Naquaii

If you don't want to present anything solid actually backing your claims then we have nothing more to discuss. But you know where to find us if you ever do.

I'm mostly asking you to actually corroborate any of your claims with any sort of facts whatsover. It's kinda hard to invalidate all the known facts about the flight model and envelope as well as all the SME input otherwise.

Absolutely, I'll go tell them that their opinion doesn't matter unless they stream it online. I hate to tell you but I'm fairly certain of their response. Also, you'll probably have to tell us seeing how it's only obvious to you what the results would be. I can tell them that too then. How do you know we don't make a bad FM just for him?

And that would matter how? I fail to see how the fact that they don't would change any of their experience in the real world aircraft?

The important part of that sentence that you conveniently ignored is that we validate all FM changes with our veteran F-14 pilot SMEs. We will always take legitimate concerns and feedback to heart regardless of sources but you'll have to have something better than feelings to back it up. And we will still run it by our SMEs, anyway, regardless of source.

Funny how you homed in on that and completely ignored the part where our actual sources come from. Have a good one.

If you truly believe ED or 3rd parties would willingly script functions to hide the performance of aircraft in DCS I'm not sure what to tell you, you obviously can't countenance being wrong anyway. We have multiple SMEs with thousands (plural) hours in the real F-14, you'll have to excuse us if we won't change the FM just because of people on the forums claiming they feel the FM is wrong in DCS. And also, please refrain from name-calling, that's a sure-fire way to have no-one at all listen to you.

For the highest alerts that was indeed the case, at least procedurally. As to how good that worked in practice, I'm not sure.

If the RB-04 and RBS-15F were changed to that same scheme they'd work the same as those missiles. They'd lose all the special features regarding target selection, evasive manuevres etc.

If you set the option for SHA (Stored Heading Align) in the ME DCS simulates this having been done before you load in. Jester can’t as he follows procedure.

Disagreeing with you is not ignoring you. Using hyperbole like that will also not get you anywhere.

I'm not disagreeing with you in that I also want the more correct model without the mount entirely. Afaik that's still the intention somewhere down the line.

There isn't a transitory model of the B(U) or D we can make with the information we have, I don't really see how that comparison is relevant. The IRIAF F-14A was always an extra with a lower ambition level, even if we'd like to do it decently. Adding the IRIAF F-14A at the same time as the early USN variant makes sense. Especially as there clearly were examples with the chinpod mount which makes it a good stand-in until/if there is a variant with the correct model deleting the mount entirely. I don't think I'm sticking my neck out very far by saying there's a lot of people disagreeing with with you in regards to not wanting the IRIAF F-14A unless it has no TCS/IR mount.

So if you got to chose, would you rather not have the IRIAF F-14A at all or not until there's a model deleting the chinpod entirely? That's the point here really. The information you present is in no way new, there where IRIAF F-14A having the mount even if just for a short time.

The point is that there were examples with it and that we want to do it without the chinpod eventually if we get around to it.

That’s really not my decision, I wasn’t aware that there had been a definite decision on the fuel tank pylons but you’d have to ask Cobra or Ironmike for that. As for the TCS the intention afaik is to at least have a bullet fairing cover for it.

Yeah, no TCS. Was talking cockpit here.

No, the cockpit for the early USN F-14A and the IRIAF F-14A will look mostly like what we have in DCS now. The biggest change would be the deletion of the AN/ALR-67 RWR.

You're just reading way to much into a simple comment, that's all. We code and control the AWG-9. We can only set specific parameters for the missiles. The missile code is out of our hands but we trust ED to get it right.

Or it just means that we can adjust one and not the other.

There is very little the -D can’t do better than a -B apart from pure airframe and engine limitations. The AN/APG-71 wasn’t an upgrade for the AN/AWG-9, it was a completely new radar. Basically everything in it outclassed the AWG-9, including doppler filters. The only valid way of saying it upgraded the AWG-9 would be because it replaced the radar part of it as the AWG-9 was more than the radar. But it was more or less a completely new radar.

Afaik the intention has always been to have both a LAU-138 and a LAU-7 visually as well. But not sure as to when it will happen exactly.

Iirc (I'm not the best guy to ask about the missiles) the motor performance of the mk60 was found to be exaggerated. They should be very similar, if slightly different, with one burning with more power but shorter duration and the other longer but weaker. And iirc we could disprove the initial findings that informed our initial mk60 model.

Because one of those we have control over and the other not.