Naquaii

Doesn't work unfortunately as the smokewinders are attached to launchers normally carrying AIM-9 and that's only possible on the glove stations.

Apart from basically disagreeing with you about everything you just wrote I guess we should just remove everything based on information we can't show you guys? Edit: You don't need to answer. I think I'm quite done with this thread.

Yeah, and R10 is connected to the LAU-138. That's what I meant by that option should probably say "Don't use LAU-138" instead as when you uncheck that it's as if the LAU-138 isn't mounted, thus allowing 60 flares. The end goal is afaik to have the player able to choose LAU-7 or LAU-138 on the pylons themselves and have it visually show as well.

That doesn't matter even in the slightest, if it wasn't classified it's not going to have data as accurate as you're treating it to be. In any case, this isn't in any way why we're preferring to trust the data we have. I was just trying to give an explanation as to how that data should be interpreted. Even non-withstanding that it'd not change our stance in this case in us preferring the data we have. Like I said, feel free to continue this discussion. I'm out.

Contemporary sources to when the missile was classified just won't be 100% reliable. You don't classify something and then just hand the data out in a freely to everyone who asks. When a document like this is created it either gets classified in itself also or the data is obfuscated or changed enough that it's not. And in that case the data won't be 100% correct.

Like I said, we're not in a position where we can debate or show our information we use and as it is we value that information as a better source.

The sources for your information is what I don't value as better than what we have. I have no questions or contentions about any of your calculations.

If anything the example of the flaps is a good example of the fact that we listen and change stuff if we get new evidence of something needing change. We're never going to just change something straight up day to day, it'll always be a process of validating the information over time and trying to change our model to make it better. And the main issue with the flaps was lack of data initially (and still to some degree) coupled with users using it in a non-intended way. There's still ideas to improve it further if possible. In this case it's different as we look at the information presented here and simply do not agree. I'm not going to say that our model is absolutely right unlike what you're doing about what you believe. And we're also not calling you guys laymen or any of the sort, like I said previously, regardless of how right the equations are (and I believe they are) it doesn't matter if the information they're based on isn't. And no, I haven't seen anything in here that could be regarded as the complete (previously classified or still classified) technical blueprints of the AIM-54 rocket motors. The tl:dr is still that, no, we're not going to change the model from the information presented here as we don't agree with it and no, we're also not going to share our sources for this for varous different reasons. We're not going to disregard information just because we can't share it, if that was our stance this module wouldn't have happened. You're absolutely free to disagree with that but as far as I'm concerned this discussion is over until such a time as new information is found.

Yes, as far as I remember that's how it is. I don't think you can not load the LAU-138 currently. Edit: Seems I misremembered, if you uncheck "Load LAU-138 with chaff" you can have 60 flares, so 60 is max. That should probably be worded as do not use LAU-138 or something instead. But that's max, the LAU-138 we model on have chaff.

All I can say is that yes, you can't really validate our data in this case, and like I said, this isn't unique in DCS and it's by far not unique in this module. There's quite a lot of other aspects about the F-14 module that is built on information you can't find openly on the net for various reasons. (And no, we would never deal with classified data but just because it's unclassified doesn't mean you can find it on the net.) So if you can't trust us in this case you kinda invalidate quite a large part of the module itself as it is. The same goes for quite a few of the other modules in DCS as well I'm sure. All I can ask you to do is to look at the aspects of the module that you can validate from openly available documents like the Natops and see if you think those are accurately represented and judge the module from that. I can assure you that we try to hold the same standard for all parts of the module, regardless of if the data we built it on are openly available. Same thing with the weapons systems (within DCS limitations ofc). And as always, if you find new data we're always willing to look at it and try to improve our module. In this case this thread has been going on for a while and we've already commented that we judge our data better, but if new sources are made available we will for sure have a look at it.

The fact that you guys present your viewpoint here with data built from calculations and study of data doesn't change the fact that the data you built it on might not be entirely correct. The calculations can only be as good as the data it's built on. So the simple fact that calculations and science is used to arrive at this conclusion doesn't outright make it better than other data. In general it's a good thing to look at where the data is from and during what timeframe, if it's openly available and from a point in time where the real data would be classified you can be quite sure that it will not be entirely accurate or even intentionally fudged as to not reveal the real data. And yes, we have other data which we value as more accurate than what is presented here, which we at this time aren't willing to share due to various reasons. It is how it is and by far not the only thing modelled in DCS that is based on data not available to the end users. Continueing to argue your point won't change our stance on this unless you provide new sources of information, but like I said you're free to do so just don't expect us to be a part of the discussion that much.

You need to change the loadout using the radio menu if you're in a mission or if using the mission editor using the rightmost tab with the aircraft selected (additional aircraft properties). But there's currently no way to not carry the LAU-138 that has additional chaff (and can't have flares) and because of that one of the sections of the built in launcher needs to carry chaff. So the max amount of flares you can load is 50 as 10 needs to be chaff to enable the LAU-138. When we eventually add the possibility of carrying LAU-7 launchers instead of LAU-138 you will be able to carry 60 flares and no chaff.

Our answers aren't different on the Discord than they are here but it all still boils down to the fact that there hasn't really been anything new presented. I've said it before that it's not about wether we believe the math presented here is correct or not but rather that we have data we trust more than those that what you guys present here is based on and the fact that those match available real test data also kinda reinforces that. Digging deeper into the equations and data here doesn't really change those facts. We still believe the current missile in DCS is as kinematically correct as we can make it atm, unfortunately a large part of the guidance and seeker modelling is out of our hands and that's what we would like to improve as it currently stands. You're ofc free to continue discussing this here but as it stands we don't really have anything much to add here from our side.

Afaik there's some intentional spread yeah. But it depends very much on the angle of attack, a more shallow attack dive will give a greater dispersion.

What you're describing is just general inaccuracy, this isn't what we're talking about. The sight in the Viggen isn't a CCIP sight, the aiming dot shows where to aim if fired at the correct time. It's more akin to a ccrp mode where you fly into the correct place to employ the weapons. If you fire too early or too late you will miss, the aiming point of the dot isn't valid unless you fire at the indicated time. And as mentioned previously the computer only has the capability to calculate correctly for the normal "everything at once" mode, firing rockets manually will not produce a valid solution.

It calculates how the rockets will fall if you follow the launch indications. So yes, it does know where the center of the salvo is supposed to be if the pilot follows the indications.

Afaik that's correct. Firing single rockets wasn't a thing other than training so the computer simply doesn't have a mode that takes that into account.

Afaik that actually depends on the aircraft, the F-14D had no liquid cooling at all for the AIM-54, it instead had electrical connections for internal coolant which the older F-14 variants didn't have. What I've gather is that the same missiles could be either liquid cooled or electrically cooled using the internal system, depending on what F-14 carried it.

As mentioned the coolant system for the AIM-54 on the F-14A/B was located in the forward part of the two front fuselage AIM-54 pallets. If those aren't present you can't use the AIM-54 on those aircraft. So yes, the loadout you want isn't realistic and not possible. As written, yes. It was written before we found out the exact details of the coolant system so it's not entirely correct. It's correct in so far as that the gloves contain coolant lines for the coolant to the missiles but the cooling system itself is in the fuselage pallets and the coolant lines from the gloves are connected to that.

Not a bug, the forward phoenix pallets need to be mounted if you want to carry any phoenixes at all. The thing with the pallets remaining when you rearm is unfortunately a current DCS limitation. Solution is to choose a new preset instead from the list.

It's true to life as far as we know, we used the real life data update rates for those symbols. It's the databus sending the data to the HUD not the HUD itself actually and we have data for on what frequency those updated.

It's still not an alignment, those five minutes are to allow the gyro to stabilize after being turned off. If entered from the INS state this is normally not necessary as the gyro would've already be good to go. But IMU/AM is a fallback nav mode for if you have failures in the INS that won't allow full functionality. In this mode the INS gyro isn't aligned, it's being used as free directional gyro mode so it will drift a lot over time. It's basically just used as an attitude reference and due to the heading axis not being stabilized by gravity it drifts a lot. That the IM acronym isn't displayed could be for several different reasons but it could also be a bug, but I can't really say. You'd probably have to ask Grover who coded the INS for that.

This is probably getting added as the reason for not having them was that they didn't exist in DCS when we did the loadouts.

We realized not having it repeat when the RIO was in TV was only correct for earlier F-14s. So the early F-14A will still have this disadvantage.

"I" have not literally said anything, nor have "I" started anything. Like I've mentioned before I'm not part of any of those decisions. I just do F-14 research and SME help with that information. That said it has also been very clearly stated that the RWR for the earlier F-14A will build upon what was developed for the F-4E but it's not the same RWR so it still needs to be implemented. I'm still not sure where this whole "Omg, dev xyz hasn't updated us in a few months! They must've stopped development!?!?" thing is coming from, it didn't use to be a thing and DCS was never a game where you got monthly updates on anything. If anything I think you can see if you look back that all 3rd parties tend to want to take their time and get things right, these aren't major software companies and expecting back to back major releases is a bit strange and nothing about this has changed for like ever with DCS. I appreciate wanting things now and being excited for them but raging about not getting them "now" won't change anything.