonomic than the F-4 and included early HOTAS functions, but the USN didn't invest in novel systems the way the USAF did with the Eagle (or Sweden with the Viggen - for that matter). With the Eagle, the USAF was converting from the 2-crew Phantom to a single-crew fighter, so many new systems (including the HUD) were heavily upgraded in the process. Still, the F-15A had some major man-machine interface problems that were progressively upgraded. The F-15C was a major leap forward in this regard. Grumman had hoped to upgrade the avionics of the F-14 shortly after it entered the fleet (just like the engines) - this was the planned F-14C. But cost and budget constraints killed the program in the late-70s. The F-14D was approved for production in 1984 and had vastly more sophisticated avionics and systems. It's systems are truly comparable the the F-15C, F-15E, and F/A-18C. But the F-14A/B...they are complicated (lots of systems), but not necessarily sophisticated. On the Leatherneck side of the discussion, the MiG-21 is their first module and is still being continuously upgraded, but Leatherneck created an entirely new codebase for it's subsequent aircraft. They have stated before that the new codebase was based on mistakes or limitations built into the MiG-21 (I'm paraphrasing - I think that I have it right). With the Viggen and subsequent aircraft, they are aiming to significantly improve all parts of the module and sim experience. I would weigh your concerns based on what comes next, which may or may not allay your fears. :) -Nick

Pictures look awesome and thank you for the outstanding news. I hope you have a good night (well...day) sleep. The Tomcat exterior model is beautiful and the Forrestal renders looks remarkable. Thank you! -Nick PS - That deck crewman looks unbelievably good! Very impressive!

Probably not. Creating a big thread with a lot of content and art is a process that takes more than a few minutes. More likely - login, start the thread, begin pasting, play with formatting. Then realize that you don't quite the look of things or want a different example - logout, find another whatever or fix something. Log back in and continue working, etc. It'll happen, takes time to do it right....just like everything else around here. ;) -Nick

Or California! :P Did I mention that it's only 3 PM here...not to mention sunny and 20 deg C. Liking forward to the update. :D -Nick PS - Yes! Excellent! :D

Thanks Frisco. :) I've learned more about the Tomcat in 2015 than any year before. Having the chance to discuss it in a group setting really helps with the acquisition of knowledge. It never gets old for me either.:thumbup: -Nick

Nice update by HoggitDev...;) Cobra might be fine-tuning things or editing more than trolling. The New Years update with all those pictures, banners, and formatting would take time to create and edit. This update might also take time to finish. -Nick

So....I previously stated that the AIM-54C didn't seem to show up in photos till around 1990 or 1991. The AIM-54C began manufacture in 1982 (more or less) and began introduction into the fleet in 1986. First deployment was with VF-2 in 1987. However, every photo I found prior to the Desert Storm showed what appeared to be Tomcats carrying the AIM-54A based on the paint scheme. Here are two examples from VF-32: 1989 Cruise: Desert Storm Cruise: So totally different markings, grey body vs white, etc. I figured this meant that white-bodied missiles were AIM-54As while grey were AIM-54C. However, here is a picture from VF-2 during their combat cruise to the Strait of Hormuz, the first USN deployment of the AIM-54C: VF-2 was tasked with reporting in-depth reliability data for the AIM-54C on its maiden deployment. They were also charged with developing improved tactics to maximize the use of the AIM-54C against fighter targets, accounting for existing ROE, etc. This Tomcat is carrying the 1-2-3 missile loadout (1 AIM-54C, 2 AIM-7Ms, and 3 AIM-9Ms - asymmetric load). I thought that is picture showed an AIM-54A based on the paint scheme. Except...VF-2 deployment in 1987 The fine print shows this white-bodied missile to be an AIM-54C. :doh: So grain of salt with assessing AIM-54 versions from distance photos, it seems that the paint scheme changed after ~1990. The color bands may have been slightly different shades of yellow and beige between the AIM-54A and AIM-54C, but that's pretty hard to judge in washed out photos from the 80s. But I now know that the first AIM-54C deployment was in mid-1987 and from other reports, squadrons deploying to potential combat zones started carrying AIM-54Cs after that date (in higher threat areas). Most training missile shots during the late 1980s were AIM-54As (and AIM-7Fs, AIM-9Ls, AIM-9Hs) to use up the inventory instead of the newer missiles. I learned something new here and I like to share those things with my fellow Tomcat fanatics. :) -Nick

Yes they did, starting around 1992 and finishing fleet-wide about a year later. They also halved the number of active Tomcat squadrons between 1993-1995, which allowed them to keep the newest airframes active. The upgrades included the ALR-67, ALQ-126 ECM, and new "NACA" style gun vents for the M61 cannon. The ALQ-126 added a bunch of small lumps and bumps to the Tomcats airframe. The first Tomcats with the ALQ-126 were new build F-14s that entered the fleet around 1986 (IIRC). The ALR-67 and new NACA style gun vents were added in 92ish as I mentioned and is a reliable way of dating photos as Cold War vs post-Cold War. The next big upgrades were LANTIRN capability with the RIO MFD (starting around 1997), followed by DFCS a year or two later. BTW, these upgrades were for the F-14A. The F-14B had a different upgrade schedule since it came from the factory with the ALR-67, ALQ-126, and new gun vents. -Nick

The pipper "cages" at the end of the video, hence the big jump. Also, this close range, very high-aspect scenario requires the fastest updates and accentuates any lag. That said, it will take more practice to maximize than other HUDs currently in DCS. Players will need to learn about some of the limitations and work around them at times. But usually the targeting diamond stayed fairly well centered and the gun pipper did work. :) -Nick

I really don't think this is the case. Tirak probably has it right, LNS feels that they have to "sell" the Viggen module more than the F-14 and is waiting till they can do that right. Cobra said in a prior post: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2486926&postcount=1252 - that after the MiG-21 they decided to change their announcement scheme. However, they decided to announce the Tomcat because they didn't want a really prolonged period without talking about any future products. Also, there was so much excitement about the Tomcat once they started hinting that it made sense to formalize it (IMHO). With the Viggen, they also need much more than just the aircraft to "complete the experience" which LNS has mentioned many times in other posts. Especially for those users who don't frequent the forum (and are less obsessed than us...) they need to have a really intriguing package to draw people in. Especially since other aircraft coming this year are the Hornet, Spitfire, and F-5E; these are pretty famous aircraft. But offering a package that involves a theater, etc will really shift the balance. If anything, all of these ancillaries are a big part of the hold up, not some sort of internal strife. ;) I'm a worrier by nature, but luckily these are not the things that I'm worried about. ED has already said that the Viggen should happen in the first half of 2016: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2659915&postcount=13 That should give you some confidence, they aren't open about release dates either. My 2 cents, -Nick

I haven't killed the L-39's engine yet...clearly I'm not trying hard enough. :) Also: It seems that I should continue with my careful word selection. ;) Yes, excellent..... (I need a Mr. Burns emoji..:)). Just like this! Capturing the flaws with the strengths, can't wait to try it. :D -Nick

You're right, controls should be largely unaffected by a "Total Electrical Failure" if the right engine is still running. The point of my prior comment was to point out that since the Tomcat has no battery (or RAT or APU), if both engines are out then there will be no source of electricity. Without the engines running the hydraulic pumps and no electricity, the aircraft is essentially dead (cold and dark). If you windmill the TF30 at ~325+ kts (IIRC), then there will be electrical power generated. Most aircraft in DCS retain cockpit power and control authority in the event of an engine flameout (from my experiences with the MiG-21 and Mirage 2000C) so this aspect of the Tomcat could catch some off guard. Still, truly flaming out both engines (as a opposed to "stalling/hung stalling" both engines) is not that easy. But while it would be nearly inconceivable in the F-15C (or F-14B), it is indeed possible in the F-14A if you make some big mistakes. -Nick

I think that the option to change hull numbers to other Nimitz class vessels serves both of our goals. It allows for a greater variety of scenarios, but those who prefer maximum accuracy of the ship itself simply won't change it. The issue is that different users will want to simulate different scenarios or eras. For example, I have zero interest in the Ford class carriers because I prefer Naval Aviation from the late-90s to the 1950s. I'd rather they add CVN-65 (Enterprise), the Forrestal class, the Kitty Hawk class, and Midway class - I find them more interesting. Luckily, it seems that Leatherneck is developing a Forrestal class carrier for the F-14 module. :thumbup: I also prefer accuracy of unit composition/deployment. I'd prefer to simulate the USS Nimitz deploying to the Gulf of Oman (Strait of Hormuz) in 1988 with the correct unit liveries than simulating USS John Stennis deploying to a place where it has never been or carrying units that never operated from it. But since we all have different preferences for what constitutes "accuracy", flexibility is helpful for attracting a wide-range of users. Given the constraints of only having a few maps with (potentially) one carrier, we would be really limited with accurately recreating certain scenarios. Having varied scenarios is a really good thing. -Nick