Naquaii

No worries, it's very likely something that could be expanded upon in the manual. Truth to be told there was a time when it had us confused about it as well.

When coming from pulse search it's range and and when starting in a PD mode it's rate. The only time you get range on the DDD in a PD mode is in PD-STT. But both STT modes show range and the current range scale should be indicated on the readout above the screen.

Yeah, that part about the Vc switch is a lingering error. What the aspect switch does is that it selects which parts of the doppler filters that are used in the pulse doppler search modes, so not just PD Search but RWS and TWS as well. In beam the screen covers from -1200 to +1200. In tail it's +600 to -1800 and in nose it's +1800 to -600. So the middle cross is 0 in beam, -600 in tail and +600 in nose. And yes, opening is towards the bottom and closing towards the top. The actual scale marking numbers shown on some DDDs became defunct quite early on and should be disregarded.

I'm not really sure what to tell you, what you're saying doesn't make sense. What you're describing for Tail and Beam seems about right but slightly above the cross in Nose would be more than 600 knots closing. But neither of this makes sense if it's the same target, his velocity would of course not change because of the Aspect switch, that's something I've never seen. That's not something I can explain from the information you've given me. As for the Vc switch, that's correct, the Vc switch only sets the scale on the DDD for the Vc indicator in the STT modes. It doesn't do anything in search.

There are parts of the manual that are unfortunately slightly out of date. I was the original manual creator but I left that position 1-2 years ago. The new manual guy is currently quite busy with the F-4 manual but afaik the intention is to loop back and update the F-14 manual as well when the F-4 stuff dies down slightly after EA release.

Incorrect, on the F-14A and B all AIM-54 needed the coolant.

That version i verified to have the TARPS. Either something is corrupt in your F-14 folders or there's another mod that interfere with the TARPS. Due to how DCS handles munition there could be a mod that's seemingly unrelated that overrides stuff in F-14 luas.

The AFCS in the F-14 only has heading hold and ground track hold. Both work by navigating the aircraft to the desired heading or ground track and stop stick inputs with less than a certain degree of bank angle like mentioned. It has no function to follow the heading knob or bug.

Please make sure you guys are on latest open beta (2.9.2.49940) and that you don't have any mods affecting the F-14 installed. If that doesn't work try deleting the F-14 and its folders and reinstall/redownload it.

Unfortunately there's a limitation with how the lock into a seat function works with mission creation. You need to make sure to follow the instructions and switch to the RIO position before you continue with space. If you advance the mission before you do that this happens.

As far as I remember that was the intention but things might've have changed or gotten over-looked. If you wish you could do a bug report for it so it gets added to the list to be looked at.

Yeah, going to the DoD saying you want the manual because Iran might not fly the F-14 anymore is probably not gonna get you anywhere unfortunately. That's actually a really important point many people forget. A lot of systems you don't need the exact details for, just how it should look and feel. Like you say, it's a simulation it's not rebuild it IRL.

The real question is what you're doing here, the solution to your problem would be to not read this thread. The other people in here seem perfectly happy about their discussion.

I'm not sure about if there are stuff about the fire system that's missing, we'd have to ask the coders who did that to be sure. That said the system also seems to be a bit misunderstood in general, the fire detection and supression system is for the engine compartments not the engines themselves. The danger isn't as much the fire in the engine itself but of it spreading from the engine. So you could very well have a damaged engine with fire coming out of it still with the system discharged as the fire supressant isn't injected in the engine itself. As for the BIT tests I'm not saying they won't ever be done but they're also on a much deeper level than what's really useful in a sim. It just makes much more sense to focus on the stuff actually part of the OBC first.

Or the TID was just so bad it was replaced... And we never said we think all Tomcats looked like this regardless of timeperiod, just that we think it represents a reasonable in service F-14 in the fleet and like I said we've had this verified.

Afaik the status is that it's still on the todo list. It has always been the intention that in the finished product you'd be able to run the tests that are part of the checklist for startup.

As far as we know that's not the case and as has been mentioned multiple times we've verified this. That's really the only point I've tried to make in this thread; the cockpit we have in game isn't unrealistic. That said the wish for a cleaner cockpit is ofc valid but calling the one we currently have unrealistic is not one we'll agree on.

Seems like an interesting notion to not listen to our SMEs because of that...

Please do note that I'm talking DCS here and the implementation within those limitations that exist there. I know very well this doesn't match exactly to the real thing!

We have defended the current cockpit against those who just blanket state it to be unrealistic, as that's not the case. That said we've also said that we recognize that there are people out there who want a cleaner cockpit and while those decisions aren't up to me as the former researcher, afaik it's something that is being looked at. I'm not sure what else I can add to this discussion.

Afaik we've never said anything along these lines, we certainly respect the people wishing for a cleaner cockpit. What we however don't agree with is the claim that the current cockpit as delivered with the module isn't realistic. We have multiple times verified that it is. That said a less worn cockpit is being looked at and might still happen, just hard to promise anything. But we've certainly not told anyone who want a cleaner cockpit to go pound sand or anything similar.

The problem is that there are people asking for stuff like this for real so you kinda have to take it at face value.

The problem is doing that in VR, for most people that would be an instant vomit comet.

One does not exclude the other, but yeah, some sort of screen wear could be a feature for future products. I'm not speaking for Cobra but knowing him if a cockpit option for a less worn cockpit was to be added he'd want to make it inhouse and to our quality standards, it's as simple as that.

Because it doesn't matter to other aircraft in DCS. When a radar in DCS checks friend or foe it simply reads the coalition of the aircraft and simulate the IFF, that's what I meant by a cheat. What you set in the interrogated aircraft doesn't matter regardless of what you code as there is no interface for the radar code to read anything from the targed aircraft. There's just no way to "Just to say to other aircraft " it is me i am not the ugly guy"" as you put it, that function isn't currently possible in DCS. You're misunderstanding again, I'm not sure why you think I'm saing any of the things you're claiming here, that's on you. The reason I'm saying that the anti-jam function isn't useful is because the functions of it work against jamming techniques that aren't modelled in DCS so there's literally no use for it. Because the Viggen can't make that check as its radar isn't construced for air to air and has no way to ask other aircraft for this information. And like I mentioned above there's no way have the Viggen "answer" anything, that function doesn't exist in DCS and a 3rd party can't create it. And as for feature completion, that depends entirely on if the ability to model these things are added to DCS or not, if they aren't it seems reasonable that the Viggen could be considered feature complete without them.