Naquaii

At least Björka (ESFJ) would make a lot of sense as it'd add a military airstrip basically within the already established lines. Only having Sturup would be a pity but still very welcome.

Will probably remain unimplemented as you'd need a datalink controller for it to work. I.e. the whole mode relies on a human controller controlling the F-14 through the link which we really don't have a way of simulating in DCS.

Just to clarify, at lot of those things that are inop are so because they really don't make sense to implement in a sim like DCS or because there's no real way to implement them within the current environment that makes them actually work correctly.

I'm honestly not sure if I should be offended that you equate that to just making <profanity> up... I don't really see how any recent development changes how HB look at making modules honestly...

Yes, because the back seater is a RIO but the AI that helps you when you don't have a human RIO is called Jester. What you're talking about is the AI and that is Jester. A human RIO can do this perfectly fine. And you also need to seperate and specify what you're actually talking about when you say this. It isn't easy to guess what you're talking about when you just say RIO and AWACS data, that can mean many separate different things.

Firstly, you need to stop saying RIO in this regards because you're really talking about Jester. And if you're talking about the AWACS radio callouts then no, Jester does not interact with those and have never done so. Afaik that's a DCS function that we can't directly interact with like that. If you want to look for those radio reported contacts you need to point Jester to it as a pilot via the Jester interface.

One of them yeah. I didn't say you can't post stuff here or that they won't be tracked. But the format is in many ways better and easier to have direct communication. That's why we're more active there. And yeah, there are search functions in Discord that work very well.

Now you're just guessing what we're using as source for this stuff. It's very easy to find a lot of people on the net saying the exact opposite of what you're saying here. That the missile is way too ineffective as it is now. We're never ever going to put this up to the general opinion of the community on the net, we're basing it on the facts and information available to us, this is a sim, not War Thunder. I'm sure you can find people willing to discuss this endlessly with you but I'm not going to, I have no interest in discussing your feelings with you. Yeah, that's absolutely correct, Jester isn't a "real person".

No, I'm not sure where you saw me saying that at all. You're not making much sense here. Like I said, the missile motor performance is from the data we have and it matches well with actual real life shots in tests in DCS. And like I also said we know there are some issues with guidance and seekerhead performance that we would like fixed but that's not something we could fix on our side, we need EDs help for that. So the end state would be a slightly better missile than what we currently have if/when that's fixed. And no, I don't really care about buffing or nerfing the missile, that's not in any way how we model our systems. We look at trying to make it more realistic than it is. You don't have to agree with that but we're also not gonna change anything just because you "feel" something about it or disagree about it. That's why I asked for data supporting any claims you've made about changing the missile. Because if you don't have those we're not gonna act on them. We model the missile from the data we have, not the feelings of people on the net. If that makes some servers remove it because they feel it's too powerful and they want to balance their mission instead of focusing on realism, that's absolutely fine. But we're not going to artificially "nerf" the missile just to "balance" it.

While I can absolutely understand you it also kinda makes me not want to be here if I'm gonna get pinged in for everything. I'm no longer really a paid member of the team (for various reasons) and only remain as I still have an interest in the F-14 and to help out with research and other SME stuff because I like doing it. So I don't really have any time for handling error reports etc. At this point in time the Discord is much more active and should probably be regarded as the primary source of information and reporting stuff. At least stuff gets added much quicker there and responded to. But that said I do know that the guys do check in here as well. In general the dev cycle for the DCS modules isn't that quick so at many times it will seem like you're not getting any answers but afaik everything is still tracked and added to the fix lists when possible. It just takes time and sometimes it won't get fixed until it fits into the plan for changing things in the module unless it's a gamebreaking bug.

Pinging me in doesn't make sense here, it's just annoying honestly. You have to turn to the actual guys in charge of responding to those things, I can't really help you as I'm just the SME and researcher for the F-14. Unless you have actual data supporting this there's not much to say really. In fact it's the other way around, as we've been saying for some time now we're happy with how the kinematics of the missile performs and the still remaining inaccuracies is with the seekerhead and guidance which should be better than they currently are. But we need ED's help with that. As for how the ECM works, that's a DCS thing and not something we can affect on a module basis. What happened in the December patch is that we fixed a long standing issue with the AWG-9 TWS mode that we hadn't managed to fix previously, so that was about fixing an inaccuracy and remove an unrealistic limitation/bug.

I think you're mistaking RIO for Jester. And Jester was never intended or described as a replacement for a real human RIO. That said he will continue to evolve but no, I do not agree with you that the "RIO" isn't properly done.

The Cold War Server Staff, you can find them in the correct channels on the official Discord.

Could be because HB doesn't run the CW server. You need to talk to the CW server staff. HB only help with the hosting. And no, there weren't any changes for the HB modules in this patch.

No, and I've said this repeatedly here and in the HB Discord. None of what you list help us in modelling the APG-71. Yes, the IRST is an issue but the APG-71 is as big of an issue if not more.

Well, the only thing I can say and did say above is that the F-14A is still coming, it hasn't been abandoned and nothing about this changes that.

At the same time you're saying you're disappointed by HB showing screens and clips of something that isn't yet announced and something that HB potentially would like to do. This changes nothing for the early version of the F-14A which is still something that is part of the current module and being worked on. Has it been a long time since the release of the F-14? Yeah, arguably, and can I understand wanting the last two remaining versions? Yeah, absolutely. But they are being worked on and they will come. That said it is a bit odd to expect HB not to show anything new they they would like to do in the future at all because of this. There is no scenario in which an early F-14A stands against a F-14B(U) (which still hasn't officially been announced, I might add), the early F-14A is a part of the current module and something that needs done before it's a completely module. A prospective future F-14B(U) will always be a later consideration than that.

It should follow the TWS prio yes. And it's 4 tracks from each aircraft (own position +3, iirc), not 4 track total over the link. _____________________________________________________________________________ Regarding AI F2F, this didn't really change with this update and I think it always was just their own position getting reported, no actual radar tracks sent as that means we'd have to simulate the radar for those AI participants which we currently don't. But to get it to work you need to leave the ground crew set address to "Auto", otherwise it won't work. When you do that you basically use the old F2F system that was in previously.

That button actually exists on the real thing but it's not used in the AJS. The other Viggen versions have the same stick and some of them use it.

Who said he leaked it? He's very much still the boss.

Just to clarify, this is a change in the AWG-9, nothing has been changed with the missiles themselves. But it should definitely help with some of the lost track situations.

Don't start this again. That had nothing to do with what you're talking about, just because we don't agree with the presented calculations and their point of view doesn't mean we don't welcome feedback and new information when available. But that fact doesn't mean we always have to agree with the presented feedback which was the case in this instance. So you couldn't, in fact, be more wrong about us not wanting discussion and new facts brought to light. What we don't want however is a derailed, fruitless discussion, about something that we've already answered and decided upon. The last couple of pages (or more) of that thread was basically the same people bringing up the same points and sources over and over again disregarding the fact that we've acknowledged and decided we don't agree with their sources. And then people piling on with just basically <profanity>-talk and bashing because they didn't agree with us. It would be best if this thread didn't end up the same.

That's not something I know about, maybe someone else in here knows?

It's more or less correct that the F-14Bs didn't have them as by the time the B came around they had started disabling them. There might be some edge cases where they were around but I haven't seen it. And as been alluded to here at a point they started not even fitting them from the factory so you'll have both aircraft with them welded shut and not having the slots for it at all. What has been said from the bosses afaik is that we might add them and if so it's very likely they'll only be cosmetic. For the current F-14s we have in game they're not really a good fit as they're versions after they stopped using them. So if they're added it'll be for the early versions that are coming.