r4y30n

Let's not forget, there are differences in recovery as well as launch.

With different dimensions between the two boats wouldn't objects be shifted around if you did a 1 to 1 swap?

There's no "may" regarding the F-14, HB is getting it integrated into the SC branch right now. It's just a matter of when, reading the F-14 board chatter it seems HB is confident of day 1 compatibility.

It's rather telling that the Sea Sparrow has a published max range of 10 nautical miles, it's virtually the same missile fired from zero speed at sea level.

That would be pretty mind blowing. We've had imaginary ground equipment for a long time now. That said, don't the planes just plug into the flight deck?

So what's the deal with the Forrestal's wires? I read that it had 6 at one point and then it was cut to 4 but this one has 5...

So, again, we've reached the conclusion that the idle lockup protection is to prevent inlet instabilities such as stalls and unstarts, yes? And it's not to prevent overheating the tailpipe or turbines, yes?

I bet the INS position isn't pausing, in a way the INS is flying away from the paused aircraft.

Aren't Mike and sLYFa agreeing? They both said that heat is not the reason RPM is kept high. Also, section 2 page 13 of the F-14D NATOPS says that loss of Mach signal from the CADC results in loss of idle lockup protection and this may result in pop stalls or inlet buzz. Ergo, idle lockup protection is preventing pop stalls and inlet buzz, not overheating of the engine.

Always on the ball, Mike. We appreciate it!

Anyways... Thanks OP and others for explaining why I tend to grab a wire further back than intended in the F-14. I vaguely remember better IFLOLS being mentioned in one of the status emails or one of Wags’ posts so I assume this is a known issue for ED but let’s hope it gets addressed sooner than later in EA.

I don't think heat has anything to do with it, at least not in our engines. RPM is maintained until speed drops below Mach 1.1, regardless of how long you were in burner. And TIT drops by around 100 C or so when it starts to spool down so there's definitely more heat while it's keeping RPM up.

Could write a bug report in the DCS 2.5 forum, that would have the best odds of seeing improvement in the future.

No, ED made a new branch to build the carrier in, HB needs to put the Tomcat in that branch so they can finish development and testing. This new branch will be integrated back into main before it hits the OB that we'll see. This is all normal game dev stuff.

Thanks Wags, that clears everything up.

Strange indeed. With F-14 support on the product page I would've expected more of a "We're working with Heatblur on this," but it sounds like the conversation hasn't even started. I have faith it'll all work out but it's needlessly distressing to say "We don't know yet." And I don't know why ED would feel threatened by Heatblur's carrier, it's entirely possible Heatblur stopped work on their boat so ED could get theirs out the gate first.

If you're supersonic the engines won't drop below 80% to prevent compressor stalls. Go nose high or pull some G and you'll hear the engines cut back after you lose enough speed.

Finally found a more accurate chart in the F-14D NATOPS. Essentially burner will be cut to min anywhere above 37,000 ft at 0 airspeed and almost linearly increases in altitude with speed to 50,000 ft at 0.9M, it gets steeper beyond that. Full burner is available 2,500 to 5,000 ft below that. Long story short, you have to be very high and slow to hit cutback.

Axis bindings maybe? Sounds like something is overriding your commands.

It's strange to me that they're revamping the Kuznetsov at all, it's kind of a dead end in DCS development. ED is never going to make a full fidelity Su-33 and it's likely too new for a 3rd party to tackle, never mind the even newer MiG-29K. There are a couple Kamov support helicopters but no one wants to fly a mini-AWACS and I doubt we'll see sub hunting any time soon. That said, I'd love to be proven wrong.

Like I said, we all know he's WIP. Right now his WVR call outs are pretty useful and BVR will get better in the future.

Agreed. And I don't think many players will sign up to sit in the baggage compartment that is the plane's radar operator station...

In the Omega Tau podcast posted earlier Okie mentions around 1h37m that the F110 starts to cut back to min burner when at high AoA and low airspeed, under 150 kts. Contrary to that, I found a white paper from GE and Grumman titled "F-14 Re-Engining with the F110 Engine" that shows a cutback region starting at 30,000 ft and about .35 mach and going up to about 50,000 ft and 1.00 mach. The paper seems to suggest that air mass flow was the sole limitation rather than AoA... From those in the know, how did the system work in practice? Does it cut back the burners at very low speed regardless of altitude and the paper just doesn't have test results at those speeds? If so, why does full burner work when parked on the ground? http://omegataupodcast.net/333-flying-and-simulating-the-f-14-tomcat/

What model Ottos did you use for that mod?

This approach is great for games where player enjoyment takes precedence over realism. The goal with Jester is to behave like a real RIO, not the community fantasy of what he should be. HB leans on their SMEs for what's right in that regard. All that said, Jester is still very much WIP and I have faith he'll be much more capable by the end of EA.