Sonoda Umi

Yeah... It seems that more data tweaks are needed in DCS.

Same test results have been existing nearly one year.

https://forums.eagle.ru/forum/news/official-updates/201318-dcs-world-2-5-changelog-and-updates-of-open-beta/page6#post7150414 Today(Nov. 23) it has a mini-patch, but it not mentions about F-14 turning performance. You can see this update whether fixes the issue or not.

+1

I know it well. So I always have my flaps up during ACM/BFM dogfighting. The issue of current version is drag too much than before(with flaps up as well) and underperforming both turning and climbing comparing with real-life data.

Yes, it's really weird, I have met the flight path as you said today.

I found that AIM-54 is still under “Kichiku” status, especially it dropping from TWS lock randomly and "going up and down", not homing to maneuvering target correctly. In short, it's still unreliable in BVR/Long-range Attack scenarios, only to be used as short range missile(up to 15nm).

Nice to hear that!

So far, I can confirm both A and B have too much drag, and thrust of F-14B has not adequate thrust.

In short, the current version F-14 is underperforming - drag is too big and thrust is inadequate.

I agree. It contributed some unexpected negative effects - the turning performance of F-14B is considerably downgraded, and not matches real life performance.

There are something I found as well. F-14B turing performance is downgraded considerably. Any other has more reports?

I tested today, 4v4 scenario, 4 F-14B(with AIM-54C) and 4 JF-17(with BVR Missiles as well) 40nm range at start, highest AI level. The AIM-54 is not reliable, as you guys' tests, especially under TWS mode. The only effective approach to make AIM-54 hit is that close-range STT/PD-STT mode with fire-and-forget tactic.

Certainly... over all software capabilities of new Microsoft Flight Simulator is a big problem. As far as I known, gameplay/experience capabilities are not only troubles, but the bigger capability issue is "add-on" installation/update matter.

:book: Currently, it seems the ONLY hope that fly a High-fidelity F/A-18F developed by VRS for new Microsoft Flight Simulator beyond 2021. The VRS is working on F/A-18F Rhino for P3D in advance - they said it being available in late 2020 but I have no interest in P3D due to its poor graphics.

According to the latest information from wags, it's not possible to get F/A-18F Rhino, so I wanna get HH-60H Seahawk.

Thanks for the experience. This is a critical subject which need to be solved or F-14 will lose most of long-range attack capabilities under the circumstances without AIM-54 - that is unacceptable and not matches the reality.

Actually, both AIM-7M and MH are not reliable BVR missile for F-14. This issue exists a long time.

Sure, that is a big difference between Navy and Air Force. Comparing with F/A-18E and other Single-seat Aircraft, the F/A-18F and EA-18G have great advantages of Command and Control capabilities, especially coordinating UAV squads, and more capable for multi-mission engagements as well.

As a Tomcat driver, I can't see any good reason to fly F/A-18E, but F will be an acceptive alteration.

I believe that I should say it again: The F/A-18F Block 1(not an E, yes, the Echo Block 1 won't have much more capable than Charlie), is much better than any version of Legacy Hornet due to its two-seat capabilities. The WSO(something different from RIO of F-14) of Foxtrot brings great enhancement of SA, much more efficiency of sensor opreating for both A2A and A2G engagements, in addition to larger fuel and weapon capacity, so the Rhino Foxtrot (even Block 1) will provides game experiment much greater than Hornet Charlie. From above, I'm not really need an F/A-18E but I'm eager to get an F/A-18F. P.S. The F/A-18F has a much better look than F/A-18E.

Aircraft: F-14B Situations: No datalink available for F-14B, neither manual operation nor Jester AI can connect CVN-75 datalink. That is to say, F-14B cannot start properly(cannot comply INS alignment ) on the deck and unable to land via datalink guidence neither.

This issue exists various versions from this year, and it is still unsolved today.

RWR Radar locking waring sounds missing(not missile incoming)

Agree. It has not good enough reasons to be returned to old value if only about some players complaint AIM-120 OP. ED, please give us more persuasive reasons about that rather than OP or imbalance causes.