AH_Solid_Snake

Both quoted for truth. I agree despite my misgivings about exactly how the LANTIRN integration with Jester will work that there's no point arguing over something that doesn't exist in a form we can see, its all guesswork. We can however continue to discuss the radar implementation as apart from some small tweaks like adding the "next target" switch to the Jester menu to tweak your TWS tracks I think Heatblur consider that feature complete. Which still leaves a very simple pain in the neck with something as simple as antenna elevation. as @Warmbrakhas already mentioned I think the compromise of having some extra, admittedly not present in the jet, control for the pilot is a lot less aggravating than the multiple choice wheel we have just now and is not fundamentally (to me) different than the proposed solution of seat swapping in MP. As I've stated, I think seat swapping is the best, final, catch all solution for MP. But its currently technically infeasible at EDs end which is why I'd go for the compromise. I think Warmbrak did a pretty good job of jumping in and summarising my position but I am open as he suggests to other solutions, I maybe just started coming across as overly defensive of my own idea when I felt it was just getting shot down with no alternatives.

For the emergency mode there was a discussion on the F14 forums

Two weeks be sure.

In terms of the damage model I do frequently get a bit of rage chat in PVP servers when you survive an AIM9 or better yet AIM120 shot with a lot of system damage...but basically still combat effective. I have a tacview from the 4YA PVP server where I took an AIM120 to the face and drop off from the tacview readout, but in game i was still turn fighting with the F-16 that shot it, you can then see me push the JETT button and my bombs and tanks get dumped from what appears to be thin air. The F-16 driver then tries some 20mm shots at thin air before eating an AIM9...again fired from thin air one of his chums got me while i was trying to navigate home low and slow with the wet compass. All of that was a roundabout way of asking - exactly how does DCS / HB model the damage to the F-14? I'm not calling it out as unrealistic, but perhaps as an outlier - most of the ED modules just go bang when they get hit by something and there's not much limping home.

Is it one of the out-of-the-box missions or one of your own design? What AIM7 variant was it?

I think there's just a lot of opposition to somebody coming along and announcing that there is only one allowable way to play the game, and I still think you're being highly selective in the arguments you answer, if you want to tie your position to realism in its most extreme sense then all they've done is point out a way in which you probably bend the rules because at the end of the day...its a game. I also don't really see the point in prescribing to people how they should play the game, if there was the option to a) jump between seats b) bind all the buttons you want or c) just rely on jester d) only every play the F-14 in multiplayer with a friend.....well that seems like 4 completely valid ways to play. I don't see who has given you the authority to decide that 2 of those options are invalid and not allowed. I've just decided its invalid to fly the F-14 with anything except the correct Virpil / VKB stick, all other inputs should be rejected by the game. About the only people who really can prescribe how you can play the game is Heatblur / Eagle Dynamics, its their ball game. But thus far they've been open to reasonable input and criticism.

Its perhaps worth separating out the parts of this that are a simulation and the parts that are a game. The simulation parts are aircraft performance, missile performance, the world map, realistic physics (or at least, an approximation of them), in other words a lot of stuff that only exists within the game. The game parts are everything else - the fact its rendered in 3D to a monitor or VR headset, the control inputs, the graphics settings. I'm not asking for the F-14 to do mach 4 carrying 10 AIM-120s, thats definitely part of the simulation aspect. The F-14 has a known top speed, and a corner speed and a stall speed etc. And within the simulation i'd expect those to line up at least approximately. As part of the game I get to play this in my pants and flip flops, in a comfortable seat, with a PC joystick none of that is realistic, nor does it have to be. So we can all point to facts about the aircraft, point to the fact that its a simulation and argue we should lean on the side of realism, we all agree about that. What we're clearly unable to negotiate is where the necessary compromises to the fact that it is a game should start and end. You could make a valid argument that Jester represents "fake capabilities" and require all players to have 2 human operators, we don't as a concession to playing the game. So to try and take a different tack...what are you trying to protect? Is there a PVP aspect to the game you think would be compromised if the front-seater had a couple more direct options for radar control? Is that not balanced out by the fact that you've still got 1 human brain trying to operate a system that was clearly designed with 2 in mind? To return to my LANTIRN analogy...it's a real juggling act trying to fly the aircraft while fiddling with the pod and then setting up an attack. Its way faster and more effective when I have a human RIO, but its possible to do in multiplayer when none is available. And that's my biggest point here - all I see is additional options to how we interact with the simulation, as somebody has pointed out, we are literally arguing over whether its more "realistic" to press 5 keys on a keyboard, than to press 2. If realism is the be-all-end-all factor then we've already failed - real F-14s don't have keyboards.

Hey, has anyone attempted or had some ideas how to go about recreating correctly functioning levers for these? From what I can see there is a pull -> up / down motion for standard use but also a pull and twist function for the emergency actuation, I can see mounting a lever between a couple of momentary switches in some kind of channel for the up / down motion but I have never seen any plans or even pictures of someone managing these.

And all I'm asking is for anyone with this point of view to elaborate on what makes it a huge difference and why one is acceptable and one is not? And please, no one word answers with "realism" or similar.

TWS auto we can discount right away, an AIM7 will only track in an STT mode, I’ve just finished a flight and the MH was working fine. Did you center the dot before taking the shot? Sometimes if your steering angle is off beyond the seeker limits it can look like the missile went stupid because it won’t see any of the reflections from the target when it comes off the pylon?

You chose to only partially quote me however, I'm saying that we've already apparently accepted that one human in real life is going to perform the actions of 2 humans in the game. Having already accepted that all we're splitting hairs over is the interface. My fundamental argument here is that where we land on the "realism" spectrum means very different things to different people, and that I'd like a better counterargument than "I think A because realism"

I think that depends a great deal on your point of view. Im arguing the player should have some degree of telekinesis, as a concession to the game. You are arguing against it in favour of apparently full on body swapping whereby the pilot can just swap minds with his RIO. It’s heavily skewed by exactly what ‘realism’ means to you. I actually prefer the same option that you do, in the long term, if it’s possible. But I’m also saying we can make a change that’s possible right now that I see as no less ‘realistic’ and is an improvement on what we’ve got.

That’s pretty much my entire point? Everyone agrees that some interface is needed for the pilot to perform RIO actions, that seems undisputed and we can move on. What I can’t wrap my head around is the opposition to simple inputs for it. if ED/HB think it would be reasonable (if possible) in the future for one human player to take on both roles in SP/MP then quite literally I’m arguing that we can do that now, and avoid a button press, with the caveat that some actions are taken blindly. option A - jump to RIO seat, move axis binding for radar elevation option B - add binding for radar elevation to pilots seat what about option A is realistic where option B isn’t?

And yet it isn't real life? I'm already as the pilot directing my RIO to perform actions using the radar that he's failing to do...that also seems unrealistic as it would mean I had a RIO unqualified to use his radar? I'm all in for realism in DCS but I'm completely opposed to what seems like dogmatism. If we're going full on realism why not say there is no single player you need 2 human crew, because that's how it was in real life? The answer is its a compromise accepting that we're simulating reality as best we can? If Jester is perfect why is there any inputs on the Jester menu to direct the RIO how to use the radar? Again..its a compromise accepting that AI are really good at certain things....and less so at others.

I'm curious then, for the features Jester does currently control such as the radar, do you find him effective? My experience has been that he is mostly good, but with some annoying tendencies not to crank the antenna elevation up or down, hooking unhelpful TWS targets during an attack, and sometimes being a bit slow with IFF. To me the simplest answer is to just be able to bind the radar elevation as just another control available to the pilot - we're already having to tell him what to do via the Jester menu, this just seems to me like acknowledging AI limitations and having a workaround?

I never once said it was perfect, but announcing that option A is perfect but impossible so we have discarded option B as well is straight up perfect becoming the enemy of the good?

Sorry, I should probably have been more careful with my language, understood that this is all completely blue sky thinking. I was curious though because I do see a short term answer to that problem....just having the RIO keybinds available from the pilot seat, much like the LANTIRN mod currently does. Its far from optimal and literally jumping onto the backseat to see the DDD etc would be far better, and trying to juggle an HCU / LANTIRN stick while flying the plane is an absolute handful....but its not lightyears different from pressing 1, doing some tasks, pressing 2 and doing some other ones. Its also, as I understand it based on the mod, possible to achieve right now, regardless of the future discussions whether they take place / lead somewhere or not?

Can you clarify exactly what you're trying to negotiate with ED for the longer term? Do you mean the ability for a human Pilot / RIO to swap seats without re-spawning? Or the idea that a single player could hop between the 2 seats in multiplayer in a similar way to how single player works now?

Can anyone point me in the direction of the correct switches for the HOTAS on the throttle? So far I’m assuming P1 pushes for the forward PLM / SEAM buttons probably a T-1T mini trim for the speed brake? Assuming momentary back and latched forward? in particular the wing sweep seems quite custom as I understand it’s a 4 way hat latching in 2 directions (auto,bomb) and monetary in the other 2 (fwd,aft) so any pointers there would be very helpful

Alternatively the F-14 could have been retired prior to 2000 being wholesale replaced by the F-25 after the A12 was cancelled and money diverted. the trouble with what-if scenarios is they are somewhat boundless and can be taken whichever direction you’re predisposed toward

Depends how you look at it - as you've said they are already giving you more for your buck than most modules, and depending how you count sub variants I think we're at something like 5 F-14 variants + an A6 + a carrier, but nobody was debating value for money or putting words in their mouths RE paying for the upgrade or not.

Thats a fair point - but I dont think it will stop coming up. In any other situation I'd say if in an unconnected organic way many people kept saying the same thing about your product....well i'd take notice of that, its customer feedback. But with HB/DCS we've also got to contend with available information / declassified documentation - at the end of the day even if the entire community polled 100% for having the D model / Sparrowhawk / name your upgrade here, it doesn't matter. What I would suggest though is if there is any interest in this from HBs side to add to the FAQ the reasons this wont happen, along with possibly a list of documentation that could make it possible in the longer term - its surprising what folks can turn up. Sometimes as with the A/B NATOPS they have been declassified....they just aren't widely available.

I’m not sure what we’re debating yet. I’m not complaining about the module itself or our existing HUD and I don’t feel held back. In the majority of cases I agree, gauges are good for giving both a number at a glance ( once you’ve got a picture for dial is over there....225) and rate of change. For administrative stages of flying or landing tanking etc I’m in the crowd that turn off the hud to concentrate on what’s happening out of the window. So there’s certainly nothing wrong with the interface to the aircraft as built in my opinion. I'm curious though why the apparent disdain for what I can only describe as more “modern” symbology? Every fighter I’m aware of from F-14 onward has some variation of a more detailed HUD that have all more or less evolved towards a fairly standard layout. Are you saying that it’s just a widespread anti-pattern?

How successful are you finding F poles when supporting TWS Phoenix? Since December I’ve found it drops lock more easily if I take 40-50 degree cut away and most of the shots are tanked due to tracking onto the persisted but not updated track, I’m not sure how much of the issue is my own manuvering vs anything the target is doing. that’s where my initial question about range came into play, generally I don’t want to slow down too much if I’m forced to hold my nose on aspect to support the missile but that can mean you finish out the intercept closer than I’d like, with a potentially trashed Phoenix Is there any way to salvage a Phoenix mid flight? In TWS my understanding is no because the AWG9 is unlikely to correlates “new” track back to an existing (and fired upon) file. in any of the STT modes if the lock is dropped and reacquired quickly does it resume SARH?

Ok, so if I've understood you then you're going for STT launches against 1 Flanker at a time and the Super Sparrow analogy is accurate? F-pole plus SARH all the way in? Assuming a launch at 45-40nm followed by a 50 degree turn and waiting for a timeout even single ship you can continue your turn away, build distance, and then either recommit or continue to bug out?