BlackLion213

That rudder must be tired....:D

Something about this statement has my attention. -Nick

Also, LNS is doing a map for the Tomcat - undisclosed (but very cold) location, but certainly coastal. Cobra said it will have a significant amount of land. Since there is already a desert carrier ops map, there is a good chance that the Tomcat map will be a bit greener. The maps by VEAO are reportedly a ways off, they haven't started using the tools yet and they are planning to start work on them in early 2017. Probably going to take a while. -Nick

That sounds great, he seems like a great resource and very enthusiastic about his work. Every time you discuss the F-14 module or mention new features, it sounds better and better. I have a really good feeling about your module....thinking it will be very right. :D Thank you for creating it! It was fun to watch and "Bio" Baranek seems surprisingly accessible in the video. I hear he is writing 2 more books, hopefully out soon. -Nick

Hello, One of the most famous members of the Tomcat community was a RIO named "Bio" Baranek. He served with VF-24 in the early 80s and became an instructor at Top Gun (while the movie "Top Gun" was being made - he also assisted with parts of the production). He would later serve with VF-2 on two cruises in the later 80s, including some Earnest Will missions with VF-2 in the Strait of Hormuz in 1987. Next he became the XO/CO of VF-211 during their transition to LANTIRN and missions in support of "Southern Watch" in the Persian Gulf. He also wrote an excellent book, Top Gun Days And several very well written articles on the Tomcat. He is a talented writer, able to effectively balance the small and big details of being a RIO without getting bogged down. You can learn a lot from reading his work and it's a "good read" as well! In addition to all this prose, he took a lot of awesome photographs. In fact, if you see a beautiful Tomcat picture from the 1980's, there is a good chance he took it. (or CJ "Heater" Heatley who also took a lot of amazing pictures - he also published a photo book that I highly recommend, but is out of print) Here are a few of "Bio's" pictures: Did anyone notice a theme...;) Finally, he has a website and a youtube channel. The website has some great stories, lots of pictures, and a few "vintage" videos. Taking in cockpit video was a bit tougher in the 1980s, when a camcorder was about as portable as a bowling ball. http://www.topgunbio.com/ Also, he recently produced this video discussing mission planning and ACM: [ame] [/ame] The description says it was created for the DCS community, it seems clear that "Bio" is aware of the DCS Tomcat project. Perhaps an SME....:D In any case, his youtube channel also has some videos, shared with the website: https://www.youtube.com/user/dandlb/videos I hope you enjoy the miscellaneous media as much as I have. :) -Nick

Yes, I feel like it would have to be a bit more than just time compression. It would have to get the aircraft to the next waypoint, just to spare transit times. I didn't know that DCS had this feature, good to know in any case. :) I think a skip to next waypoint feature would be great for certain gameplay situations, perhaps DCS will have something like that one day. I still want big maps and such.... I'm just glad that some of the first maps are very accessible from a gameplay standpoint. It's clear that the developers thought about it, not to mention the developer's benefit of starting with smaller maps. I think it works in everyone's favor for now. -Nick

I think that incorporating realistic transit times for DCS missions will be one of the challenges for users and developers in the future. Most of us want the most realistic and broadest set of experiences possible..., but I can't spend 4 hours on each campaign mission in the PTO, Hornet module, or Tomcat module (maybe if I schedule it in, so possible 1-2 times/month). One of the awesome things about the Strait of Hormuz theater is that it is one of the few areas where modern combat took place with short transit times. Back in the 1980s, when the USN conducted strikes against the Iranian Navy, the Enterprise was stationed just south of Jask for combat ops. Flying at cruise speeds from the Gulf of Oman to the Isthmus of the Strait takes 10-20 minutes. Also, flying into the combat zone from bases in UAE would be similarly short - this offers an excellent balance between realism and accessible game play. I suspect that both Iwo Jima and Okinawa would offer the same experience. Reaching the combat zones very shortly after launching from a CV. Many of us want huge theaters to have more options, but smaller theaters have significant gameplay benefits that should be considered. Certainly some of the Solomon campaign would fit the bill, but not all of it. I remember that a game that a fried played (back in the mid-90s - Pacific fighters?) had a feature to accelerate transit times. This probably sounds like heresy for many DCS users, but could be handy if we ever want to simulate something like classic P-38 long-range PTO missions or any missions from the Gulf War, OEF, OIF, etc. Those missions regularly lasted 6 hours, mostly flying straight and level at max conserve with some tanking thrown in. We don't want this to get too close to the virtual version of standing in line at the DMV...;) Anyway, that's my very long way of saying that Iwo Jima sounds like a great option for both a realism and practical gameplay standpoint. Smart move! -Nick

I used the bugtracker for the first time tonight. Very helpful. Thank you for putting it together! -Nick

Very true, plus all of these instances of crazy roll rate are occurring at high speed, like ~650 knots. All 4th Gen US fighters regulate roll rate via their SAS, CAS, or FBW system to limit the roll rate as speed climbs. When the USN was testing the Tomcats DFCS system, the test aircraft were losing panels on the engine nacelles due to excessive roll rates at higher speeds. I don't think that the MiG-21 has a system to reduce roll rate at high speed, so these rapid rolls seem feasible. I hear you, things will never be perfect trying to translate the experience of operating a high-performance vehicle onto a stationary computer. Those pilot SMEs have a hard job trying to conclude if something feels right with all of the missing feedback and sensations. I also agree that the Bf109 is very engaging and seems to capture the sensation of flight very well in my eyes (as does the MiG-21 IMHO). Trying to get things right by the numbers might not be simpler - many operational aircraft may not perform by the book either. Many service aircraft operate with slightly detuned engines to reduce the time before engine rebuilds and improve reliability (the case for both the F-15 and F-14A). I've heard a few pilots say that you can't trust the manual when it comes to certain performance figures (a B-25 pilot flat out laughing about the published rate of climb figures). Novak posted a while back that the MiG-21's flight model used data from his own telemetry: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2299164&postcount=380 Which he said deviated from published reports and varied from aircraft to aircraft. So is it better to have performance match the test flights of optimized aircraft or match the average operational aircraft? Can telemetry data be trusted? I think all of us want these modules to be as perfect as possible - that doesn't make us a-holes. How we respond to the inevitable imperfections is the defining feature. ;) And your right, the developers need to take our critiques with a grain of salt...how else can they get out of bed in the morning and continue the march towards perfection? -Nick

I did some testing this morning and performance seems very much in-line with what I've read. Managed Mach 2.01 with centerline fuel tank. And Mach 2.20 after jettisoning the center tank: I think she had more left in her, but I wanted to have enough fuel for the return. Solid high speed performance. The nature and pace of the acceleration seemed quite plausible. The FM improvements are really great thus far. Also, the handling now gives the impression that the FBW is coping with the physics of the airframe (as you would expect) and the control responses seem much more realistic. I'm really enjoying it. :D -Nick

WOW! Can't believe it's gotten that close! Great pictures, EDGE amazes me more everyday. Such a great time to be a flight sim enthusiast! -Nick

+1 - very nice Tirak! I love the F-14 and I actually like the F-14A best. But DFCS would offer a nice contrast to the AFCS in the F-14A - just as Hummingbird said. I wouldn't be disappointed if the F-14B had the AFCS, but if given the choice I would prefer a DFCS F-14B to contrast with the AFCS F-14A. But either way, I'll fly the wings off it. :) -Nick

+1! Great interview! It was exciting to hear that there are multiple 3rd parties working on maps. That was a surprise, there has been very little talk concerning 3rd party maps. I'm anxious to hear more. -Nick

Love this. Thank you! -Nick

Well with over 100 trillion cells in our bodies...I think real men can handle it. ;) -Nick

I bet they've thought about that: This quote is hardly proof of DFCS, but I don't think that the F-14A and B had any significant control system differences since the F-14A+/B's were all built/remanufactured during the very late 1980s - sharing the same control system and SAS with the fleet F-14A's of the time. The F-14D did introduce a new ARI in 1992 that was not retrofitted (IIRC) to the fleet F-14A's or B's, but besides the ARI, even the F-14D's system was fundamentally the same as the other Tomcats. The challenge for adding DFCS to the Leatherneck F-14 is finding the right information about the system/control laws, etc. One great thing about developing the F-14 flight model is that there is good data for the F-14A, both performance and control response data, courtesy of NASA testing and simulators. The data is supposed to be very detailed and very complete (hearsay on my part however). But NASA never tested the DFCS system or DFCS equipped Tomcats (as far as I can tell), so getting adequate info may be much harder. I'd be happy with either DFCS or non-DFCS F-14B, but I'll admit that the late-90's F-14B with LANTIRN and DFCS would offer a stark contrast to the mid-80s F-14A in many respects. That would be a pretty awesome combination. -Nick

I wasn't disappointed in the Viggen, more in myself for beating up the cable linkage in a new car. Still love the color! For it's day, it was quite quick and I really enjoyed the drive. Also, the failure may have had more to do with a factory fault than weakness of design. I wasn't going too easy on it anyway...;) I'm generally a bit gentler these days, but still enjoy banging off 0.25 sec shifts when the moment calls for it. My current car's tremec T6060 is a bit more forgiving of such things. :D -Nick PS - That 2.3L single scroll turbo 4-cylinder has roughly the throttle response of the RM8A/B...but that's not a fault in the fun-to-drive category, generally speaking.

Leatherneck stated that the F-14B would be "mid-90's" and no further specifics have been offered. On the topic of LANTIRN, they've said that the exact sensors and available ordinance was not yet determined. So we'll have to wait and see. Nice info, it would seem that the F-14A was actually the first to received DFCS (VF-41 and VF-14 were both F-14A squadrons till they transitioned to F and E Hornets in 2001). I've heard it was a very helpful system for ACM in particular, allowing for crisper rolls and a higher roll rate. -Nick

It's been out of Beta for quite a while, I last drove one in 2001....still the only car I ever broke on a test drive. :doh: Lets just say that the shift-linkage wasn't terribly durable or amenable to powershifts....how else do you keep a laggy, single-scroll turbo four on boil for acceleration runs? ;) And mind the torque steer too! That engine has a healthy mid-range that paired poorly with FWD. -Nick

True, though the "sluggish"/imprecise pitch response relates to small stick inputs with tasks such as mid-air refueling. It's recommended that pilots give the nose a moment to respond before adding additional pitch inputs, otherwise the aircraft has a tendency to develop oscillations (like many aircraft with hydraulic controls). With big pitch inputs, it can develop very impressive pitch rates (STR and ITR as you have demonstrated :)). It's more of a matter of performing precise flight tasks, which are harder in the F-14 than later 4th gen fighters (no surprise). BTW, the DFCS system was actually applied to all fleet Tomcats in the late 1990s, including the A/B/D. The F-14D had a different ARI system that was built into the aircraft on the Grumman assembly line, but the benefits of DFCS were seen in all remaining Tomcats when integrated. I've heard that the DFCS went a long way to improve pilot confidence and certainly helped to reduce pilot workload during traps. That said, i'm glad we are getting the non-DFCS version in DCS. Bad behaviors make for much more fun during flight-sims. ;) I don't get the appeal of creating an extremely detailed physics model to simulate the mechanics of flight, then simulating aircraft with FBW systems that make the aircraft feel like SFM...whats the fun in that? Bring on the irritating dutch rolls I say! -Nick

Nice find Hummingbird. Though it's a bit funny that several of these Tomcat videos were sponsored by a retirement community near Los Angeles.... I guess the Tomcat heyday did pass a while ago. ;) I still think it's cool though....I might have just made it less cool. :) That part was most interesting and a reminder that the Tomcat did not handle "like a sports car". It had impressive capabilities in pitch, but it certainly felt less precise than a lot of other fighters. The slightly sluggish (per NATOPS) low speed pitch response, coupled with a slowish roll rate, and downright messy handling at low speed made for a, ahem, questionable, first impression. I expect that more than a handful of LNS Tomcat customers will submit bug reports for something like: "this thing handles terribly, no fighter could be like this, please fix it!" It will definitely take some learning to get the most out of her, which I love BTW. However, once you learn how to handle the Tomcat, it will do some awesome things, just like your charts have demonstrated. ;) -Nick

I was referring to the aircraft getting "stuck" at high AOA and needing forward stick for the AOA to decrease. That is gone. The rebound motion is still there, but are we sure that's a bug? Has Novak commented on that? Thats interesting and leads me to wonder if that rebound is an interaction between the rapid pitch-up and function of the ARU. Perhaps it isn't a bug, but a real response of the ARU in response to these rapid pitch moments? -Nick

Hi Maverick, That was excellent, thank you very much for creating that. I'm still amazed how good different lighting conditions look in EDGE and that was beautiful even with the old 3D model. I can't imagine how good that will look with the new 3D model and possibly a better CVN model as well. Perhaps there will be a sequel...:D -Nick

+1 The incremental improvements have made a substantial impact on the overall experience. As good as the MiG-21 was last March (when I bought it), it is now much improved with upgraded flight dynamics, better 3D model, twice as many liveries (with beautifully done Tac numbers), and lots of bug fixes. I am very appreciative for the continued and very thorough support. I paid full price for the MiG-21 and it still feels like the it is the best value of anything I've bought for DCS. Thank you again for the hard work. This is building serious customer loyalty and confidence in the brand! -Nick

Generally true, but I've not yet seen a single F-16N (specifically the "N") with any external stores excluding an ACMI pod. My 2 cents, -Nick