Naquaii

Afaik we do aim towards having the OBC and the functionality on the master test panel functioning eventually. As for circuit breakers it's likely too much work for too little gain to implement them all. Don't take this as absolute truth though as it's just off the top off my head. As for the DF on the AN/ARC-159, that is correct as is. The F-14 couldn't use the DF functionality via the 159, only via the 182.

Thanks! The problem is that it's not purely based on range but rather estimated range to target impact. In the situation in your linked tacview replay you shot at a closing target meaning that the calculated impact point would be much closer. That means that even if that video say it's lofting at 22nm that could be against a beaming target or a target running away which would mean an impact point further away and thus maybe a loft.

In that video you're launching at 26nm, that's not a long range shot for an AIM-54, that's probably why it's not lofting. 26nm at a closing target is short to medium range for a Phoenix.

No, he’s correct. MLC auto is based on antenna elevation above horison. Having it based on antenna elevation relative aircraft ADL would make auto useless as it’s designed to enable MLC filter when there is a risk of ground clutter in the MLC areas. This is also partly why all PD modes are always stab in.

I'm just not sure where you're going with the complaints against the missile range of the F-14? What were you expecting and what do you expect us to do? Nerf the range because you think it's too great? Also, I really do hope you don't think random bugs occuring one at a time and then being fixed next patch is something we'd use as a sales pitch? Really?

In DCS? No, they only differ in the chaff resistance.

You should probably start by reading the subject you put on this thread as you made it. In any case, we will have a look at the ECM and the issue with HoJ against our jammer as pointed out by others. Especially now as the hornet soon to have its jammer. Lets just leave it at that.

The big issue here is that you come here complaining about stuff while trying to pin it on us and the F-14 community as if we're willfully trying to cheat by making the F-14 too good. All the while while presenting very poor evidence for your accusations. Constructive criticism is always welcome but being rude and just claiming stuff without backing it up will not get you far here. And also, complaining about the AIM-54 range? What do you expect us to do? Shorten it to be comparable to the AIM-120 but completely unrealistic? Do you also complain about AIM-9s being shorter ranged than AIM-120s? A little less of the insults, more facts and less complaining about stuff that's realistic as is and we'll be happy to hear you out.

There's a big difference between mounting a missile for separation and carry tests and having it fully integrated. The image showing an F-14 launcing an AIM-120 might be just this, a dumb missile wired to a trigger switch just to test actual missile separation. I'm actually not sure how far along they got with modifying the radar in the F-14 to actually support the missiles and like I said above, not actually needed for basic separation and carry tests. This is the same reason why images of IRIAF F-14s carrying AA-10s, R-73s or Hawks prove nothing more than that they managed to mechanically attach them to the aircraft. What we do know is that the hardware and software modifications to launch an actually guiding and working AIM-120 never made it to fleet aircraft. The extended ability to carry dumb air to ground munitions however were fully integrated and if you hung those munitions on the actual fleet F-14 aircraft they would for sure work, the navy just didn't. This is the reasoning behind us adding them, the actual in use aircraft could use those bombs and rockets if they had wanted to. The AIM-120, they could not.

Yes, I'm well aware how radars and jammers work. The likely issue here is that DCS models it way to simplistic, i.e. the old on/off simulation that has has existed for ECM since forever. My guess is that the targeting functionality in the FC-3 aircraft sees and unsees the jammer very rapidly making it very hard to select and launch on it. IRL that would ofc not matter like you say as the systems would correlate emissions and also not remove the indication instantaneously like it seems to be in DCS. Even if this means that the issue in a way is in the launching aircraft the simpler solution might be to change how our jammer behaves. We'll have to tinker a bit with it. I do concur that this seems to be the likely issue with the current implementation. However, having an implementation where you have a warm-up time for transmission is also very unrealistic. The FC-3 aircraft behave as if you turn on and off the whole jammer, not the emission itself. In any case this doesn't mean that we don't want to fix this, either by ED fixing the jammer targeting stuff or if we have to change our logic somehow. In the end it might be that we end up implementing new ECM functionality if that becomes available. Tl:dr, it's not intended that you can't shoot HoJ against the DECM in the F-14 and we'll have a look at it.

Right, now this is interesting information. If it is indeed blinking on and off rapidly that is not how it is intended to work afaik. I'll make a tracker internally to have us investigate that. Nothing has changed on our side but it could be some new behaviour in the triggering conditions that didn't exist when it was programmed. Having a warmup time for the jammer apart from when you turn the system on is not something we're likely to add as it would be quite a poor jammer if it had to warmup for 15 secs each time you want to emit. We do intend to make the AWG-9 show and be affected by jamming, this has always been on the todo list. DCS being somewhat limited in regards to ECM we're likely going to have a look at how ED themselves are implementing it in their aircraft and how that will affect ours.

So you want us to nerf the AIM-54 because it has an unfair range advantage? Not sure were you want to take that line of reasoning, we're not ever going to "balance" the F-14 against some notion of a "fair" aircraft to aircraft fight, we're always going to aim for making it as realistic as possible. If you want a 1:1 capability match-up use the same aircraft on each side. You're also making a lot of assumptions about our tuning of the missiles and it is true that we put the chaff resistance of the AIM-54C as being close to an AIM-120B as, frankly it seems to have had a lot in common. And no, we didn't "forget" to reverse our chaff resistance settings. We were trying to make sense of the changes and were playing catch-up as we weren't told and in at least one case we did change it only to find out that that same patch changed the way it worked once more. And I think you quite accurately described what a RIO ("Clown"? I think there's quite a few people who would take offense at that statement.) should do. What would you prefer? To actively force the RIO chair empty? Afaik there's quite a few other aircraft that has auto rwr and countermeasure systems? Frankly? We're always open to constructive criticism and willing to change our minds but what you're saying and inferring is a bit unfair and quite disrespectful honestly.

If you want us to take you seriously I suggest you stop inferring that we would malicously try to make the F-14 better than any other aircraft as this is simply not the case and something bordering on conspiracy theories. Everything we do is to make our F-14 as realistic as we possibly can within the limits of DCS or simulation in general. Like was mentioned in the original thread our ecm only differs in that we implemented it to automatically switch on and off as needed but it is still the very same ecm as any other current aircraft in DCS. In fact, if you switched on and off your ecm in an fc3 aircraft you'd likely get the exact same effect. This is likely some previously undected bug in the newer missile apis and out of our hands but if ED want us to change anything or help them debug it we will ofc do that.

Technically yes. The coolant system for the phoenixes are in the fairings in front of the forward pallets. IIRC there was at first another version of those fairings without the coolant systems which made them much smaller, without the bulge. But eventually it was decided that the aerodynamic advantage of the smaller ones for non-phoenix use wasn't enough to warrant keeping them and ofc those pallets weren't really used for A/G stuff until much later on anyway IRL.

You can for sure as long as the front pallets are still loaded. Without the front pallets and the coolant fairings you can't have the glove phoenixes either IRL but this is difficult to implement in DCS as it is.

The (U) part of the designation isn't really official afaik, more of an indicator of an upgraded aircraft in common use. The latest natops manuals for the F-14B details these upgrades.

All arguments aside, like have been mentioned many times before, we do currently lack all the data we need to do a Sparrowhawk equipped F-14. The thing is that the Sparrowhawk HUD wasn't a standalone upgrade, it very much depended on the newer navigation systems present in the upgraded F-14B(U), if the aircraft didn't have those (CDNU, EGI and FMC as examples) it still wouldn't be able to present much more on the HUD as that data was drawn from the new 1553 buses present with that upgrade and without them the data would be the same as the original HUD. This means that if there ever were to be a project to introduce it it would be as part of an F-14B(U) containing these systems as well as the PTID and DFCS. So even if we did get a hold of all the data on the Sparrowhawk we'd still need to fill in a lot of blanks in regards to PTID functionality.

Have you tried saluting using the keybind? (default left shift + u) Otherwise the only thing I can think off is to make sure you're not using 3rd party programs or mods that influence controls (like vaicom etc) and then do a repair if that doesn't work.

Correct, this is stuff that we can't change as a 3rd party dev.

No, they are now "M" as any other active missile, it's not AMRAAM specific. The SD-10 and the R-77 as examples will also show as "M". AFAIK there's no mod in DCS that make a distinction in the RWR. Also, we have no control over this except in the F-14, the other modules control what is shown on their rwr.

Yes, and that's the point, it isn't at the correct place relative the other missiles right now and that's what we're looking at.

It's all well and good folks, no hard feelings. Like I said, we will continue to tune the chaff values and have a serious look at changing over to the same FM and new functions tha the AIM-120 and AIM-7 now uses if we can and work with ED on that. You don't need to post tracks to convince me that it's possible to decoy an AIM-54 with a single chaff bundle. That's possible with all DCS missiles if you're lucky and I'm sure our AIM-54s are too sensitive atm which we will ofc have a look at. What I don't agree with is the fact that you're making it out to be that it always is decoyed by a single chaff, I can easily produce a track file were it isn't. Taking selective datapoints to prove a point while ignoring the rest that doesn't agree with you is not how we produce the data that we build our modules on.

Well, 1 chaff does not equal a 100% trashed missile, embellishing and making up facts is not a good way to get me to listen to you. That aside our intention has always been that the AIM-54C should be close to the AIM-120B in chaff resistance and the AIM-54A about as much less from the -C as the AIM-120B is from the AIM-120C or less. This is what we have been tuning for but several times we have done this and the way the chaff resistance parameter works have changed from under our feet just as the patch was released. We are working on this but you have to understand that as 3rd party devs we do not always have the complete picture. Most likely not, apart from the seeker and lofting control that will not work for AI aircraft I wouldn't be suprised if it works differently but it's not something we 3rd parties have insight into.

For voice coms to another human player you need to use an external program like SRS currently as DCS only supports general voice coms at this point. SRS is integrated so it uses the internal radios in the aircraft though.

Honestly? Apart from what we say ourselves you have to regard any rumours or information as conjecture. There has been a couple of threads discussing the AIM-54 which we have followed but we seldom comment in those threads as a lot of it is speculation or just not possible to model in DCS or maybe any simulator. In any case, what sets our AIM-54 apart from other DCS missiles is that we had a rather exhaustive modelling done of the missile itself which then informed our modelling in DCS. But it is still a lua defined missile just as any other DCS missile like how the AIM-7, AIM-120 (before their changes) or Super 530 are. What we can tune is the flight model parameters, motor performance and basic chaff resistance. This in effect makes our AIM-54 the same as many other DCS missiles just that we could base those parameters on our modelling. The other thing that sets our AIM-54 apart is that ED helped us make it possible to control the lofting and seeker activate/seeker state by calling functions in the already existing API, it never was a completely new "missile API". This is what was finally introduced later autumn this year and made it possible for us to have the AIM-54 purely SARH in PD-STT and to control at what point it would go active in our code. Additionally it allowed us to turn on or off the lofting based on range or ACM modes to be closer to real life. This does however mean that AI F-14s might not use correct lofting or seeker functionality as we can only control this for player aircraft. So AI STT shots will still behave like ARH missiles as an example. So as it currently stands our AIM-54s are in a stage where we are at a limit of what we currently can do and we're mostly doing bug fixing atm. In regards to chaff resistance this has unfortunately changed a couple of times lately and we're still trying to tweak it until we're happy with it. Missile flight performance outside of pure FM stuff and guidance and seeker performance as it is is completely out of our hands (other than what has been mentioned) and that's just how it is in DCS currently. That said we do know that ED are making improvements to stuff like this and we are looking at changing over to use the same new missile flight model parameters as the improved AIM-7 and AIM-120 currently do but it will take a lot of work as we will now have to retune it all and we're also not sure how much it will improve the missiles. We're also have no information as it stands regarding how this will affect missile guidance in any way or if it will even do that. We will ofc continue to improve things working with ED and improve the missiles in any way we can in the future if the opportunity arises but as it stands currently it's mostly bugfixes and finetuning that's happening. I hope that helps you somewhat! I'm sorry you feel this way but I can assure that it is anything but "a basic task".