Naquaii

They can't be the buttons as the real aircraft has no buttons. The canopy control is a lever underneath that assembly and has 5 different positions. That's one of the reasons they haven't been made clickable as seeing the actual position of the lever would be hard. That's not to say I'm against it being clickable but that's the reason it hasn't been a priority.

We have an idea for allowing the "flight" part of the address to be set using either the ground crew coms menu or the kneeboard. But as mentioned previously it's not as easy as just allowing it to be set as allowing it would add other issues that also need to be solved. Due to that it's a bit further down the list.

The reason for it being latest is because we're talking time here, not distance.

I'm quite positive the AIM-54A would be like that at least. Harder to tell about the AIM-54C. But like we discussed the C would at most take the "free" pitch from the aircraft and still pitch to the same angle regardless. Not like what we currently have in DCS where it pitches more because of it. It would be nice if we could get rid of that but that's likely not on our side.

I got what you meant. Loft assist just wasn't a thing for the AIM-54. And yeah, I don't argue that it can't get results currently in DCS but it's not realistic. Unfortunately there's no way currently for us to stop it.

The loft assist we have is absolutely unrealistic as have been mentioned multiple times previously. The missile wouldn't loft differently just because you pitched the aircraft up as the missile would still fly it's profile. It likely might not matter at all as the missile (at least the AIM-54A) is likely to just have come off the aircraft, level out and then pitch up. Even if the AIM-54C had a slightly smarter launch sequence the only benefit would be that the missile would have a slightly easier time of reaching correct pitch and lose slightly less energy (not majorly so though as the rocket motor is on anyway), it would however absolutely not pitch more because of a loft assist.

Just keep in mind that this is not an F-14 thing, it's a generic DCS thing as we're directly using the API to get these ranges.

When in HoJ you might not as the missile is homing on your jammer. But that’s on EDs side in the missile code.

It’s an actual switch IRL as well. It’s not the same as the BRSIT switch but it can set the BRSIT under certain conditions.

That's exactly my point. We can't prove it either way. If we were to implement another arbitrary solution for this contrary to what's established as the norm in DCS we'd have to have a good reason for it. The current implementation is also quite arbitrary and only realistic in the broadest sense of the word, but it is what has been decided on in DCS. It would be hard to justify changing that just because we feel the AWG-9 should be different. Is that us "balancing gameplay"? I don't think so. Asking for the AWG-9 to be better in this regard is asking for a new unrealistic solution over another and one that diverts from the established norm in DCS.

I challenge you to prove the AWG-9 would be any better or worse than any other radar against jamming. That’s what this is really about, not game balance even if it levels the playing field in regards to ECM.

Atm we've decided not to prioritise modelling ADR as it's one of those systems that would be a lot of work to implement while not really adding much as it was quite limited and hard to use.

That's not how that works, power doesn't translate directly into burnthrough like that and it's not modelled like that in DCS anyway. The numbers should be the same as other aircraft in DCS as it's the same API call afaik. If by that you mean that the AIM-54 is more realistic now and that you're refusing to use jam angle tracking then sure. We could code it however we want, we read the ecm on/off flag on our side and implement the functions in the radar. But could you prove why the AWG-9 should be better or worse than any other aircraft with actual evidence? Home on jam is your friend if your running a mission where the bombers are allowed to jam. Not as long a distance as without jamming but you could also disable ECM in the mission to make it more realistic. Glove vanes might happen eventually as a visual thing only. PTID and F-14D are unlikely as there's no data available on much of the functionality. Just to elaborate on the ECM. The ECM in DCS is not currently really realistic, you could easily argue that it's better to just not use it when you design missions. And that's not a dig at ED, there's just not much data available. What the simulator has (for air to air) is just a simple flag that tells another radar if it has a jammer or not. We then use EDs api to set the burnthrough ranges and afaik that's what everyone else uses for their radars. Is this realistic? Not really, but it's also not realistic to have a radar that completely ignores jamming when it exists in the game. What we've tried to do is to somewhat represent how jamming should look in the AWG-9 and still have it fair to the other modules in the sim. Is this us choosing balance over realism? Not really. The simple fact is that you'll never find enough open data to prove which system would best which and what aircraft would have an advantage over another. Modelling ECM realistically, especially regarding how strong an aircraft is contra another in regards to ECM and ECCM just isn't possible. And like I said above, keeping the AWG-9 as it was, i.e. totally unaffected by jammers would be less realistic than this. It's a compromise but one that we have to do to have ECM in the sim.

The JAM strobes via data-link was just a visual aid on the TID, no functionality to allow range known missile shots existed afaik. For that you need a skin lock. So no to that. I’d also like to clarify that JAM strobe datalink sharing is Link-4C not Link-4A so only fighter to fighter.

True but a DCS-ism. Completely contrary to IRL though.

Yeah, more along the lines of functionally blind for long range. Technically not entirely blind just really bad sensitivity.

That doesn't mean there aren't blind spots. It's just that when the emitter is strong enough/close enough it will bleed through anyway due how to antennas work. Outside of the designed coverage area it'll give a warning very late.

The only way to do that is via the selected payload and the launch sequence. The WCS does not allow for anything but the standard launch sequence regardless of missile type.

Stored heading alignment is not designed to store your alignment after a flight, it's used to allow the crew to prepare for a flight when in a heightened alert state. It allows the crew to start the aircraft, align it and then shutdown again. The advantage being that when they actually start up to go for real they can use the stored heading alignment. Any movement of the aircraft after alignment voids the stored alignment.

No, the controls for that is in the RIO pit so if you don't tell Jester to do it you have to switch back and do it yourself.

Nope, fuel flow does not show afterburner fuel flow and that’s correct.

The correct boresight for all missiles is the ADL. As for were to aim, that depends. My experience is that the AIM-54 as modelled need more lead than other missiles due to being a bit slow of the rail and until it starts to guide. Using the aircraft wings as a reference might be good enough for many situations as in many cases that we'll make you lead the target slightly. But it depends greatly on the situation, you need to imagine where to point to have the missile actually see the target when it starts to guide.

PH ACT will have this effect as they'll launch active and not use a TTI.

Using the Jester wheel and pressing the actual button aren't the same function and shouldn't be. When you use the wheel you're telling Jester to do something, you're not pressing the actual button. So it's actually Jester not allowing you to switch, not that pressing the button doesn't work. So not really a bug but something that should probably be looked at. The reason for the ACM modes working to break it is because in that case you're manually doing stuff rather than asking Jester for it.

Yeah, originally the AIM-54s were very much earmarked for the fleet defence role, it wasn't until later in the F-14s servicelife that that started to change. Likely mostly about availability and cost and what role had 1st priority.