Naquaii

A tip with SRS is that you can set each radio to either left or right ear. Fully or partially higher volume. That helps me a lot to have them in different ears.

Likely because it was a really early HUD and that it was too difficult to make a pitch ladder that was correct to the outside world. Or they just didn't prioritize it due to not having enough experience with HUD interfaces in general.

Yeah, there is other symbology like that one and the targeting stuff that is positioned correctly vs the outside world but the pitch ladder is not.

Not sure what you mean by aligned, like I mentioned the pitch ladder on the HUD was never intended to be referenced to the outside world. You can use the trim to move it on the HUD but as it doesn't correspond to the outside world it won't be correct for anything but that specific altitude and aircraft position. You really should regard it as a digital ADI that's on the HUD, nothing more. Imagine the ADI in the attached image transposed digitally on the HUD, that's basically what it is. And the only reference to read the pitch line being the aircraft wings that I've circled in the HUD image. The pitch lines aren't designed to be used as a reference for anything but those. You're ofc free to use it as you wish but this is the reason it isn't detailed in the manual, it was never intended to be used in any other way. This is the primary reason why the HUD in the F-14 isn't a primary flight instrument unlike in newer aircraft where the horizon line on the HUD is in the correct spot on the HUD vs the outside world. (And the other pitch lines for that matter which it isn't in the F-14.)

That's because there isn't a setup or trim for "proper use". The pitch ladder on the F-14 HUD isn't at all referenced to the outside world, it just references the wings on the HUD. You should regard it as an ADI on the HUD and an instrument in itself not referenced to the outside world.

I disagree, I've yet to see any source of that that's not an internet source without any references or second hand knowledge from some interview somewhere. That's just not good enough in my book to be proof of this.

The real problem is that in addition to that we don't even know if they actually worked. As in being able to be launched and having it actually track and hit something.

Afaik it's an ongoing thing.

Not sure who you've been discussing that with. I've seen exactly no-one defending the missiles going backwards. What we've said each and every time is that the missile kinematics, i.e. the motor performance and the aerodynamics are really close. The guidance however is lacking which makes the missile worse off than it should be due to that, but that also not really something a 3rd party can fix. The issue with the backwards lofting/firing missiles is due to how lofting in DCS works (at least with older missiles) and the fact that players have started to manually loft which wasn't really intended either in DCS or IRL. But no-one is defending that and it's not correct behavior, but again, also not something HB can fix on our own.

Known and on the list to be added.

It's not just that either but these old phosphor based screens are really hard to capture accurately in themselves as well.

It's notoriously hard to capture how an old phosphor screen like that looks on video and this is added to that also a kinda crappy old video that has been digitised. The colors are likely way off. My guess is that the AJSH radar looked kinda similar to the PS-37 but that that video is not a good representation of the colors at all.

No, those does not contain the parts related to the weapon systems. Like I said we've had to piece this stuff together from other sources.

We have extensive documentation gathered while researching the aircraft. Stuff like maintenance manuals etc that while unclass isn't available on the net.

It's purely trigonometry, the only thing the radar knows is the angle to target so, like I said, you need to have either a previous track which gave you altitude and speed or the RIO needs to guess.