BlackLion213

:megalol: -Nick

Forrestal class carriers don't have JBDs on Cat 4 and that Tomcat pulled a bit too far forward. :) -Nick

I've had the same issue and it affected all of the AI for the mission. However, I closed DCS and restarted the computer and the bug resolved. I've seen it once since and it again resolved after a restart. It seems to be unrelated to the AI type, task, or set speed - after a restart everything functions as normal. -Nick

The VX-9 and VX-30 aircraft definitely get run hard and put away wet. For there number of flight hours, these jets definitely saw the most Gs since they were constantly "yanked and banked". One of the VF-31 Tomcats that went on the final Tomcat cruise came from VX-9 and it had the fewest hours of any jet in the squadron, but it was arguably in the worst shape and actually suffered a bulkhead failure during the cruise. Indeed. USN jets went to a NARF every 5-7 years (I think) for a very complete rebuild (rewired, all surfaces repainted including landing gear, cockpit, exterior, etc). But it seems that they didn't stay new looking for long. The wear and tear appearance seems to settle in fast. :) -Nick -Nick

Yeah, I saw the FM charts. Super impressive as usual! No doubt the FM is going to be outstanding for this module. A lot of blood, sweat, and tears has gone in to it. :) -Nick

I wouldn't jump to conclusions. I've tested the current DCS AIM-54 against fighter targets and it rarely pulls many G during the intercept, even with direct hits when the fighter is maneuvering hard. The energy retention may have some advantages anyway. I also have faith that Heatblur will test this thoroughly. If it has trouble with fighters due to the G limit, they may decide to relax things a bit. :thumbup: -Nick

Actually thats a F/A-18C. Nice video though, thanks for posting. :) -Nick

Outstanding! Thank you for posting the PDF, it was a good read. :thumbup: -Nick

Yeah, its the logbook showing how many times I hit the stern. :lol: Perhaps I am too vain. :) -Nick

Yeah, I am guessing that trapping aboard a CV/CVN with the Tomcat's EFM (or any EFM/PFM) is going to be quite a bit tougher than the AS F-14. On a related note, I'd love a logbook...as long as I can reset it after my first 200-300 landings. :music_whistling: I don't think that I want those first ones preserved for posterity. :D -Nick

True, though it was different enough from the later variants that the USAAF designated it the P-322 instead of the P-38. One could be forgiven for separating it off from the employed P-38 models. :) -Nick

+1 And the current Warthog grip works quite well for recreating functionality, even if the shape is different. -Nick

The USAF does have their own fighter weapons school based out of Nellis that operates under similar principles: http://www.nellis.af.mil/About/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/284156/united-states-air-force-weapons-school/ I doubt that losses were few and far between, but neither of us has compelling evidence to confirm their suspicions. In any case, the F-14 (all models) could handle the F-5E quite well (if they could spot them). The F-14 holds significant advantages in rate/radius of turn, energy retention, acceleration (both level and unloaded), and rate of climb/vertical performance. The F-5E does have a better rate of roll, but that is their only advantage besides the difficulty spotting them. -Nick

Did I say that the F-14 was better? Don't extrapolate too much. ;) -Nick PS - your post does reinforce my position though so thank you for that. :)

Yes, because the machine is only a small part of the equation and Raptors can and will lose to Hornets. Likewise, Hornets will lose to F-5E aggressors, front-line squadrons will lose to ANG squadrons, and so on. Similarly, despite how much better the F-14B/D was at ACM compared to the F-14A, the F110 powered F-14s routinely lost DACT/ACM matches to F-14As - because the win boils down to the pilot, strategy, and errors. It does - the F-14 was an Eagle killer. And the Eagle was a Tomcat killer. It was a 2-way street and both aircraft routinely lost ACM matches to each other throughout their careers. I don't who won more often and maybe the Eagles did. "Bio" Baranek claims his encounters were 50:50 - he is a pretty straight shooter and I'm not concerned with those small details. My point is that the assertion that "Hoser" was the only pilot to "gun" an Eagle is clearly incorrect and it was in fact a routine event for ~30 years. -Nick

Exactly! I totally agree on this front, which is why I am so skeptical of the F-15's claim that they never lose to Tomcats. It's the man, not the machine and every encounter is an opportunity to win or lose irrespective of what you are flying. -Nick

But what about all these other times? Would you show me a shot of a F-14 with a F-15 pipper over it? You don't need to find 7 like I did, just 2 would be great. It seems easy to find video of F-14s gunning F-15s, but not the other way around.... :D -Nick

This should not be mis-construed as proof of capability, but I like watching them. :) -Nick

Well, unless the new AIM-54 is much less capable than the current DCS implementation, it will be far more effective against fighters than the current AIM-7M in DCS. I have been playing with the ME for a bit with the current F-14A utilizing the current AIM-54 - its quite lethal against Su-27s and MiG-29s with a pK of around 50% or so. The AIM-7 seems to have a pK of around 30% against the Su-27 and MiG-29. The new AIM-54 will be different and may have different strengths and weaknesses than the current one. But if current performance is any indicator, it will be something to take seriously and a better anti-fighter weapon than the AIM-7. -Nick

Actually the Tomcat has a fine IFF system. The implementation in DCS should be completely comparable to other 4th gen fighters currently in DCS (Mirage and F-15C - things may be different with the Hornet). IFF as a system is not extensively modeled in DCS currently, but the Tomcat has doesn't lack any functionality for DCS. Actually, it wasn't a lack of IFF. It was the lack of NonCooperative Target Recognition (NCTR) that the F-15C had recently received. The USAF was given overall control of the air war and used this as their justification for tasking F-15Cs for CAP missions in the region. The Tomcats would provide USN escort, but not cover Coalition CAP stations like the F-15s. Now the F-14A and A+ (to become F-14B by the end of the year) did have its own analog NCTR system - the TCS. However, the USAF still "preferred" the radar-based NCTR system and continued with their policy. NCTR would be a function of the new APG-71 radar on the F-14D, but you need a digital signal processor to perform the complex algorithms, so the F-14A/B could not implement this system into the AWG-9. The TCS was capable of long-range ID against fighter sized targets, but in order to focus on a target at range, you generally needed STT mode to direct the TCS. In the opening strikes of Desert Storm, 2 sections of F-14A+'s from VF-103 were escorting a USN strike package and detected a group of 4 MiG-21s heading south from an Iraqi airbase. The Tomcats had a good track in TWS mode and planned to launch AIM-54Cs at 25 nm. However, they couldn't obtain clearance from the E-2C, which had radio difficulties and had switched to a different frequency. After several attempts to obtain clearance, the range was falling below 20 nm and the Tomcat lead decided to use his TCS for a proper VID that would allow him to fire. The moment they locked-up the MiGs, they turn and ran at the speed of heat. The F-14s gave a brief chase, but it was pulling them away from the strike package. But the TCS did give them a solid VID even against a MiG-21 at range, but politics and practicality are often not aligned... Yes, but it was cost more than performance that spelled the end of the F401. It wasn't as good of an engine as the F110 (later generation engine) and it had it's own stability problems and issues with the afterburner (hard starts and blow outs). The real issue is that the Tomcat problem was over budget and the new engine was the easiest way to cut millions from the cost without sacrificing key program features. Such is life with politicians. -Nick

I totally agree with you. The F-14A will probably be the more engaging and interesting to fly because it has more "gotcha's". I've felt that learning to deal with faults and quirks is the reason for having a high fidelity sim in the first place. I think back to the early 90s when I got my first sim - Chuck Yeager's Air Combat. Like most (if not all) sims of the era, it had a really simple FM, instruments that were digital by necessity (resolution/readability), faultless engines, and weapons that never failed. Fun at first, but pretty flat learning curve and not that much insight into what it was like to fly a real airplane. Fast forward to 2017 and we have DCS with ultra-realistic flight models, soon to be photo-realistic cockpits with meticulously recreated systems and instrumentation....and players want ultra-modern, faultless airplanes that use FBW computer wizardry to make the airplane fly just like the fighters in Chuck Yeager's Air combat. :doh: I spent my entire flight sim years longing for a virtual aircraft that would (virtually) kill me in a flash and spit on my grave. :D Why else would I take all the time to learn the aircraft's secrets and gotchas? Bring on the F-14A! :thumbup: -Nick PS - The F-14A+ and B are the same airplane - the F-14A+ designation was changed to the F-14B in late 1991, reportedly to simplify reading digital database info that was confusing with the "A+" moniker. So the F-14A is one version while the F-14A+ and F-14B are the same (excluding the fact that F-14A+ always refers to the aircraft in the 1987-1991 timeframe).

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2878286&postcount=44 I can't find the building pics, but here is the post you referenced. DCS 2.5 pics are about halfway down the post. -Nick

Yeah, that quote is definitely tongue in cheek sarcasm, but this one wasn't: From what Cobra has said in this forum and on Hoggit, it seems very likely to me that we will have a late-model/LANTIRN F-14 at some point and could easily be the F-14D. That said, I'd expect it a year or two (minimum) after the F-14A/B release and likely after the module that follows the F-14, but just a guess there. -Nick

True, flight sims are notorious for never having enough computing power to really stretch their legs, but there is also this funny dichotomy where flight sims don't necessarily use up-to-date techniques. But the sense that the visuals are a lesser priority might also be part of the reason. DCS (imho) is the best looking flight sim that I have seen (most brand new things I've seen primarily on youtube), but there are other games/programs out there that take it even further. Flight sims frequently find themselves behind the curve on visuals, despite the fact that they are pretty important for completing the experience. This is especially true as VR becomes mainstream. But you don't get modern visual rendering techniques unless someone is pushing those boundaries and finding a way to make beautiful artwork function well in the simulator. As developers press forward, they find ways of building artwork that also performs well and this can lead to improved overall performance as new methods are integrated. Its not a guarantee of improvements and often these improvements offset the improved artwork, but I think it is better to keep pushing forward. Even if it seems like a rocky transition in the short-term. Just my 2 cents, Nick

Ah man, these renders are simply beyond my wildest dreams! :thumbup: Can't wait to see this fella from the inside of my Tomcat. :D Good luck texturing the Forrestal, looks like a monster project! -Nick