Naquaii

I'll have a talk with Gyro about this, I'm guessing this is exclusive to the AIM-54 as the AIM-7 shouldn't be able to launch without the WCS XMIT on? This scenario is realistic but you very much should get an active missile warning and it should perform as such except for launching in the right direction. If we can reproduce this we might have to talk to ED about this specific case as we're already telling the missile to launch active. And yes, I don't really see how people feel like this is a fair way to play pvp if this is possible, especially if in a tournament. Why even participate if you clearly cheat? That said that doesn't mean this is less of a priority for us to fix.

You can't directly compare those, our AIM-54 is still using the old missile implementation, the AIM-7 is on the new one. The AIM-54A looks for the SARH reflection and also get missile datalink commands via the AWG-9. You are assuming things wrongly, how would it otherwise get the active transfer command to go active? And again, can't compare old versus new missile implementation like that, you're assuming things again. How do you know no range information is available? How do you know the AWG-9 and AIM-54 is notched?

Not a bug, the F-14 uses the wingtip lights when swept forward and glove lights when swept aft except in landing conf where it uses both with wings forward. The lod thing might be a bug but outside of my area of expertise.

Just pushing the button won't fix anything as the default hook is target nr 1.

Currently the issue is that we've yet to decide upon a good way of selecting what target to use as next target. Simply using the numerals doesn't really work as you might want a target not in the 1-6 prio and the STT selection isn't optimal either. Making Jester push the button is easy, how to select what target to hook before that is the issue.

The problem is that the clutter returns you get from the ground or surface won't be that exact. If you think about it, why would they then make the MLC filter 266 knots wide? Like you say, the clutter returns will originate from objects at those speeds but they will not be read that exactly by the AWG-9. The MLC filter width was set for a reason, they could've made the filter itself smaller if they wanted to.

The issue is that we don't really model sea-clutter at all currently. IRL this shouldn't be possible, it's as simple as that. Disabling PD-STT against ships would be a stopgap until we have clutter modelled. The problem with clutter in pulse doppler is that, like I mentioned, it groups it in regards to rate, not range like in pulse search. And additionally it's also more sensitive to clutter than pulse, there's a reason for pulse-doppler being the best mode for early detection of targets, not pulse, it's simply more sensitive. You're attempt at simulation of clutter simply isn't a very good approximation of it, you need to imagine what you get in your mission but as a wider and fuzzier arc across the whole of the DDD. There's a reason for the MLC being +/-133 knots. This imagine from the manual shows the MLC trace but is just representative, on a real display it would be wider, covering much more of the MLC region. So no, unfortunately my answer will still be the same, IRL the radar would not be able to discern these targets in a way that would allow for detection in anything approachin a reliable way. The reason we didn't catch this until now is just that it didn't really cross our minds to be honest. Use pulse search and p-stt instead, those will continue to work and is also realistic.

Might have something todo with how we do those, we'll have a look.

Or maybe they just liked each other? This is more of a super carrier issue than F-14 issue. We don't really control the LSO or wave-offs.

Not really no, the HUD is not really something that would change due to age. This mod makes the HUD look a bit more unrealistic but you're absolutely free to mod that how you'd like ofc.

I can believe them seeing them in pulse in some fashion, even if not in a usable fashion but seeing them in pulse doppler with mlc off I have a hard time believing.

I think a lot of you guys are confusing what we're saying. Pulse-doppler would be worseless for this, normal pulse, not so much. We will not be disabling this functionality with pulse, only pulse doppler. You will still be able to find ships with pulse and lock them. As for ground traffic I can totally believe it, I'm not sure they'd actually be able to make sense of it but seing something sure. That said we won't be putting any effort into that as it's more of a peculiarity, not something useful.

Use pulse instead then like RIOs in irl did.

Basically all the waypoints should be viewed as the same, they can be used for whatever you wish them to be used. The only two waypoints that are special is the surface target (ST) and initial point (IP). The IP being used for computer - initial point air to ground munitions delivery and the ST for surface targets. Both of those can still be used as navigational points. The only thing to keep in mind is that ST works differently combined with doing navigational fixes in that it updates the waypoint not the INS system. This allows ST to be used to mark targets spotted on the radar or when overflown, if you tried to do that with the others you'd likely waste your INS alignment.

That was an oversight which is being corrected.

Yeah, everything static or nearly static will show in the MLC area while in pulse they will show in range. So it will be really hard to sort it out from all clutter with the same rate.

The difference is that in pulse doppler all surface/ground returns show up in the same rate location meaning that it should be much harder to see the ships. Currently there likely is too little clutter from water modelled but even if we increase it it would make much less difference in pulse than in PD, again becase it would all show up at the same rate. PD just shouldn't be good at looking at ground/surface targets and locking them in PD-STT should be nearly impossible due to the fact that the STT would not know what returns to focus on. My current thinking is to disable the ability for STT in PD against ground/surface targets as that shouldn't be a thing but in the end we might have a look at changing how the clutter looks at sea.

Optimally the returns from the sea should depend greatly on sea state. In any case, using PD to search for surface targets shouldn't be a thing, we might have to look at disabling that or making it much harder. I'll have a talk with the others.

Probably? We ask how is it implemented, if at all, in the module. Well, I can't talk for what people think is normal maneuvering in air to air combat in DCS, it for sure isn't what air combat IRL would be. In general any maneuvering should be fine as long as you don't make the AWG-9 miss any frames. In TWS Auto the scan zone updates every two seconds, just like the tracks but you have to keep in mind that it's all governed by the INS in the F-14, not the real world. Throwing the aircraft around upsets this and is the major reason for this being discouraged IRL. What can happen is one of three things really, firstly you can break the INS of course which will make no-one happy, but that's the extreme edge case here. Secondly you might, by mistake, make the AWG-9 miss frames by maneuvering in a way that puts the scan zone outside of the antenna limits and lastly you might maneuver in a way that make the WCS unable to keep up with the scan zone pointing. Imagine the WCS updating the scan zone while you're in a roll, the WCS will adjust the scan zone to fit a momentary snap shot of your position and attitude and you'd then directly invalidate it by continueing that roll making that frame in effect lost. And making the AWG-9 missing frames isn't good as it's not that good at correlating tracks and can't reacquire a track that has been lost previously. In STT however you should be able to do quite wild stuff as the only thing you really have to keep in mind is the antenna limits. All that said though my suggestion would be to experiment with it yourself. But my original suggestion stands, in TWS you can for sure crank but don't do any crazy barrel rolls or stuff like that. Or rather, don't be surprised if you do and your TWS doesn't keep up.

Yeah, level flight as in the nose pointing straight ahead. Not as in not descending. In fact the last upgrade of the F-14B had an even better HUD, the Sparrowhawk HUD.

No, the zero doppler filter is centered around 0 radial velocity, it's the MLC that cancels out targets at or around ground speed so with MLC disabled it could see them. It's just unlikely as they'd very likely be totally drowned in ground/sea echoes.

This info is in the chapter under weapons and AIM-54 but not a list like that. I'll add it to my list to see if it makes sense to add that.

Yes, this is what I've been saying before. The issue was not the missile itself but rather the AWG-9 and that's were those rumours are coming from. And to be frank I feel like we've done at least some justice to that with our TWS implementation.

From our point of view this is discussion is over until we're presented evidence to the contrary. But feel free to discuss it if you'd like to.

The simple facts from my point of view are that the only place I've seen claiming the AIM-54 wouldn't be good against fighters are rumours on the internet and keyboard warriors having read that. All information we have points towards it being perfectly fine against both bigger bombers and smaller maneuvering targets.