Naquaii

The AWG-9 does not initiate flood illumination until you launch a missile regardless. So no, not possible to fake it.

No argument from me there, if you measure from center you should measure to center. If this is no longer correct in DCS that's a bug but it used to work correctly.

According to the NATOPS one needle-width deflection represents a 360 degree turn in 4 minutes. Some fast jets use this instead of the standard 2 minutes even though a standard turn is always 2 minutes.

Think something akin to an oscilloscope display on the DDD.

We've never said we didn't have the docs for the original F-14A IRST. But one have to realise it's not even close to the same thing as the new IRST on the -D which could generate imagery as well as search. The simple fact is that the IRST for the early -A would be as much, if not more work than the AWG-9 to implement and all sources agree that it was bad enough that it was basically not useful. That's also why it dissappeared so quickly and why we chose not to do it.

Yeah for sure.

Don't think anyone here are arguing that the fuel pylons couldn't be removed or that they weren't.

Not gonna comment on the fuel tank pylons other than that like mentioned they were basically only removed on the IRIAF jets and for airshows. Could happen eventually but not a high prio and not my call anyway. As for the glove pylons those were in fact never removed for operational reasons as for as I know. The only photos available showing them not mounted are really early aircraft and the way those were attached to the aircraft it was almost as if asking for a tail plane to be removed. When the aircraft finally had them mounted they weren't designed to be detached on an operational basis, that's why all but the very early test and airshow photage show them still attached.

I've never seen evidence for neither the AIM-7 or AIM-54 having an issue with supporting multiple missiles with the same STT. You have to realise that comments like that are off the cuff comments that likely have a lot of more behind them than what is apparent and likely unwise to take as absolute truths.

In DCS each missile is assigned a target to track. DCS does not model missile channels etc. And afaik there's no reason you should be limited to only one AIM-7 in the air at the same time.

The missile launch sequence is set and doesn't change unless the MOAT assesses a missile as degraded in which case it might be dropped all together or launched last. The remaining payload in the OP photo isn't that unbalanced as the fuselage stations are so close to center line as to matter little.

Iirc for the lofting AIM-7 variants that's not on our side. We only allow it to loft or not. We do not set the range.

We have information saying that the F-14 could support the loft modes but no other way to control it other than the ACM cover and the range. As with the AIM-54. Afaik there's no other way in the F-14 to control the loft of a missile.

It should be possible to guide multiple missiles as long as it's against the same target. The lobe-width of the illuminator is not a factor in DCS for missile guidance due to how that works.

Just saw evidence for them being used with the ALE-39 so that's something. Problem is that we still don't really have a way to represent them in DCS as they don't look like normal flares and we alse don't really have a good comparison to normal flares as to effectiveness.

It had different frequencies for AIM-7 as well. But this isn't modelled in DCS. In DCS we just give the missile a target and tell it if we track that target or not. Guiding against two separate targets should not be possible.

The reason it's four cartridges is that that equates nicely to two DCS chaff, we don't have a way to make a chaff that's 1/4th as effective as a normal one. Each discharge of chaff on our BOLs release one DCS chaff on each side. We can't really change it to only release one "BOL charge" as that would effectively be cheating as each one would be as effective as what we have now. As for the flares the problem is two-fold, we don't know if they were used with the earlier implementation and two, we don't know how effective they were.

Not really sure how they used 3 BOLs or if that was an F-14D thing. The information we have points to 1A and 8A being the only ones that were actually used with BOL. The B stations didn't really work as they wouldn't allow access to the cooling bottles for the AIM-9. There were however other launchers related to the TARPS. The ECA as an example and that could carry normal chaff cartridges (and probably flares but afaik didn't). The flares for the BOL was a thing but I've never seen conclusive evidence of them being used with the F-14 and we have no data how they would compare to the normal full size flares either. The current implementation we have with the chaff from the BOL is due to those being smaller so that's why we launch them as we do to be equivalent to the chaff in DCS. Additionally this earlier BOL implementation didn't have granular control over the launchers, it was basically just a single wire telling the BOL when to dispense.

Incorrect. AI in DCS can use TWS and that should be indicated correctly. But this is controlled on EDs side as to which aircraft can use it etc. The RWR in an aircraft just repeats what it get sent by other objects in DCS, i.e. if an object is in search, locking you or launching at you (SARH). Our RWR does not change this. I can't speak for other modules ofc but I doubt it's different.

Yeah, I had a look again and that's probably a DFCS aircraft which would remove the spoiler override panel so could be an active aircraft. Or at least I guess that it was the DFCS that removed it. The latest B(U) NATOPS I have still have that gauge straight though. In any case, afaik having it straight is not wrong.

While not being 100% that that is indeed a museum aircraft the thing that makes me believe that is the absence of the spoiler override panel. Museum aircraft are notorious for missing panels and having them in the wrong location. Tilting the oxygen indicator fits that description like IronMike says.

Only true heading and course are used for tracks and in the WCS they're the same as the radar can't discern actual heading, just course. Magnetic heading and course is only for own aircraft.

The CV align can use either cable or datalink RF but both work the same inside the aircraft so the difference isn't modelled in DCS. When aligning the normal frequency wheels are not used so regardless of what Jester set there the Link will still talk to the carrier.

Even if that functionality did actually remain in that block of F/A-18C apart from ACLS it's really not something that was used with that block. As for unifying it between aircraft that's really not critical as there's really no aircraft to aircraft communication apart from in 4C.

I don't know for sure either but I would guess that it could. My guess is that the TADIL systems would be integrated into the C2 system of the AWACS allowing the operator to use both links with system tracks. That functionality isn't really there for DCS though and would work best with a human operator anyway who could prioritize and select what tracks to promulgate. Esp Link 4 is quite limited in the amount of tracks.