Nexus-6

If we could only have one, I'd definitely prefer to have the E model - for multiple reasons - but a naval variant wouldn't be a deal breaker for me.

FYSA

In accordance with my unabashed love for "The Last Gunfighter", I present this link for those of us who share the same giddy excitement at the prospect of learning more about this legendary airplane. I can hardly wait to use it to duel with RAZBAM's MiG-19 and the upcoming MiG-17. http://www.vfp62.com/Thunderbird_F8.html

I asked a similar question a couple of years ago, and this was Victory205's response to me: "You left the wings in Auto, period, for air combat. The rest is artificial BS in a training environment. IF some nimrod hit the pass with the wings swept fulyl aft, you could easily tell by the closure rate and attitude as he went by (usually this was attempted when someone was too low on fuel to use AB for the last engagement). We used to hear F15 drivers talk about how they could tell our energy state from our sweep value, then I'd ask "so what is the wing sweep schedule"? Not one had a clue. OK, "What is the wing sweep value that would preclude a vertical killing move?" Uh, well, um, not really sure there sir... The problem is that the Tomcat could do a loop from a very low energy state, down to 180 KIAS for the B/D, where the wings would be fully forward. Up to .82 Mach or so, the wings moved very little, a flat curve that didn't say much about velocity. From .8 to .9, they'd sweep fully aft. Anywhere in that regime, there was plenty of energy to extend and leave. So the whole wing sweep issue is a lot of fighter pilot at the bar bullshit. Same crap you still hear about the AIM54C. I still have F15 guys try to tell me what the missile could and could not do."

First of all, well done. The F-14 is one of the finest modules available in DCS. I've had it since release day, and I'm still having a blast with it. To answer your question, these are the things I did in the beginning to help me learn the ins and outs. Your mileage may vary, but it worked well for me. - Learn the Tomcat's behavior under all kinds of control inputs. I deliberately departed it several times to try and gauge how it responds when it's not happy and to find out how far I could push it. - Start simple. Set up 1v1 fights with inferior opponents (MiG-21, F-5 etc.) and work upward from there. - Learn the fundamentals of how the AWG-9 works. Even if you never spend a single moment in the rear seat. Knowing it's strengths and weaknesses will help your decision making exponentially. - The buffeting is normal. Good luck!

Yeah, it had DFCS.

Just found this. Thought the community might appreciate the link. https://m.facebook.com/leatherneck.simulations/photos/a.1603722746517064/2905316533024339

Your best option is to never get below 300 knots. My comfort zone is 350(ish) to 400.

Cool, thanks.

Think of the Tomcat like an old Dodge Charger or Shelby GT500. Sleek and powerful and easy on the eyes, with a timeless styling that will still outpace the most contemporary designs...that will also not hesitate to kill you if you don't know what you're doing. And you won't. Not until you've learned to negotiate with it over many hours of practice. But, like the muscle cars of yore, the patience required for learning to handle the F-14 will pay you immense dividends in the end. Heatblur's Tomcat is an excellent module. No, it doesn't have fancy MFDs or FBW controls that will hold your hand every step of the way. But what it does have...is panache. The F-14 can and will do everything that a Hornet or Viper can do, in the air and on the ground, but it will be up to you, not a computer, to wring every ounce of performance out of it. If you're looking for a "hands on" experience with your modules, then the Tomcat is for you.

If deferring to the people with tangible experience that neither of us has the room to speak with authority about marks me as a "fanboy" in your estimation, then so be it. I've been called a lot worse by others whose opinions meant a lot more. And, I'm sorry, but I'll take their testimony over whatever YouTube video(s) you'll be presenting. They were there, you were not. Go and die on this hill if it makes you feel vindicated, but this particular horse was beaten to death a long time ago, and I'm walking away. If Heatblur decides the gun's sound needs improved upon, they'll do it. If not, then I guess you'll just have to live with what might have been.

You're not giving the SMEs enough credit. The people Heatblur went to for help weren't just well read enthusiasts. This was what they did. It was their job. For context, I'll give you an example: In 1994, through familial connections, I was given the opportunity to observe F-16s making gun runs at a large ground target on their practice range at Shaw AFB. That was 27 years ago, and to this day, I can still recall exactly what it sounded like. Do you understand? That was once. I was just a kid, barely into middle school, and nearly 30 years later it sticks in my memory like crazy glue. I can recall everything. The sight(s) of the jets rolling in, the sounds of the gun, the impacts of the projectiles...all of it. People like Victory205, who lived and worked around the F-14 for years, would certainly be capable of articulating the sum of their experiences with arming and firing the M61A1. It was their job. Is it going to be 100%? Of course not. The audio, obviously, had to be recreated from a combination of SME recollections and whatever audio/video records they can find. But I trust Heatblur, and I trust their passion for the project. And when they tell us that they're getting as close as anyone possibly can, given the availability of resources, I take them at their word, because they have access to far more detailed information than everyone else. That's what it ultimately boils down to in the end. This thing called, "faith". Do you trust Heatblur to deliver what they've promised, or not?

He was a man, take him for all in all. I shall not look upon his like again.

Chuck's Guide.

Well, this is something I certainly didn't see coming, but I wish you every success.

It's like learning to drive a car with a manual transmission. The only way is to get out and just do it. The F-14 isn't that hard once you get accustomed to using the rudder pedals more or less all the time. If you have any experience playing with the warbirds then you'll do just fine. It's kind of the same idea, I guess.

Heatblur has created the most comprehensive simulation of a Tomcat that anyone could have ever fantasized about in their wildest dreams. Factor that in with all of the things we're getting along with it - for free - and anyone can see that their asking price is shockingly low. But even if it had been more, and I would have had to pay for each extra F-14 variant they're offering, I would still buy them all without hesitation. I don't give a damn what it costs.

Of all the (confirmed) projects over the horizon, this one hold's most of my anticipation and eagerness.

I doubt we'll get anything in the way of substantial updates until after their Corsair is out the door.

"The versions we are working on are all the Spanish Air Force versions, since those are the ones we have real info for, that is, Mirage F1-CE, Mirage F1-EE, Mirage F1-BE and Mirage F1-M" A fast image search will probably give you a reasonable idea about what to expect.

So...taxi speed is on the list of gripes now? Is this really something people care about? Yeah, I get that we all want our Tomcat to be as dead on as possible, but this seems a little on the unimportant side. I'm happy as long as the plane starts moving after bump the throttles forward. I couldn't care less if it's too fast or too slow. I point it down the runway and go have fun.

Got a healthy laugh when I read this. Mostly because of my own ignorance. Heatblur could have gotten nearly everything wrong with their external modeling and I wouldn't have had a clue. Sure, I can tell the difference between an early run of F-14As and the later ones because of that fairing under the nose and how it changed over time. But the minutiae of things like gun vents and correct blister placement? Not a chance.

I think that's a limitation of DCS itself and not something Heatblur has overlooked.

An inescapable problem that comes from choosing to make a Phantom is dealing with how prolific it is and simply picking one. There have been F-4s in service since the dawn of the 1960s. We all have our favorite(s), depending on our individual historical interests and country of origin, and a collaboration between developers could be a viable workaround for the challenge of offering a highly requested aircraft and making sure that as many variants as possible are represented.

My "spidey sense" is telling me that this mystery aircraft is likely to be another naval one. Mostly because Heatblur have already committed so much to their Tomcat/Intruder/Forrestal triumvirate. Seems like it's kind of meant to be a game within a game. A kind of snapshot of naval aviation from about 1979 to 1989. I'm also pretty sure the last Phantom launch from a carrier was somewhere near the middle of the 1980s, and thus it should fit reasonably well on our Forrestal alongside the -95 (and maybe the -135) for the inevitable "what if" scenarios. Not to mention that people have been screaming for a Rhino since forever (me included), and since ED doesn't really seem to be prioritizing our pleas, this seems to be an optimal time for Heatblur to step forward with some kind of accord. Maybe something like, "you guys stick to making your late 70s E model, and let us do the naval variant from the same generation that our mutual customers can play with on this flattop we're building for them". Of course, only Heatblur knows what Heatblur is thinking, and it's not like I know any more than the rest of you. But hey, isn't speculation about your present part of the fun? It's like Christmas . Each DCS development team seems to have their own playbook, and I just couldn't think of a reason for Heatblur to suddenly veer off and make a module that doesn't compliment theirs in some way.