Nanne118

There is also a vehicle that appears to be heavily stylized on the F-14 in the upcoming Just Cause 4. I'll post some footage when I get my hands on it (in a couple of days)

Can we also expect the power increase attributed to switching off the bleed air sources ('OFF')? Can't remember exactly where I read it, but supposedly doing this (together with switching the radar off, as it is air-cooled and would otherwise fry) creates a power increase

Does the TER (Triple Ejector Rack, BRU-42) on the belly station (with the mk82 on it) mean that we can carry multiple stores per station, or is that reserved for training bombs only? If so, why would single stores hang from a TER when they could also be hung from a SER (Single Ejector Rack, BRU-32)? http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-detail-rack-bomb.htm EDiT: also cheers for doing the LAU-138 CM rail, that is going to be fun to toy around with. How much extra glitter does that thing provide? Was it used much?

Nicely done! With lua, should it also be possible to set it up (with modding) for doing practice runs on the Tarawa carriers for the Harrier? ie, does it work via a checkpoint based system (I have not yet had the chance to look at it, away from my PC sadly :( )

Regarding the hubbub of 'RWRgate' and the pros and cons of having critical either on the outside or the inside band, as well as this Natops / manual saying this and the other saying that, could a request / remark be made for having this as a 'special' option so that each can adhere to his / her preference (ie similar to the takeoff assist in the P-51 or the cockpit shake in the Mig-21bis)? As much as I admire the hardcore and real life accurate simulation aspect of sticking solely to the explanation in the manual, we can equally make such links to playability (ie familiarity with other aircraft) and the obfuscated switching of the RWR logic by the navy: we still do not have a solid when and why on the change (and I suspect we never will :P). Could it thus also make sense that if this logic change was applied during the F14's service life they also would have received this 'software patch' (as clearly hte ALR-67 can operate in both Critical Band Outside and Critical Band Inside)? Again, I am just pitching an idea and would love to hear opinions from HB as well as anyone else on this. :pilotfly:

asdj Is there any particular reason this quirk is as such in F14, like the compressor blades being in a more favorable rotation (clockwise vs counter-clockwise) to the incoming airflow? Kudos for the detailed writeup and implementaion of all these systems, I and so many others eagerly await the release of this extremely well-fleshed out module! :D

Normally (IRL) you would be given the carrier heading by ATC, though guessing also would work. Given the broken state of the ATC in current DCS it is of course also permissble to use the F10 map to find the heading / course of the carrier.

Is that not why some pilots called it the turkey, because it had such massive surfaces that large lift forces and small gusts of wind having large effects made it so hard to get down on the carrier?

Do you know if the Lau-138 Expanded Chaff dispenser rail, the expanded chaff adapter or parachute flares were operationally fielded?

I already asked these question in a different part of the forum, and with the excellent eye and attention to detail you fine fellows from HB provide us with I have no doubt we will see an equally excellent documentation set explaining my question in detail; But how does the GPS available from the Lightning pod factor into the navigation aspect (broadly speaking)? Or is that only useable to send info to the guided weapons (CDU's only on the F14 AFAIK?)?

Does the tomcat also not get GPS with the lantirn targetting pod? I do know that the F-14D has GPS built in to the airframe, but not the F14A & B, correct?

I wonder if we will be seeing any of the F14B upgrade aspects in the DCS:F14B, because the EGI, GPS/JDAMm, ECMD and Sparrow HUD are some of the items that can really make the F14 shine. So does that mean that for the employment of the LANTIRN pod the PTID was required? I thought I read somewhere that the LANTIRN image could also be displayed on 'fishbowl' TID. Also, seeing as the Pilot can mirror the TID display, does that also mean he can view the LANTIRN footage on the HSD? Also, what is the Multiple Display Indicator in the RIO seat used for? Interaction with the weapons / waypoints / ECM (RWR)?

Delta has already mentioned that the PCB he is designing will feature a breakout connection for the button pin that is included on the five wire connector, so that we can add our own buttons to it to serve as a center click akin to what is currently present on the TM:W

If someone in Europe has one spare or needs another one, I am also in the market for an additional singular Cougar MFD.

This we can then do by simply adding a button to it, correct? Your frankly excellent tutorial on instructables lists it the relevant pin as being a internal pullup pin (high), so would simply sinking it to the ground with any type of momentary switch suffice to register a keypress on this front? Would debouncing be required for this switch or does the internal hardware already affix for this? If as such, we could add our own 3d printed bracket with a mount behind it for the momentary button in question, though provided that the 462 does provide the ability to be pushed down and not register that as a force press to slew the sensor around: do you think such a thing will be possible?

Could you enlighten us on the decisive factors that would make or break DCS (2.5) as a platform for the OH-58? There seems to a large market for the OH-58D itself and if a civilian version (B206) is included that may very well be a crucial consideration for more people to switch over to DCS (which IMHO offers a lot more in terms of detail) from the FXS / P3D crowd.

I really appreciate the update and especially like the prospects of the whole COOP aspect, neatly conveyed by the image chosen as well. Would it perhaps be possible we get the full size resolution screenshot? Although it showcases a WIP I think it more so displays the hard work you guys have put into the project!

Without giving too much away, how rudimentary was the integration of the TGP in the F14? It was a later addition, so would it be safe to say that it behaves similarly to how the Harrier handles it: e.g. not all controls available to the RIO without interfacing with additional panels (zoom for example), no ability to interact with waypoints / coordinates (how does the F14 handle waypoints anyway? cant seem to find any info about nav panels etc) or other weird hoops we have to jump through?

I too would be interested.

Probably goes without asking when we are getting the Zuni's, but will smoke rockets be included? The F14 with the dual seats would make for an ideal AFAC platform

Manual for the MSI Model 462: http://docs-europe.electrocomponents.com/webdocs/0bf1/0900766b80bf1d8f.pdf It is an MSI brand sensor (http://www.ultra-msi.com/miniature-joystick-models.html) so they would be quality items, IF they are what the buyer is saying they are and it is not some sort of scam. I am genuinely wondering how he amassed such a large quantity of them and why he is selling them for such a low price, given that he says they are unopened. Normal type of this sensor sells for around €550 - €650 EUR (depending on VAT) brand new, which would translate to around approx. 800 USD. Anyone willing to take the plunge? EDIT: this guy is shipping them from SOCAL, US. So might be a bit pricey for any EU, AS or AF located individuals. I have been digging through Mouser and Farnell to check for any (force resistive) mini joysticks and while they do stock what appear to be quite compatible parts, I cant help but feeling somewhat out of depth as I have never worked with these before. Also, most of them seem to run on 5 volts rather than 3. Any pointers for me, what I should be looking for?

In addition to the excellent explanation delta has given here above (I totally forgot that I2C can be any voltage level you desire), I would also like to make note something I found out today (whilst talking with our practical instructor) is that the Arduino is able to use aref to set its own voltage level accordingly. What this means is that you can supply a desired voltage to the arduino and it will thus use that voltage level for logic accordingly. Regarding the need to power the arduino, the best way would probably to take an Arduino Nano and chop off the voltage regulator and fuze; subsequently replacing them with 3.3 volt compatible components. I have been meaning to test that when I get some more time on my hands: apparently it can be a bit of a mixed bag regarding stability of the arduino, but that also seems dependent whether you use a genuino or a less official chinese clone. Regarding the sensor choice, how would a PSP style thumbstick fare? They are some extremely small form factor potentiometer resistors that also offer the ability to add your own ''hat'' onto the stick embedded in the base, and could thus be mounted recessed in the spot where the sensor component currently sits. The only downside to this would be that a tactile switch would need to be added behind it, as it does not natively posses a center push. https://www.adafruit.com/product/3103 I have also been looking at comparable other small factor sensors, but like with the RKJXL it is hard to discern if they offer a nice operational range or if they are in fact more suited as 4 way momentaries due to the small travel / detection range. I assume that most of the ALPS sensor range (such as the RKJXT and RKJXM) suffer from the same problematic effect as the RKJXL in that behave more as 4 way buttons than as true joystick sensors?

I too have been a long time fan of the Monstertech HOTAS mounts; though pricey by any definition, they are definitely worth it

What about reverse psychology? ''We dont want the F14 to release in 2 weeks?" Would that work?

Whilst those are definitely nice (and I had not yet seen them, thanks!) I myself was more thinking along the lines of a sensor that gives a larger slew deflection area than the current sensor; my reasoning being that a slew with a large deflection and a low pressure actuation is going to offer a much better experience than the current (type of) sensor which whilst accurate, moves very little and is thus hard to operate with precision. ${1} The youtube video above and the KA-50 collective featured in it made by KA50Oakes shows a nice example of what I am looking for. The nice thing about the Arduino however is that you can make it use virtually any type of control component, as it only requires modifying the program (''sketch'') to do so. You could potentially even do it with just buttons for left right up down and the push button itself if you were that crazy / if that would be something you desire.