BlackLion213

Depends on the aircraft configuration. In the landing configuration at 17-18 units AOA, small lateral stick movements cause the nose to initially swing a bit opposite the direction of roll (adverse yaw). Once angle of bank reaches 15-20 deg, the nose swings in a proverse fashion and yaw rate will increase as angle of bank increases. The nose will continue to yaw a bit as wings are brought level and some yaw oscillations are common if counter bank is used to stop the yaw. If you are pulling Gs around 300 KIAS at ~70-80 deg AOB @ 17-18 units AOA - lateral stick inputs towards the ground will often cause a touch of wing drop, some yaw, and steady roll. Lateral stick away from the ground generally cause minimal yaw and a similar rate of roll. Hope this helps. -Nick

Yes, exactly! Getting aboard is one thing, but a virtual LSO would add another layer and require a lot more precision. Doing this on-speed without any significant line-up or glideslope corrections is a lot tougher. When one of our Tomcat SMEs came by to test the Tomcat module for the first time (I'm a Heatblur Tomcat tester and the Pilot tested at my house :) ), I was amazed at how much better his passes look than mine (Tomcat is tough to land). However, this SME also was an LSO and his passes looked amazingly good to me, but he didn't think they'd pass muster. On one trap everything looked perfect and I was commenting on how smooth it looked and his reply: "Well this was actually a taxi 1 wire, so it better be the only one of the cruise if I wanted to keep flying in real life..." So it would probably be very different if there is virtual grading of the passes. -Nick

Honestly didn't cross my mind till you pointed it out. :) There is a resemblance in the picture, but in person he is a fair bit burlier than Tom Skerritt. -Nick

Fortunately, this particular SME has a computer at his shop that can run DCS (he is working as a flight instructor) along with full controls . He recently completed set-up and is now able to test routinely. :) -Nick

That is also great news of course. :) Might these new explosions open the door for new clouds as well? They seem like an excellent jumping off point given their appearance. -Nick

Thats why the Navy asked for 200 new build F-14Ds. :) But the F-16s weren't as good at it, which is why this happened: CENTCOM could have saved money by having those Tomcat sorties carried out by F-16s, but instead they forward deployed F-14As to a land base occupied by the USAF. Not to say that the F-16s weren't doing a good job, but the addition of the Tomcats improved what could be accomplished. Team work is a great thing - either within one aircraft or between many. :) Don't get me wrong, the F-16 is a wonderfully flexible platform - able to perform effectively as a fighter, striker, SEAD, and...well...as a target too. :) Best, Nick

Hi Mvsgas, Sideswipe is referring to the decision of the Secretary of Defense and Congress to cancel the F-14D program in favor of the yet to be created Super Hornet. It was a very contentious issue at the time as senior Navy leadership overwhelmingly favored the F-14D. They sent numerous letters and direct solicitation for at least 250 new build F-14Ds. In Congress, the only two retired Aviators (John McCain and John Glenn) also strongly preferred the F-14D. But ultimately Congress chose the Super Hornet over the objections of the Navy, after which all tooling for the F-14 was also ordered destroyed by Cheney - which led to some interesting solutions and work arounds for Tomcat maintenance at the end. Of course, part of the Navy's strong preference for the F-14D was the fact that the airplane existed and indeed met all specifications while the Super Hornet was a "paper airplane" and regarded as high risk in terms of meeting the same performance. These estimates proved to be true as the Super Hornet hit Op Eval with more operational deficiencies than any aircraft previously tested by them - mostly related to transonic handling, acceleration, stores separation, and range. Over time many of these issues were resolved, but performance in many categories suffered between the transition from the Tomcat to the Super Hornet (namely range, speed, and payload). The gist of all this is that the Navy wanted the Tomcat (no organization is homogenous - I am referring to leadership) and Congress chose the Super Hornet. But you can see this difference of opinion manifest in other ways to: did you notice that the F-14 transitioned from the Reserves first! I haven't heard of the reserves receiving a new airplane before front line squadrons - definitely an unusual case. Also, the Navy kept the Tomcat deployed and in combat till the very end and worked hard to keep every aircraft it could flight worthy. Without access to spares production (remember the tooling was destroyed) keeping the aircraft maintained was extra challenging, but the Navy made a great show of keeping airframes in the air across all 3 F-14 models. Churning....do you mean all the F-16s that are being converted to drones? I guess since they have them sitting around with nothing better to do with them. :D:smartass: This didn't happen with the Tomcat, every airworthy airframe was precious to the end and even retired airframes were considered high-risk (and therefore cut-up to prevent spares harvesting). But politics aside, the Tomcat's time has come and gone. Luckily a glimpse of what it was like is coming soon - and it is awesome! You should definitely give it a try. :joystick: Just to know and understand what it was all about....:) -Nick

Happy Birthday MiG-21Bis. :) Like many of you, the MiG-21 was the module that pulled me into DCS and I have spent hundreds of hours in that virtual cockpit. It has been an absolute blast to fly, even if things are a bit rough around the edges right now. I have high hopes that the bugs will be sorted and everything updated for 2.1 and 2.5. The bones of this module are so good and I hope it has a bright future ahead. -Nick

Should be totally possible to create load-outs like this. As long as it was weapons station that could carry the weapon IRL, then it should also work for the module. -Nick

I upgraded from a 970 to a 1080Ti recently (though also upgraded RAM from 16 to 32 and switched DCS to a SSD), but the change was remarkable. With the 970, 2.1 with deferred lighting (especially Normandy) was nearly unplayable in the Rift (frames in the teens and twenties). With the 1080Ti, I turned most things up and hover around 45 most of the time. The change made a huge difference. -Nick

Hi Captain_Dalan, To echo what Cobra said, it really isn't too difficult to maintain ideal AOA during ACM with a little practice. I hope that I didn't overstate the difficulty of ACM in my write-up, but fighting the F-14 is not much more difficult than most other fighters in DCS (like the F-15C). The key issue that the amount of AOA available is often not the amount that the pilot wants during a sustained turn. Also, often the nose point-ability allows you to get the nose moving quickly, but that degree of stick input is a little too much once the airframe "settles" into the turn. So you need to be mindful of AOA building more than some other airplanes. In the F-15C, too much AOA leads you to bleed a lot of energy, but gives really great ITR in the process. In the F-14B, that excessive AOA adds only a bit of additional turn rate, but comes with bad behaviors and the loss of a lot of energy. However, managing AOA is pretty straightforward. The buffet sounds and cockpit shake give you a really good idea of where you are in the envelope (at least in terms of when you are passing through 15 units and don't want to add much more stick) and there are some airframe sounds that show up as AOA gets too high (being tuned right now iirc). Also, just a bit of muscle memory goes a long way and I now have a pretty good idea of how much stick input is needed to hold AOA around ideal. This is aided by a couple of factors: above ~450 KIAS you will be "black-out" limited in terms of stick input and don't need to worry about AOA as much because you have so much G available. Below 250 KIAS you will need to be extra vigilant of both airspeed and AOA, but you probably won't plan to spend much time there. So you really are learning the inputs for speeds ranging from 250-450 KIAS. Quick glances at the AOA gauge are important, especially when you are new to the airplane, but I can fight with my eyes on the opponent and still keep AOA in the ideal range most of the time. With just a bit of practice, it will be second nature. :thumbup: Plus, if you want tactile feedback, WindyTX has the right idea. Something like Jetseat or butt kicker would do the job very well. -Nick

It can get a little confusing when it comes to F-14 versions. The Heatblur DCS: F-14 (from everything said thus far), will include two F-14 versions included in the module for one price. The two versions are: The first F110 powered F-14 - the original F-14A avionics married to new F110 turbofan engines, upgraded with the ALR-67 RWR, and TCS. This version was first delivered to fleet F-14 squadrons in 1988 and first carrier deployments were 1990. This version was originally designated the F-14A+, but the name was changed to the F-14B in 1992. The Heatblur F110 powered F-14 will represent the F-14A+/B as first delivered to the fleet (the 1988-95 version) before the LANTIRN upgrades. The other included version is the F-14A as configured with the USN from ~1984-1991. This means the F-14A with TF30-P-414A engines, ALR-45 RWR, HUD camera, TCS, and some very early ARI upgrades from the late-70s/early-80s. Agreed and no evidence that these plans have changed. Heatblur has said several times that they want to develop an upgrade for the initial F-14 release that would include LANTIRN, but it is unclear what this upgrade would look like. It would need cockpit, avionics, and external model upgrades along with adding LANTIRN itself. But it is clear that LANTIRN is not something planned for the first F-14 module and would be part of a bigger upgrade (from all that has been said on the topic). -Nick

As usual, turkeydriver and captain_dalan gave an accurate depiction of the major performance differences - which are significant, but not huge (I think I'm confused by what I just said...). :) Aerodynamically, the A and B will behave nearly identical save for the thrust differences. Glancing at the differences in the performance charts, the thrust difference is most notable in the Ps>1 range where the B can maintain a much better STR with excess energy than the A (meaning you can regain lost airspeed or climb and still turn at an impressive rate). The A has a nearly identical Ps=0 turn rate, especially at lower altitudes, but has to me much more careful to maintain energy in a turning fight since regaining it requires a much bigger trade-off in terms of turn rate or altitude. The more noticeable difference may not be in activities like ACM, but less exciting tasks like cruise, economy climbs to altitude, and carrier ops. The TF30 is pretty good at low altitudes and high speeds with full afterburner, but the biggest difference between the F110 and TF30 is at altitude in mil-power or less. As the F-14A climbs above 15,000' and stays below ~275 KIAS, there is a big deficit in thrust compared to the F110. The F-14B can climb comfortably at combat loads with mid-range throttle settings. The F-14A really needs either mil-power or near mil-power to climb and maintain a reasonable airspeeds at altitude. In fact, loaded F-14As usually climb in steps above ~23,000'. The aircraft can climb to 40,000'+ in mil-power, but you need to manage energy well while the F-14B will do these things without a thought and with energy to spare. Then there is the engine handling issues. From what F-14A pilots have said and wrote, the TF30 was pretty stable in zone 5 afterburner or full mil-power and high AOA alone would rarely stall it. The problem is that throttle transients would easily upset the compressor, especially when coupled with high AOA or beta. Pilots needed to be mindful of when and how they moved the throttle, especially during maneuvers. Not just when horsing around in ACM, they actually needed to worry more at high altitudes (above 30,000') or low engine RPMs (especially below 80%) where stall margin dropped off quite a bit (and the "thumps" become barely audible "pops"). The lack of adequate thrust and the stability of the engine in zone 5 were complimentary - the well known saying of "set it and forget it". But more mundane tasks could get you into trouble if you weren't mindful. So flying the F-14A is an exercise in restraint and constraint. In the F-14B, the aerodynamic characteristics and handling challenges are foremost on your mind during flying and tasks such as landing. In the F-14A, they become secondary to proper engine handling and further reduce your options for dealing with imprecise flying or sticky situations. In the end, the F-14A can do just about everything that the F-14B can, but you need to plan more and you have fewer recourses if something unexpected happens (hence the lack of safety margin that made the F110 powered Tomcats so much better for routine operations). For me, this makes the F-14A more appealing in a simulator (no life on the line) since you need to know the pitfalls (true of all F-14s in some respects) to get things done well and even simple missions will keep you involved and mentally present since you can screw it up - and have few options for salvaging the situation. Since I like the sim-hobby to get away from it all for a bit, the F-14A really facilitates that. :thumbup: -Nick

Perhaps, though the Tomcat's more challenging flight dynamics will be offset by the simpler avionics and the offloading of some tasks onto Jester. That said, the Tomcat is simply older and has more manual processes, pilots who want the newest tools will prefer the Hornet since it has more tech. The other thing is that the Tomcat is so satisfying to fly. Those flight dynamics add some challenge (not a total outlier for DCS), but seriously rewards the pilot who invest some time learning (not a ton of time either). Having to manage things like AOA during a dogfight is important in every aircraft. The F-15C doesn't perform well for long at high AOA either, but that aircraft gives audible warnings when the AOA is excessive while the Tomcat starts to mis-behave (unless you are wings level). The only tasks that is notably harder than other aircraft in DCS (imho) is landing, especially carrier traps. Doing that well will take real practice and will probably be a perishable skill if you take a long break from it. It feels amazing when you get the hang of it! In the end, those who love operating systems will prefer the Hornet while those who like to fly will probably get more out of the Tomcat. Transient AOA in the FM can be very high. With wings level, I have seen AOA exceed 50 degrees for short periods (eyeballing it in-cockpit or the F2/F3 view). Might be able to reach the 70s if I found the right combination of speed and control inputs (and desire). Its not that high AOA is unattainable, more that you don't want it since the airframe performs so well at lower AOA and banked high AOA causes some control difficulties with yaw and wing drop. Not to mention the fact that you need energy to maneuver and that high AOA costs a lot of energy. In the end, those moves feel like a stunt, not a solution to a problem imho. I have also done things like tail slides and rudder reversals, the edge of the envelope seems to be very well-modeled and dynamic. At speeds above ~425-450 KIAS you can pull a lot of Gs, leading to rapid blackouts. I have not monitored the exact G limits, but 10 G is attainable. I'm pretty sure that 8 G is do-able at speeds above 350 KIAS or so (but I would have to go back and check). As far as the Iranian description, not sure about that. You can really get the nose moving, especially with wings level, but also getting a reasonable gun or sidewinder solution - not so sure about that. Maybe I just haven't tried hard enough. :) -Nick

Mudspike seems to be ramping up for the DCS: F-14 http://www.mudspike.com/in-anticipation-of-the-dcsf-14-tomcat/ Not a review, but an overview of info released thus far. Enjoy! -Nick

I'm pretty sure Cobra is showing off the high AOA "bad behaviors" with maximum or near maximum back stick. The Tomcat certainly had an ideal AOA range for turn performance (around 15-20 units iirc) and exceeding that was generally unhelpful. Also, the high AOA behaviors were different banked vs wings level. With wings level, the dihedral effect really stabilized the airframe and pilots could peg the AOA (and beyond) without much ill-effects besides bleeding off all their airspeed (which is an ill-effect I guess). Much like the F-86F or F-15C, best turn performance will require a certain stick input and pulling the stick into your gut will probably not work well. Thats how I interpreted it. :) I don't think there is much direct, published references that show optimal control inputs, but there is some NASA control-response data that Heatblur as access to. From all accounts, this FM was built around solid data and there were lots of references for airframe behavior. Also, very true about big control surfaces and no AOA-based limits on deflection. While the stab aug does reduce or slow inputs in pitch somewhat, the huge elevons require only moderate sized control inputs to generate optimal turn performance (like so many other jets in DCS). The size and available deflection was driven by other factors, like overcoming the aircraft's stubborn pitch response in the landing configuration, where big (but precise) control inputs where needed to make effective pitch adjustments. As you can see here in the groove at 2:04: These kind of big control inputs were not needed (or helpful) in normal flight, but the unskilled (or unwise) pilot can certainly upset the airframe with this sort of thing. Lots of control authority! My guess from the video is that behavior is quite correct, but virtual pilots won't be doing things the same way (in general). :) -Nick

Simply awesome! Great work as usual. :thumbup: -Nick

Hello, For those who don't use facebook, there is new Heatblur RIO cockpit shot and a link to a Hoggit based AMA with a former F-14A RIO. The Heatblur post also states that this cockpit is only a placeholder, but still nice to see. :) -Nick

The current refresh rate from the Heatblur videos will be the definitive rate for the heading indicator and TVV, but the pitch ladder will get a slightly faster one. Changing the pitch ladder will probably make all the difference and things will match up quite well. :) -Nick

Nice find! I'm quite sure that this has never been poster here before (rare occurrence these days :P). Fun read and chance to see what the other proposals looked like. It is revealing that every proposal except one was variable geometry and the lone hold-out was rejected immediately on the basis of a NASA assessment that rejected the performance claims. It still seems crazy that a single airframe managed to combine a Mach 2.4 top speed with a 125 KIAS approach speed. -Nick

:D -Nick

Does this weeks Su-33 video have new clouds? The ones in the video look awesome to me and seem nicer than current. -Nick

Little follow-up video: It wouldn't take much mis-judgement to pull too far forward and experience the wrath of TF30s in zone 5. :thumbup: -Nick

I would be VERY interested in a F-104 and would definitely be a customer. Tricky flight dynamics, great looks, and awesome performance - can't say no! :) I think that simpler fighters like this that were kept in service till the 1980s or early 90s would have a solid place in DCS in light of the inbound F-14A/B, A-7E, and F-4E. Turkey and Italy still had F-104s in service in early 1990s (Desert Storm), so it could fit in to theoretical coalition operations, etc. Definitely worth considering! :thumbup: -Nick

Cobra mentioned in a previous post that they were redoing the artwork and showed a plot from a laser-scanner on Facebook: The crunch is probably more about the new art assets than a possible release imho. I would still figure on late 2017 (December-ish) for early access, but this is just a guess. -Nick