Swordsman422

You could have always gone with 215, 216, 220, etc. Those weren't terribly uncommon.

For the last cruise, the remaining aircraft and BuNos are as follows: 101 - 163407 103 - 161421 105 - 162926 106 - 161434 110 - 161441 112 - 161870 114 - 162924

Very good work! One small factual issue: Navy carrier-based tacjets haven't had a modex ending in 08 or 09 since the 1960s. These two numbers started getting skipped, and I've never seen an F-14 or any other aircraft attached to a CVW with an 8 or 9 in the modex.

You can. The Navy made its own choices based on evaluation and studies, and I agree with it. Doesn't mean I don't like some of those colorful old jets, I just appreciate the TPS for its purpose.

Being distinctive would be adequate enough without needing to paint the jet up like a barrio wagon on its way to a car show. It wasn't the only reason. TPS is also easier on corrosion control efforts. It's not as exciting, but the economics of maintenace helped make TPS a reality.

Being harder to see by everyone would still be a better bet than being easily identifiable by everyone. This was one of the tertiary findings of ACEVAL/AIMVAL and why those garrish liveries went away and haven't come back except in CAG birds.

On the MiG-21, can the placement locations be edited? Are the coordinates on the model something that the average user can edit? This is what a single decal entry looks like on a Strike Fighters, from one of the available F-14 skins: [Decal002] MeshName=Nose <-------------------------------Component DecalLevel=2 <-------------------------------Type (whether this decal appears all the time, only on specific aircraft, or for specific squadrons) DecalFacing=LEFT <-------------------------------vertical/horizontal orientation FilenameFormat=F-14D\USNVF213OEF\nosel <---File name and location Position=4.85,-0.08 <-------------------------------Coordinate position on Mesh Rotation=0.0 <-------------------------------Rotational orientation Scale=10.0 <-------------------------------Size position on mesh DecalMaxLOD=4 <-------------------------------Determines the view distance the decal can be seen I don't have the MiG-21, but from what I have seen of other DCS aircraft, all you can edit are the decals that are visible and what the file names are. You can't edit the position, size, or orientation of each one. Not a big deal when position and size of the text is fairly uniform, such as with the F-15 or F/A-18. Not very useful on the F-14 with so many variations of position and size. To compare, look at VF-1's 1974 livery vs. VF-154's 1999 livery. Very different placement and size. If HB tried to replicate this with existing dynamic system, either VF-154's numbers would be spread out too far if the numbers in the decal file were the correct size OR VF-1's numbers would be out of alignment with the red stripe on the fuselage and look wrong. Alternatively, they could have multiple entries for possible modex locations and it would be up to the skinner for them to the active or not, but that would bloat the size of the text file. In Strike Fighters, you can't type in a number and expect it to show up like in DCS. You have to make a selection from a dropdown menu. In the case of the skin I drew the above entry from, you only have the modex numbers available in that squadron and can't put in your own. Each three-digit number has to be its own .tga file, and in fact this skin was edited so that the modex number and safety placards were all specific to the aircraft selected.

Heatblur made the choice they made. I can understand also the flipside of the coin complaining how the generic modex placement killing the immersion on the 30+ liveries the F-14B wore across the 10 squadrons that flew it. The issue would only get more aggarvating when we get the F-14A and the sheer number of modex styles across its history. The only game I have ever seen to get this right was the Strike Fighters series, where instead of typing a number in, you got a dropdown menu and the whole modex was a single decal read from a .tga. The .tgas were named and sequenced according to the aircraft number. Decal placement and size was determined by an easily edited .dll file. You were limited by the number of aircraft in that livery to choose from and couldn't type numbers in, but it was the best way to be accurate. ED chose a different way to do it, and Heatblur had to make a tough decision.

Tuniorez, that's an F-14A livery. VF-84 never flew the B. VF-103's low-viz jets looked like this: I am hoping someone better than me tackles this one for VF-102. It would go great with the Persian Gauntlet campaign. I tried but had some compatibility issues with PS4.

Due to the lack of uniformity among F-14 squadrons with modex number size, placement, and typeface, Heatblur is still working out dynamic modex placement.

The F-14B we have is a 1995-2002 model. The HGU-33 in this configuration was on its way out by 1987. The ASEs took the visor covers off and reconfigured them to look like HGU-55s right around that time until they got actual HGU-55s. Then the -68's came along in the mid-90s. I mean, I get it. Thanks to Top Gun, this configuration of the HGU-33 is considered the classic Tomcat helmet even if it was only in service for a very few short years.

That's true. And I concede that opinions like these have no incorrect answer. We like what we like, and since it harms no one, neither is wrong. This was a lot of fun. I hope we both can be indicative to the community that disagreements such as this one can be civily debated. Thank you.

I personally would appreciate this option, too. I'd also like the F-14B crew to be wearing HGU-55s or -68s instead of the HGU-33s they have, but HB already said no.

I get the F-14A at its fullest capability, with maximum flexibility. I want to perform the fighter/interceptor mission, I can. Tactical reconnaissance, I can. Bombing, precision strike, CAS. Got it all. Any parts of it I don't want to use, I won't, plain and simple. If the option exists on the MP servers to turn off these systems, then it can be limited by period this way. This F-14A isn't a vulgar copy of the F-14B. It's the best the F-14A ever got, and it soldiered on this way until the end. I gain everything the F-14A gained when it was upgraded. And I get challenges the F-14B doesn't offer, like tanking at high altitude with a full bomb load with those engines, which was supposed to be an interesting experience, and occasionally quite terrifying when the GE-equipped F-14B and D didn't have trouble. I also wouldn't say the community perfers the classic. Just comparing the 70s F-14 and 90s F-14 voting blocks, that's a pretty slim margin. It becomes wider when you add the votes for the Iranian jet, but I consider the Iranian Tomcat a different question that should be covered on its own regardless of the USN version we get. I also get that legendary classic F-14A that only performed the fleet defense roll with just an appropriate change of livery and weapons loadout, minus a few details, a few of which you were kind enough to list below. Do you, though? Did the F-14A getting upgraded to carry bombs actually ever degrade its ability as a fleet defense fighter? The PTID is already off the table. What in either seat was different between early and late F-14A? The LANTIRN control stick for the RIO is already optional based on whether the LANTIRN is loaded. The same will be true for the TARPS pod controls when we get them. The EW environment in DCS isn't complex enough to make a difference. And if it were, if I had a dollar for every time a player who didn't know any better got his Final Countdown hotrod blown out of the sky flying feet dry in an aircraft that shouldn't be there by a more modern SAM system his RWR couldn't detect, I could quit my job. There's an awful lot of feet dry in DCS maps. That's an awful lot of limits. The ideal answer to the TCS issue would be an optional checkbox or drop-down in the loadout menu, offering the TCS, bullet fairing, IR seeker, or ALQ by itself (please, Heatblur). The rounded corners on the engine shrouds remained on the F-14A the whole career, along with the TF30s. The purge vents, early boat tail, AOA probe, those were all gone from production lines by the -85GR introduced in FY74. You are talking about fewer than 125 examples. In your MP scenarios, are you running, say, Canadian F/A-18s? Just as an example, the CF-18s have differing external details than the F/A-18C we got for DCS. They aren't egregious. A few antennae and blisters here and there, the spotlight is missing, but it's enough. You can't say "we like hyper-realism" and then concede that with DCS, you do the best with what resources you've got, and still hold your ground here. You are already open in your MP servers to using what you can. You've already made yourself flexible where other assets are concerned. So you can use an upgraded 1990s F-14A as a pre-Bombcat F-14A by limiting what loadouts are available to it. I can't conduct CAS or precision strike from a 70s F-14A. No optional limits will allow for that. On MP servers, limit weapons availability. SP, you have all the control over that yourself. Anyone familiar with the history of the F-14 would know all of this, so I am not sure what the purpose of the lecture is. This is all true, but the F-14 became the Navy's premier precision strike fighter after the retirement of the A-6 Intruder. 33% of surviving fleet F-14 squadrons flew the F-14A and used them in the strike mission. That's a large percentage that cannot be ignored, taking the jet into actual, real, live rounds combat in the strike role. I understand that 100% of the F-14 squadrons flew an air-to-air only version of the A, but again, the bomber upgrade didn't degrade its ability as a fighter. Given that we already have people putting these liveries on the F-14B, no, you really don't. See above. But let me be explicitly clear, I hope we get a flyable Iranian F-14, but my arguments here are specifically involving US Navy F-14As. Look, if we're going to get a pre-Bombcat F-14A, Heatblur is probably going to want to cover the Iranian F-14s as well, which were equipped with the PW-TF30-414 instead of the -412. It won't include the early boat tail, or the 7-hole GGVs, or the early AOA probe configuration either, because the -95GR sold to Iran didn't. I remain unmoved by old hotrods that had a disadvantage at visual ranges because they were painted up like billboards. There is a reason they all went to the TPS scheme, and it was generally a good one. Still, I won't begrudge anyone putting liveries they like on a plane. I was raised not to kink shame. No opinion about aesthetics is objectively wrong. The 1990s F-14A is an air superiority fighter, interceptor, reconnaissance asset, precision strike fighter, close air support system, and FAC(A) aircraft with a myriad of missions that it performed well. And it could still do only what the 70s Tomcat could in the bargain. Don't know what the point of telling me the service dates of a plane I am already familiar with, but there, fixed that for you. Look at how long that career is for the F-14A. 30 years. That's a long time for a Navy fighter jet. And in that time it did a LOT more than just intercept Soviet bombers and Libyan fighters, and a LOT more than just air-to-air. The F-14A dropped more bombs in anger than it ever shot missiles. A 90's F-14A would give us the ability to have some semblance of any point in that long career without sacrificing anything but some relatively minor details that the community, including you, has already been willing to flex with.

Simple solution for this. Per you: So, use the options available to you. Again, see above for your own solution. You can disable the weapons and systems you don't want on your big scenarios for your competitive servers. If the module doesn't allow it, you'll have to rely on player honesty. So, what do you lose?

Yeah, I'd love to also have the Iranian F-14A-90-GR to shoot at. That'd be fantastic. We probably should have that at some point. Believe me, I am well aware of the F-14's history. It'd be awesome if we could have the jet at every stage of its career. The main focus of the desire for the early F-14A seems to be for balance against 1970s aircraft. The primary differences is air-to-air only capability between early and late F-14As that we could sim in the game is the RWR. For the RWR, the EW environment of DCS is not complex enough to make a difference. If it were, we'd have at least some AI-focused EW aircraft like the EA-6B Prowler for it to mean something. The TCS is really the only sticky wicket remaining. We already have the 70s missiles, load those on the jet and don't take it bombing. You don't lose any of the capabilities you want with a 90's jet and what you gain is stuff you won't use anyway. What does group size have to do with it? I get the desire to be "hyper-realistic," but there are already flaws in that argument. Not every aircraft in the sim that are contemporaries are representative of contemporary configurations. The F/A-18C we have didn't exist when the F-14B we have was in service, just as an example. Unless the modules are going to start giving us multiple variants of each aircraft type released so that we can have type-for-type contemporaries, you are going to have to blur the lines anyway. To add to that, you want to simulate 1970s scenarios in an appropriate Tomcat? Cool. AI aircraft as well? Where is your A-7 Corsair? Your A-6 Intruder? Your early-block E-2 Hawkeye? Your SH-3 Sea King? Your EA-6B? How about your RA-5C or RF-8 for when the F-14 didn't run recon? The S-3A? Where's the pre-Roosevelt variant Nimitz-class for you to put it on? Your Belknap-class cruisers to protect it? For you to have "hyper-realistic" 1970s scenarios regarding even fleet defense, you are lacking the AI assets with appropriately realistic sensors, weapons systems, and EW to conduct it. You are already fudging. A 90s F-14A in such a situation isn't going to break it. So, since I still haven't been answered I will ask again: in terms of capabilities that DCS can simulate, what will a 90s US Navy F-14 rob you of? What do you lose? I'll tell you what I lose with a 1970's F-14. If we ever get a Desert Storm/Iraq map, I lose the ability to operate with VF-154 from Al Udeid Air Base providing close air support to special forces. If we get a Balkans map, I lose the ability to fly the strikes or SCAR missions with VF-41 that I read about in Black Aces High. I lose 33% of the squadrons operating in the F-14's later career when it arguably had the greatest impact in US combat operations. A 90s F-14A can simulate adequately the Tomcat at any stage of its career from the beginning to the end. A 70s or 80s version would lop off the last 12 years for those of us that like "hyper-realistic" post-Cold War scenarios.

Pilot was fine. Bruised ego is probably the worst of it. The RIO probably got his ass chewed on by the skipper, though. It's one of those situations that is hilarious only because no one got killed and the aircraft wasn't lost.

But honestly, what do you lose? The 90's F-14A can still do all the stuff a 70's F-14A can do, but not vice versa. The electronic environment in DCS isn't complex enough that the differences in EW would mean anything. If it's liveries options, all those hideous old gull grey and white schemes would still work fine on a 90's jet, and guys who are fans of the late career F-14 can still have all the late-life stuff. If players want to fly an old F-14A, they can just not use the bombing capabilities.

A handheld GPS was also partly responsible for this humorous fiasco.

Wake turbulence sinks behind the generating aircraft. I probably have it wrong, but I try to stay above and outboard of the wingtip vortexes until I'm ready to move into precontact, then I dip below and line up on the pod.

The point of it is an A-version that can do all the A version ever could. And the F-14A still had some operational advantages over the B and D. It's lower base weight meant it had more bringback, so it could be configured as a quad bomber where the B and D were limited to 2 or 3 GBUs. Plus at the end, the F-14A still made up a 3rd of the fleet squadrons. The older F-14s were pretty limited to blue water operations. Just look at how much they contributed to Desert Storm and why. They couldn't independently deconflict and suitcase the ROE like the F-15s could and had to use commercial fuzzbusters to handle the potential SAM threats. Considering the sim, DCS doesn't yet have a particularly complex electronic environment. That crappy old RWR for parity won't mechanically be much different. And if we're being true to life, Tomcat crews of the 1970s and 80s never expected to go feet dry anyway. Heatblur is going to give us the version they give us, and no amount of debating or polling is going to alter that. I honestly hope that we eventually get both, because I'd like to face off against Iranian Block 90s but considering what the mechanics of DCS right now would mean for the differences between the late and early F-14As, the contemporary of the B we already have makes the most sense. We don't lose anything that way. And yes, while it can also carry bombs, we already have a Tomcat that can also do a hell of a job as a fleet defense fighter.

You understood my question in reverse, but this is exactly my point. The 90's F-14A is not less capable than the 70's version. It's able to perform a wider variety of missions. People who want a pre-Bombcat jet can just ignore the ground attack capability and just focus on the original mission. Those of us who like the ground attack capability can't use it in a 70's or 80's Tomcat. The 90's jet will serve everyone.

What do you actually lose from a 90's F-14A? If you don't like the bombcat part of a late A, don't use that capability. People are slapping high-vis 70's liveries on F-14Bs that never had them. They can do the same with a late F-14A and be only slightly inaccurate instead of woefully. It can still be a perfectly capable fleet defense fighter. I'd rather have it at its most flexible and not use the capabilities I don't care about.

It's be really funny to have a wheel option that's literally "shut up, Jester" and "talk to me, Jester" for when you wanted him quiet or talking. I know there is a settings option, but being able to shut him up on the fly would be nice. Also, callouts on closest targets every 10 miles, and every mile within 10 until tally visual would be nice.

I'm still all for a mid-90's F-14A. I love the Tomcat in any period, but with a contemporary to the B, we don't lose anything.