Naquaii

Our AIM-54C is basically the same but better performing than the -A. The problem is that there are many people out there guessing about its performance but no hard data and until there are we're not gonna start guessing. But if you have or find any data to that effect you're more than welcome to send it our way.

Yeah, not arguing that it is a bug but the thing is that it's not the rwr in the F-14 that decides to warn you about the missile, it only does it if it is told by the radar or missile in the other aircraft that it has gone active. So the bug is quite unlikely to be on the F-14 side.

The RWR does not decide this on it's own, it looks for messages from the launching aircrafts code in regards to radar emissions so if this is the case it's a bug in the launching aircraft or the missiles itself. Unfortunately not much we can do on our side.

We do not have the resources ourselves to do this but we're open to discuss it if someone is willing to take it upon themselves to do this for the community. Please make a new thread for this in the forums if you feel like this is still an issue, this thread is for discussing the manual itself.

This is likely due to multiplayer lagg and hard to fix. That said, using TWS -> STT buttons for an STT track wasn't used as much IRL as it was regarded as less accurate and less likely to work than doing it via the radar cursor on the DDD. My advice to prospective RIOs out there is to learn to use the radar cursor on the DDD and practice with it, this is how it was nearly always done irl according to SMEs.

Hard to know, whatever little we know points towards nato reporting names and numbers. Ofc, the F-14 wouldn't have met these units IRL anyway and in any case stuff like this is highly classified anyway. In any case this would depend on operating theatre etc as the threat libraries for stuff like this changes depends on likely adversaries. So symbology might even change over time. In any case, using NATO reporting names and codes makes the most sense and is what we will use.

Changed threat symbology for chinese surface vessels and added the Type 71 Amphibious Transport Dock. The symbology was changed to correspond to NATO reporting names instead of individual vessel names. To clarify, these are currently bugged and all showing as N. This will be fixed in one of the upcoming patches.

Had a look, it seems all the Chinese ships from Deka now show as N so we'll have a look at that and fix it. We might also change the symbology to make more sense as having them be acronyms for individuals doesn't make sense. Having them based of off Nato reporting names is probably better. Edit: The new symbology has been added to the manual and will be updated to those in a coming patch.

I'll forward it to the right guy to have a look at the angles as well as the missiles in general then. But rest assured, Jester is not able to look at multiple locations at the same time!

What you are asking for makes no sense as it has been implemented from day 1. He does not have 360/360 vision all around him and when he is operating the radar he is looking down into the cockpit and timing has also been implemented for how long it takes to scan the sky around him. This is modelled after SME feedback and how they were trained IRL to scan their surroundings, especially if over hostile territory. In this regard Jester is probably much closer to reality than the average human RIO in DCS. That said a rework of what missiles he reports has been on our list for a while as we agree that he currently reports too many missiles as he has more difficulty discerning which missiles that directly affects his own aircraft than a real RIO would have.

I guess this ship-type was added after we decided on the rwr symbology, iirc ships will default to N for ships navigational radar if nothing is defined. We'll have a look.

The jammers indicated on the ALE-39 are jammer cartridges that were supposed to go in the same launchers as the chaff and flares like has been mentioned here. They were supposed to be launched the same way but when launched were activated as jammers. If this is ever implemented in DCS we might add it but our sources point towards these never really being a thing at all even if the launchers were prepared for them. That or them being so secret they never were used or something. Who knows.

Yeah, the manual is EA as the rest of the module currently. The issue with the pdf is that, as said earlier, the buildtrain to convert the html manual to a pdf is rather involved and makes it a lot of work to update it. That said the "real" manual is the html version on our webpage and that should always be regarded as the current one, the pdf was added by request and was a lot more work than anticipated. The plan is still to have a pdf version of the release manual though, even if the html version will be the one that continues to be the most current one even after that.

Unfortunately this is a limitation in the current payload system, as far as we know there's no way to make DCS lockout this payload as there are too many variables. As others have said, having rear phoenixes on the fuselage is a no go unless the phoenix pallets are loaded in front.

This change is literally just changing a prefix, i.e. naming of what is displayed. No change in the actual values. And as a radar cannot calculate anything other than a tracks true heading this needs to change in any case. If mh and th are inverted for all aircraft that is something on EDs side with the Caucasus map, not something for us to change. Thus far I haven't seen any reports that this is exists or is an F-14 specific issue.

It's not about the JDAM itself but the classified parts of the F-14 manuals. To have the JDAMs on the F-14 we'd need the very late F-14B upgrade which contains the sparrowhawk and PTID amongst other things and that information is still not available.

Ok, we had a look and it does indeed look like we've had a bug for some time that no-one found until now! Somewhere down the line the WCS was changed to show MC and MH for own aircraft instead of TH and CR (true course). The TH still being able with selection of own aircraft via CAP. This change when implemented seems to also have changed CR to MH for tracks in some mysterious way. After checking myself I've verified that while saying MH both in the default alternating display and CAP -> SPD the TID does indeed display target true course while still indicating MH. So it already works correctly as CR would be the only thing the WCS can figure out using the AWG-9, it has no idea about track magnetic deviation or actual track heading, instead it uses the track updates to calculate course which will then be true course. So tl:dr, the fix will be that we change MH to read CR instead for tracks and I think this will be in the next major patch. But until then the value is still correct as long as you remember that for tracks it isn't MH but CR even if it says MH.

No worries mate, tbh I should probably have caught this earlier, just haven't thought about it. In regards to the own aircraft I think you might as well treat all hooks except when you press the cap button as TID hooks, the complicating thing is that the TID always reverts to own aircraft when you unhook stuff and that is also counted as a TID hook.

Nope, this is a realistic limitation. This functionality wasn't really supported but rather invented by creative RIOs and isn't even documented in natops afaik. Seems like the ones who used it often tried to make it look good in 200 or 400nm display range on the TID in ground stab mode and only used it there.

You set speed and heading using the CAP for the waypoints, the speed becomes the length with 1800kts being 1.5" on the TID.

Hi! I have been trying to get my head around the problem here and I think I've succeeded. Case 1: Own A/C. The indicated prefix on the TID always indicate what type of data is being presented, so if it says MH it is magnetic heading. When it shows true heading the prefix indication should be TH. As said in the Natops you need to hook own a/c via the CAP, pressing the own a/c message button and if you then select the HDG prefix the TID will show AS and TH. To go back you need to hook something and unhook it using the HCU and then if you press HDG it will again show AS and MH. Case 2: There is indeed something odd going on here, the WCS is not capable of showing magnetic heading or course readouts for target tracks, it simply doesn't know the magnetic variation at any other location than own aircraft. What I think is happening is that the MC prefix indicator is bugged and should instead read CR which would then make the indicated number the target tracks true course. I need to verify this but if this is true it's indeed a bug and we need to make sure that it doesn't say MC but CR. I hope I understood you correctly, feel free to ask me otherwise.

Incorrect, having a WCS STT track does not have it "ignore" the ACM switch, it simply switches the NORM/BRSIT switch to NORM instead of BRSIT which it would be in otherwise. The LTE will still be 0.7s due to the ACM cover being up.

The luas do not control anything in regards to seeker activation on our AIM-54s, it's purely controlled in our code and we have no way of going active "halfway" with them going active and then later on activating the radar emission that rwrs see, we don't have that level of control. The only thing we can control after launch is what seekerstate the missile is in and when we tell it to go active it goes active in all regards. So if there is a case where it indeed goes active but gives no warning that would not be caused by our code but rather a bug on EDs side. Thus far we haven't been able to reproduce this but we'll have a look.

I'm not sure we'll post a roadmap that is that specific but I'm not sure tbh, that's not really my area of expertise. The DF function on the -159 is simply not connected to anything in the F-14, it is a part of the radio and likely used in other aircraft but in the F-14 they only hooked up the DF functionality of the -182.

That is unfortunately not something we can control, that's on EDs side of things.