Naquaii

Incorrect, the switch is pre-launch only.

That's just one aspect of it, it's certainly not the sole factor determining if the missile was designed to go active on its own. Hell we don't know if the AMRAAM should do it in all modes. It might even have been that the AIM-54C with the AWG-9 was less capable than the AIM-54C with the APG-71 just as if you put a SEAM capable AIM-9 on an aircraft not able to use that function. We just don't know and it's dangerous to assume stuff out of second hand information, especially when found on the Internet. But yes, we're in agreement that the AIM-54C needs to have clear advantages over the AIM-54A and that's also what we're trying to fix in the long run.

If it isn't currently it's the first I'm hearing of it? What is missing? No, what I'm saying that what we decided upon as the best guess is not the same as the one you guys are arguing for. And you're arguing with evidence that's circumstantial at best and not as good as what we've used as our basis. Both lines of reasoning have merit but not the same amount. That both are unproven does not mean yours is more right. And no, using the same nomenclature, i.e. "command/inertial" for two different missiles does not prove anything. And also, saying that you wouldn't improve the navigational system of the missile if you weren't specifically designing it for being able to go active is a logical fallacy and also does not prove anything. Do you really think that all more modern semi-active missiles have useless inertial systems?

The current AIM-54C is what it is based off of our CFD modelling and the limits of DCS. Initially we had hoped that the increased countermeasure resistance would've been a bigger differentiator. As for the rest we're hoping we can mitigate some of that with the new missile modelling like I said earlier.

You're missing my point. Like I said earlier we agree that the current AIM-54C isn't better enough to warrant going with it as it is and we're hoping we can improve upon that with the new missile model when that's done. What I don't agree with is that a lot of you guys think this should boil down to the AIM-54C being able to go active on its own. Something being best guess is not an argument for or against a fact that hasn't been proven. And saying that the fact that a lot of things aren't possible to implement in DCS should change this is also not something I agree upon. If some sort of clearer evidence can be found about this fact we'd very much like to see it, be it manual or whatever sort of document.

You're ofc free to believe whatever you wish and discussing what can or can't be modelled in DCS also does not really change this, at least for me. As far as I'm concerned I'm done with this discussion unless you guys find any new evidence.

No, once again you're assuming things that you can't prove. A lot of military systems have strap-down inertial systems, that fact does not equal 100% that they can go active on their own or that they're ARH-missiles for that matter. Do you have any sources proving this is the reason the AMRAAM can do this?

I am a weapons engineering officer myself, thanks. I know very well what command inertial means and just waving that term around still doesn't prove anything and if that's your whole line of reasoning we might as well stop here. At least I will. That a missile has a command/inertial function does not prove much about how it's seeker work or what logic guides it's functionality. You might be able to infer things about it but that's the limit and also the problem here really. You guys are inferring stuff about the AIM-54C that you can't prove. And that said, it's you guys that are claiming functionality here that you can't prove and that doesn't really change whether or not I can prove details about the -54A to you.

This basically just says that the AIM-54C is more accurate than the AIM-54A, not that it could/will go active on it's own volition. And I'm not saying we don't have any info on the AIM-54C at all, just less. But that doesn't mean that we're going to change how it functions from vague information on the Internet that doesn't even say what you're trying to prove. I do agree that the current AIM-54C in DCS isn't good enough to make it as viable an alternative to the AIM-54A as we'd like. One part being that the countermeasure resistance is too crude of a value that can be countered by just dumping more chaff currently and another that there's not really a way to model the guidance and seekerhead advantages as it is in DCS. At least not in the old missile modelling. We're hoping that we'll be able to make the AIM-54C a more given upgrade over the -54A with the new missile modelling but as it is having it go active on it's own isn't one of those advantages. At least for now. And reposting information talking about the "command-intertial" capability of the AIM-54C isn't going to change our mind as it is. This is info we've already known about for quite a while.

Which is one of our sources yes.

It's not much of a leap of faith that it would share a lot with the AIM-54A. What you're saying would be like designing an AIM-7M of off a totally different missile. Now you're just assuming what we've based our AIM-54A off of.

Except that we know more about the AIM-54A than the AIM-120 frankly.

As far as we know it was able to load the waypoints from the WCS.

Why does "command-inertial guidance" prove that it should go active on its own? Why is that such a magic word for you guys? There could still be very valid reasons for the missile not being allowed to go active on it's own, like I said they could've allowed the AIM-54A to do that as well, yet didn't. And like I said, I wouldn't be suprised if it could go active on it's own but I've yet to see any evidence of that, including what's been posted in this thread.

The problem is that nothing of this really say anything about the actual function you're trying to prove. The same argument could be made for the AIM-54A, they could've allowed it to go active on its own but didn't. Likely due to several considerations we're not privy to. Who's to say what considerations were made for the AIM-54C? Now, I'm not saying I don't believe that it could go active on it's own but we do know that the AIM-54A couldn't and we have no proof of the AIM-54C being able to do so, regardless of what we ourselves believe.

As far as we know that's how the TWS in the AWG-9 was. Saying nothing else works like that isn't fair, the TWS in the other aircraft in DCS are 10-20 if not 30 years newer. As far as we know the AWG-9 had no way to re-establish an already lost track with a new radar returns. That's not to say it hasn't got a track memory, it can miss a few returns and it will keep a track as dead reckoned until time-out. But it won't correlate that track to new tracks appearing after it's marked as lost. I've said it before but I'm leaning towards this being the source for the AIM-54 "being useless against fighters" circulating on the Internet. The missile itself has no problems engaging fighters, it's the radar that has.

As it currently is in open beta the full flaps will deploy when you pass a certain threshold and fully retract when moved back past that point. Our SME later corrected us so they will be incremental again next patch. The maneuvering flaps are controlled to extend when needed by the CADC, when we're back to incremental next patch you need to have the lever fully up for that to work. The flap handle is separate from maneuverflaps and overrides it. The only way to manually control those is the dlc wheel. The automatic NWS disengagement was changed to be correct and for that to work you need to cycle the hook which is done during pre-flight checks IRL anyway. But you can still disable it using the NWS button as always. Me and Gyro do not work on the FM so unfortunately can't update you on it. But it is being worked on.

The original F-14 HUD (which is what our F-14 has) was quite limited in the type of symbols it could display and it could really only display one of each. So in the modes where the diamond is used for another purpose the PAL and VSL won't be visible on the HUD but they will still work. In the gun mode the diamond and the pipper are used for the RTGS sight so they are not available for use with the radar modes.

It's actually the manual that's wrong. Advisory lights like that should be green, the image in the manual must be from before that was corrected. I'll add it to the list for fixes to the manual, thanks!

That's because they are incremental but they were never used as such in real life unless you had a malfunction more or less.

Also, imagine that there are actually people out there that think you navy guys would use air force lingo...

Not sure exactly what you're getting at but we've already been proven wrong by Victory205 and it'll be reverted next patch as mentioned here and in the bug section.

@Golo I'm gonna answer you here as to move it out of the patch feedback thread: Yes, this is still not a bug as a bug is an unintended error in the code not added intentionally. This was intentional even if eventually proven wrong. And no, we wouldn't have ignored you but we also didn't agree with you. The issue here is that during the years developing the F-14 the NATOPS has continually proven to have ambiguous statements and sometimes even outright erroneous statements. That coupled with the fact that our SME's stating it should work a certain way means that we take them on their word. And by SME I do not mean a random dude on some forums claiming to be an F-14 tech but people we've worked with for along time that we know have proven experience and knowledge of the aircraft. That aside you have to excuse us but we do not need the lecture about research and fact checking, the simple fact is that the evidence you gave is far from new to us and known when we made this decision and thus didn't really add anything new to the discussion for us. That said this discussion did bring it to the attention of Victory205 who is one of our main SMEs in regards to the pilot side of the F-14 and we usually listen closely to his feedback! Unfortunately this had been overlooked for some reason earlier when we made this decision. So no, we did not ignore you or your evidence but at that time it did not add any new information to us or change our mind and no we did not base it on a whim from some unverified SME. But Victory fortunately changed our minds and we will revert it. Apart from that I will also add a tracker to make sure fixing the AUX-flaps deployment points get looked at.

Yes, and like I said, that's not a reason for us changing how we model it now. And the NATOPS does not explicitly say that you could control the flaps incrementally in the normal mode of operation.

Yeah, I do agree that the aux flaps don't extend at the right position of the flap lever currently but it also a minor issue (not saying we wont fix it) as the current functionality leaves you no reason to do anything than just move the flap handle all the way directly. As for why it would work this way I'd say you kinda need to think of it as it is with the throttles. Normal operation use microswitches to tell the flaps to move electronically but they also have a mechanical backup using a cable which is only used in case of electrical failure. A reason for this could be that you have no reason for incremental flap control in normal flight but when operating with degraded functionality you might. Note that the emergency procedure you referred to explicitly tells the crew to pull electrical breakers for the flaps. I'm not saying this is the reason but is a reason. Aside from that we've had former enlisted airmen explicitly tell us they remember the microswitches triggering the deployment in the throttle quadrant and that this is how it actually worked. It's hard for us to argue with that. All that aside, using the normal flaps outside of the maneuverflaps region other than just strictly retracted or deployed wasn't done either way, not that that would stop us from modelling it incrementally if that were the case.