Donut

The following webpage mentions a small red light on the fueling probe strut and shows a photo of it. Unfortunately, the photo is in daylight. http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-detail-light.htm

I can't think of specific instances right now, but basically there are times when the tone of Jester's voice does not match the situation or the flow of his words aren't natural, more spliced together. Overall though, you guys are doing incredible work and just needs some fine tuning. While I have your attention regarding Jester, I still have yet to hear his takeoff speed callouts and I only get his landing callouts on land, not the carrier. Thank you!

Great stuff! Thanks! Will the handing off of radar and handling of VSL modes be implemented with the Jester AI as well?

Oh thank goodness that you acknowledge this! His super odd way of saying things can be observed in other situations as well. Glad to see it's being improved!

Thank you everyone for again showing the DCS community at it's finest with such kind responses. The last update that mentions TWS is 3/23...two updates ago mentions TWS in reference to MIDS but you need TWS operational before implementing MIDS for it, hence the reason I asked. I did not realize that LTWS was incomplete; it makes sense that LTWS and TWS are interconnected though. Now I understand.

Could you be more specific? Were you going up against the A model or B/D Tomcats? Also, were you flying the C Hornet with the F404-GE-402 engines and was either aircraft carrying external tanks/weapons? I would also be interested to hear what advantages in performance the Hornet has over the Tomcat. Thanks!

Has development of TWS been put on hold? It has not be mentioned in the past several Mini Updates.

With the severity of recent events, I have been looking at rule 1.16 more closely and also took the time to refresh myself on all the other rules as well. First, how is the Heatblur launch video allowed? https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3819258&postcount=1. It contains vulgar language. The F-14 module itself has Jester using vulgar language, which I suppose is fine since these rules apply to the forums. However, why is posting of Tomcat videos on the forums allowed if they contain Jester using vulgar language? Now in regards to 1.16, how are ED and third parties allowed to use the same documents that we are not allowed to post or even talk about? Also, can you tell us how we are supposed to discuss and learn about the 4th gen aircraft made by ED if there are so many restrictions preventing us from doing so. It might help to tell us what we are allowed to discuss and share and not just what we are not allowed to.

No problem buddy. It's a bummer though...if you really read rule 1.16, we are extremely limited in what we can discuss and learn about the F-14B on these forums...since it's a post 1980 aircraft.

Hi Hummingbird...Per rule 1.16...you can't reference those, they are dated after 1980. Especially considering recent events, you might want to delete the post...

I feel sorry for him and want to believe he had no evil intentions, just curiosity getting the best of him. However, it should not be taken lightly. We have to remember that we are simulating real weapons of war that can be used to do bad things and get people killed. I have always been curious as to how ED can simulate aircraft and weapons still in use and where the fine line is that they can't cross. Rule 1.16 states no referencing of documents later than 1980. It makes we wonder why ED is even simulating 4th gen aircraft if we can't even really discuss or learn about what we are simulating without fear of doing something illegal or endangering someone's life. It would have been best if DCS just simulated pre-1980 aircraft. This whole mess in addition to rule 1.16 kind of makes me uncomfortable about DCS right now. I look forward to ED's response about all of this.

Great information and thank you for doing this. This has me really questioning the entire FM. Why this isn't a top priority is a mystery. The FM should be #1 above all else.

Wow, great read. That indeed may be the holy hand grenade...looking forward to hearing about the B/D though. The D may be a different story, but I view the A/B as definetly 3rd gen fighters when compared to the 4th gen fighters F-15C, F-16C, and F/A-18C. The B/D may be somewhat competitive in performance, but I believe that FBW and advanced avionics are what define 4th gen. However, after flying both the Tomcat and Hornet in DCS, I personally think that the F-14B "was really that good."

I am guessing that the Flightsim Expo is where Wags and ED will have the big reveal of the new carrier module and environment.

After flying the Tomcat, the Hornet is the easy AAR option. :)

Whoa, yeah...that $250 better include the base as well or be much less when it goes on sale in the U.S. I have been holding out on upgrading my HOTAS, but to upgrade to a Warthog and then buy the Hornet stick on top of that would be a no go for me.

I would, but let us wait for an official response from Heatblur or an SME.

For me, I found that adding +15 curves would only make the the situation worse by increasing sensitivity at higher stick inputs, which is exactly where you are at when pulling high g or AoA when performing ACM. I messed around forever with curves and ended back at zero for pitch and roll. I could also never find a curve that would provide 1:1 in game stick:joystick movement, even at zero curve.

Good point. Maybe I am trying to achieve and simulate a level of realism that is not possible. I need to treat this as what is, a desktop simulation/game with a joystick, and realise that I may not be able to achieve certain things felt and experienced in the real aircraft. I need to become a better PC gamer and develop those skills more than trying to be a real pilot.

That is exactly what I am doing...zero input curves except for rudder, practice and more stick time. However, I still feel that I am using an unrealistic amount of thought and focus on my stick inputs.

Good point. The curve would really have to be dynamic and have some good logic built into it in regards to how the curve is applied. Nothing has changed. You are correct about that high g and lateral stick input. My point is that I am trying to see if stick forces felt in a real aircraft could somehow be artificially replicated with dynamic input curves. As of right now, we can all throw the stick around as we please with absolutely no feedback, no matter what the g load or speed is. This can lead to over controlling and adding too much stick input, especially in areas of high AoA and high g.

FBW prevents, limits or modifies certain control inputs. I am suggesting that stick input be dynamic dampened based on increased g force, speed, etc. It would still allow you to apply too much input and suffer the consequences, but it would require a much larger input than what is currently implemented. It probably wouldnt't be easy and I don't have the slightest idea how it could be properly implemented, but it really does sound like a great idea if it could be made to work. Flying the Tomcat right now is a game of millimeters in regards to control inputs. It is just too easy to go from controlled flight to uncontrolled with the slightest increase in stick input. In a real aircraft, the amount of stick pressure would prevent this.

You are right, cheating is the wrong word. I am just trying to say that it wouldn't be making anything easier, just trying to simulate something that cannot be replicated with a desktop joystick. You have to remember that this is a simulation. Nothing we do is "real" and everything is trying to replicate the feel of flying the Tomcat on a desktop computer with computer programming and coding.

I could not have said it better myself. This is spot on and really good stuff. Hopefully Heatblur is listening and open to these suggestions.

What are you talking about? Training wheels? How is artificially implementing something that the real aircraft has considered cheating? The real aircraft gives feedback through forces in the stick. As it stands now, controlling the Tomcat with completely free range of motion and no increase in resistance when applying stick input at high G is unrealistic. My solution is realistic as it would replicate what would be felt in the real aircraft. Your idea of adding graphical readouts would be training wheels