BlackLion213

Yes, thank you. :) And I edited my post to be more specific. -Nick

The F-16Ns were so high performance that they lasted about as long as a gallon of milk! Snowballed and G'd into oblivion, then retired for airframe cracks after only 10 years. I suppose thats what happens when you strap a 29,000 lb of thrust F110-GE-100 to a ~17,000 lb airframe. They were seriously impressive machines! -Nick

Do you have any others? Preferably not Instructor F-16Ns vs Student F-14As? Or is it a "one hit wonder"...;) Well I have a few, mostly F-14As vs other excellent dogfighters. MiG-29 Luftwaffe aggressors vs VF-14 F-14As: F-14A vs Hornet: F-14B vs Hornet: F-14 vs Mirage 2000: F-14A/B vs F-15C: Another F-14A/B vs F-15C: And...one last F-14A vs MiG-29: I think the F-14 can hold it's own...and gun a few Vipers on the way. ;) -Nick

Thank you for the explanation. As usual, it's very logical and nicely detailed. It sounds like there may be a nice variety of new terrains over the next few years. :) This last part is interesting. Certainly you could charge for these things. Would you also consider adding such AI content to things like DLC campaigns? Such items would be excellent for campaigns as well. -Nick PS - I love the first glimpse of the Viggen scope! I'm really looking forward to that module. :thumbup:

That was great, thank you! -Nick

I know...my post pre-dates their recent confirmation of the sub-version - F4U-1D. However, the changes to create a F4U-1A from a 1D are modest. If LNS created a Solomons map (my original hope from last March BTW), updating their Corsair to go with the map would not be a huge undertaking. I'm not saying it will happen, but not an absurd idea either. -Nick

I'm wondering the same, but it's unlikely to be a desert map. The Strait of Hormuz will be excellent for the Tomcat and I doubt that LNS would create a separate map that overlaps with SoH. Plus, they said it would be 'very oceany, very cold" - doesn't sound very desert like. Though a lot of areas in the Northern Pacific are pretty sparse - it could look a bit "deserty". Still, I suspect it will be very different from current maps - best way to maximize interest. -Nick

+1 This approach that LNS is pioneering (pioneering for DCS) is best way to experience an aircraft. This is how the "traditional" flight-sim used to work - things like the Jane's series, for example. It would seem that LNS' business plan is sales volume over margin. Offering a big package with all of these extras on top of a MiG-21 quality module has to be more expensive/labor intensive to develop. But if the prices are similar to current DCS modules, then there is no comparison - buy the module that offers more. For example: I like the P-40F as an aircraft more than the F4U-1 (my own interest prior to DCS). However, if I were to choose between buying the VEAO P-40F vs the LNS F4U-1D with a theater and period AI - I would definitely buy the F4U-1D before the P-40F. It gives the player a chance to explore and experience the complete picture of operating an aircraft in combat - not just what it was (or is) like to fly the P-40F in isolation. However, this approach will only work if the community really buys and the user base grows. Otherwise, a 3rd party cannot afford to do 2x-3x as much work for the same money. Otherwise, LNS will have to either charge more or start separating these other parts and sell them as "DLC". I can see your point, but there is no good solution to this. These maps require a lot of manpower to develop, in addition to all the effort put into DCS/DCS2 which remains free. As ED and 3rd parties gain experience and create new tools, map development may become faster and easier - meaning lower costs and lower price. But for now, there needs to be a way to recoup development costs. Offering a lot of different options for players may fragment multi-player, but it will also (hopefully) bring more players into DCS. Players will probably have to prioritize and decide what the best environment is for multi-player - or just stick to the Black Sea map. But I don't see how this is better than not offering any new maps? (note - I don't consider maps for free as a viable choice - unless someone here wants to create and debug something like the Nevada map for free - anyone...? Beuller?...Beuller? ;)). Anyway, my 2 cents. -Nick

Check this thread: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=155465 Also, here is another: http://www.anft.net/f-14/ -Nick

Cobra, thank you as always for the detailed update and thorough discussion of your plans. The F4U-1D fuselage in your banner looks mighty impressive and I can't wait for the true reveal. Also, this part sounds incredible: The flight model is by far my favorite part of any module and the above news is absolutely music to my ears. The Tomcat (from what I've read :)), had some interesting/peculiar handling characteristics for a fighter and I'm thrilled to hear that it will be captured so thoroughly. Also, the level of systems detail that you are going for sounds unprecedented. Thank you for your dedication to this project! IMHO, the MiG-21 truly captures that "analog" jet flying experience and for me, it remains the most organic and lifelike flying experience in DCS. I can't wait to see what you can do with the F-14 - especially given how much effort you are investing. Happy New Year! 2016 looks to be a very promising year for Leatherneck Simulations, DCS, and us lucky users. :thumbup: Best, Nick

And it's only noon here in California. Happy (almost) New Year to everyone! -Nick

Of course not. :) I would just squint when looking past the island and refuse to acknowledge certain details....kind of like I do with dirty dishes at home. ;) Sorry, missed your post. It may be old news to some. Not knowing the origins or significance of this video, many of us are waiting a bit longer before getting too excited. However, I do think that 2016 could be an awfully good year for us USN fans. :D New Years is a good time for hope! -Nick

Even though these IAP units didn't have the range to effectively operate over Sweden, it would seem that they could still screen these bomber formations. Backfires and Badgers would probably launch their cruise missiles from the middle of the Baltic (200-300 km from their targets). The IAP units probably did have enough fuel to screen and try to deter Swedish fighters over the Baltic. Though even without escorting fighters, those Backfires would probably be moving at high speed over the Baltic and would be quite challenging to intercept. A fighter escort might not help much since massing fighters over the eastern coast of the Baltic might serve as more of a warning to Sweden. As opposed to Backfires going feet wet over the Baltic at >M1.0, flying ~150-200 km into the Baltic and launching ( less than 10 minutes from feet wet to launch with the intercepting fighters having to fly ~150-200 km into the Baltic for the intercept - no small feat!). It's no wonder that Sweden trained for dispersion of their airfields. Dealing with missiles launched at long range from a supersonic aircraft is a tough problem to deal with. Certainly the USN thought so! -Nick

The lines start to get blurry as there are many levels of control assist that can be built into an aircraft flight control system. The three different tiers that I have read about are: SAS (stability augmentation system), CAS (control augmentation system), and FBW (fly-by-wire systems). Stability Augmentation System is what is found on the F-14A/B/D prior to the DCFS (Leatherneck's upcoming module will feature an SAS). After DCFS (integrated in the very-late 1990s), the system became more of a CAS. SAS systems are purely passive and function by reducing the magnitude of control inputs, usually by using a fairly simple algorithm. Classic examples is controlling roll rate by reducing the magnitude of control inputs above certain speeds and limiting pitch inputs to reduce the risk of stall/departure. The system cannot add additional inputs, only reduce the magnitude of inputs. So it cannot do things like adjust aircraft trim, such as the PTC in the F-15. Control Augmentation System is an intermediate step between the relatively simple SAS and true FBW. CAS can both reduce the magnitude of control inputs and add additional inputs according to algorithms. This allows the F-15 to integrate helpful features such as the pitch trim compensator, sophisticated aileron-rudder-interconnect, pitch ratio changer, and roll ratio changer. These features give a FBW-like experience with relatively constant control efforts/excursion despite dramatic changes in aircraft speeds. The F-15 in particular also gives a very FBW-like experience largely because the F-15 has both a sophisticated CAS and excellent native aerodynamics with very benign handling/departure characteristics (the F-15 engineers deserve a pat on the back :)). The last level is true Fly-By-Wire control system. This goes beyond CAS in that all pilot control inputs are interpreted by the computer and the control surfaces moved based upon algorithms and feedback from the airframe. I believe that true FBW is a system in which there is no direct connection between the pilot's control stick and the control surfaces. The F-16 and F-117 pioneered this concept with no back-up control system. The Tornado has a system that is probably FBW, but there is "back-up" hydraulic controls. Still, according to my references, the control surfaces are effectively moved by computer outputs under normal operations. This is the same for the Su-27 which has (IIRC) back-up hydraulics, but under normal operations there is no direct link between pilot inputs and control surface movements. The lined between an advanced CAS and FBW can get blurry, but I hope this helps to clear up the confusion (and didn't add to the confusion ;)). -Nick

Sign me up!! That sounds awesome. I am still hoping that the Leatherneck campaign is something like that, it makes the most sense for a Viggen module. Still, sounds like either way this scenario will be playable. :D -Nick

It does! But it also manages to change it's flight path much more rapidly than the Hornet video. The Tomcat has tremendous pitch authority with it's wings swept, but it also bleeds airspeed rapidly in that configuration (like the Mirage and MiG-21, of course). With the wings swept forward, it generates less alpha in turns, but also changes it's true flight path just as well with less loss of energy. Most Tomcat drivers would execute the first break of a Case III recovery with the wings swept at around 400 kts (for aesthetics...and to bleed airspeed :D). I've read that they had to be careful during that break because they could rapidly build up the alpha during the turn and occasionally experience excessive yaw or departure. I've also heard (from Hornet pilots) that the Tomcat can consistently out-turn the Hornet below 325 knots. It generates less alpha and the ITR is less, but the actual mass of the aircraft changes direction more in the F-14 and the STR is better. It will be interesting to compare once both modules are out. Also, just as a follow-up - this image is an in-game shot for testing the hydraulics/control surfaces: Things are certainly moving along! :thumbup: -Nick

This is outstanding, thank you! Your guides are extremely helpful and than you for putting this one together. It has already answered a lot of questions. -Nick

This seems like a fitting follow-up picture: Courtesy of the Leatherneck Simulations facebook page. I LOVE this stuff! :D This F-14B model looks insanely good, stunning work! -Nick

I had a thought concerning the weapons stations/load-out manager for the F-14. Would it be possible to make the Phoenix pylons loadable separate from the Phoenix itself? (and perhaps the same for the wing-glove pylons?) When Tomcats operated from Ship, they typically would leave the pylons in place unloaded (the same for the 280 gallon fuel tanks - leaving them in place even if unloaded for that particular flight): On shore, this was less of an issue, I suppose because there was more space and time to deal with removing pylons and tanks. Anyway, just a thought. It seems like it would be a nice feature so users can configure the Tomcat just the way it is depicted in pictures. Thanks for listening. :) -Nick

BTW, you can adjust the seat height, which helps the issue a bit, at least for me. (LShift+S for up and LShift+LAlt+S for down) However, it would be nice if the seat adjustment were a bit slower or more progressive. Would allow the user to find just the right height. -Nick

:megalol::megalol: -Nick

This is definitely a super-responsive aircraft. You've probably watched Tomcat HUD videos as well (?) - the Tomcat has serious roll inertia. :D I can at least say that the roll performance in the DCS Mirage looks close, even if it needs to be a bit less precise. It would be funny if Captain Smiley ended up adding it just to appease us, even if his references contradict it. ;) We'll see what he thinks. -Nick

I'm not sure if it is supposed to hold the flare like that. However, I did some reading back in April (when my Mirage interest was accelerating) that the Mirage 2000 was explicitly designed to have a natural tendency to pitch upward. There were two reasons: to improve ITR in ACM and to reduce takeoff speeds. Apparently, one of the major contributors to the Mirage III's high take-off speed was the fact that actuating the elevators/ailerons effectively reduced the wing area by distorting the airfoil. This meant that wing surface was decreasing as the pilot pitched the aircraft on take-off - lengthening the take-off roll a fair bit. With the Mirage 2000, Dassault deliberately built in a tendency to pitch (as part of it's relaxed stability) so that no control surface deflection would be required to maintain a nose-high position, allowing for lower take-off speeds. That might be why it stays flared...or it's a bug, but there is an explanation in the aircraft's design. Also, concerning the roll rate and crispness, there is a lot of both. The roll does end very abruptly with minimal inertia. On the external view, you can see the control surfaces deflecting opposite the roll when you release the stick (very briefly, but definitely happening). One thing users should do before grabbing their pitchfork is try flying the Mirage with the large, area-ruled wing tanks. It changes the roll behavior and there is more inertia (still crisp, but less so). Also, when you try it, deactivate the G-limiter (because roll rate is automatically limited with these large tanks). With the limiter off, roll rate is close to what you see with a clean aircraft, but there is more roll inertia. Enough that I tend to overshoot by 10-15 deg and find myself adding opposite stick. It's not hugely different, but it is different. Anyway, things might not be right, but they are plausible. We'll see what Captain Smiley thinks when he gets back. There might be some direct references to help settle it if anyone can find some. -Nick

As the title says, the recent NTTR update allows the Mirage to function. I took my first flight with the Mirage in NTTR and can verify that it does work. One funny thing, the download for the OpenAlpha is twice the size of the OpenBeta. No difference from what I can see thus far. Anyway, have fun - I will. :D -Nick

Thanks Grunf. NTTR wasn't complete for me without the MiG-21, I need to start a few "Constant Peg" encounters! :thumbup: -Nick