Naquaii

Ok, so first, there's quite a few blocks of the SM-2, the ones we have in DCS are likely at least a few decades older than the one in the video. The newer blocks and types of standard missiles in part have improvements for exactly this scenario. Again, I'm not saying they can't. I'm saying they're not optimal for it, especially the older variants. This is exactly why most ships equipped with long range air defences also have shorter ranged systems. If by increasing the flight altitude to allow it to intercept the missile with a high probability I'm against it. If we can increase the height to remove the issue with the missiles exploding due to lost track without massively increasing the p-kill against the missile I'd have no issue with it.

I'm guessing it's an art thing, that the damage box is too small. That tracks with gun CIWS having an issue while missiles having a better chance.

Imo it would then be better to lower the flight height to slightly under it, say 9-9,5 meters to not have them engage with missiles blowing up all the time. Increasing the flight height to make it easy for long range sams to shoot it down would be less realistic than it is now. And then focus on making shorter range systems like RAM, Sea Sparrow, SA-N-9 have a chance against it. As well as gun CIWS ofc.

If you turn it around those same ships would then not also have CIWS if that was true. Like I said initially, it's too hard for CIWS to shoot it down currently, it should be easier than the RBS-15. And I don't really have an issue with long range SAMs having a hard time like I mentioned but that's not saying I think it should be impossible, just unlikely. That said what you're describing about the SM-2 exploding due to the missile dipping would be a DCS issue, not an issue with the Rb-04. I'd suggest the solution there would be in the SAM modelling, not with the Rb-04.

It should of course be possible to down it with close in defensive systems, which seems too hard atm. It's more correct though that long range SAM systems have a difficult time, that's the exact reason for the missiles being sea skimming.

The keybinds that are in where those deemed most necessary for the aircraft to function with the intention of completing them before the aircraft launches out of early access, which it has yet to do. It was not a mistake and not a bug, it was intentional as the complete keybind list would need to be revisited anyway as the module changes before out of EA release. As much as the lack of the earlier F-14A and the IRIAF F-14A are not bugs, this is neither. They're just not completed yet. As was mentioned in the first reply to your post, there is a running post for requesting additional keybinds but they might not be added until closer to EA-launch, in the meantime there are other ways to add them in as mentioned above.

I'm not read into the exact dates for that but the NATOPS I mentioned above does not have it.

The precise date of the NATOPS we used as a base for the F-14B we have is dated 95 and updated 97.

If that's ever done it's much more likely to be as a complete NVG cockpit, and that wouldn't apply to all versions of the tomcat anyway.

The gun elevation is correct as to how it should be according to the manuals. The thing you need to remember is that the case you're describing is not something it's designed for primarily. Taking straight ahead shots at a little or not maneuvering target. It's purposefully designed to allow the pilot an easier time to put the bullets on a target in a turning fight as that's the likely use case for the gun. And yes, this also seems strange at first when strafing as you have to pitch down more than feels right but that's just how it is.

That's likely a nightvision adapted display. There was a mod of the cockpit after the version we model that changed all the lighting in the cockpit to be suitable for use with NVGs. That video likely shows one of those modded cockpits. I guess it's also possible they replaced a faulty old one with a new part that was modded but I don't think I've ever seen a mix of the two.

No idea tbh, I'm not the right person to ask something like that. The main issue here is that we don't even know what many of the menus in the PTID even look like. That can sound trivial but without that we'd have to just straight up guess and that's not really a good basis for a sim module.

You'd kinda need the whole B+ update for JDAMS, not just those two. You'd need the new mission computer and new navigation system as well.

Afaik it was one of the required upgrades for JDAMS in the F-14B yeah.

Like I mentioned above it was at first just a drop in replacement but over time it received new functionality when coupled with other upgrades.

It's similar to an MFD but much larger. The PTID was a drop in replacement for the old TID and then received new functionality over time as the screen was capable of more than the old TID. In general the aircraft using the LANTIRN had the PTID as it was easier to see the video from the LANTIRN on it. It's not an F-14B (A+), it's an F-14A. The PTID could be swapped in for the TID in any F-14 as the TID became older and no spares were available but both existed at the same time. There were even F-14D with the old TID. The HB F-14 has the old TID as we model earlier versions of the F-14. Technically the PTID was around at the same time as the F-14B we model but it made more sense to model the old TID as that fits the earlier F-14 as well. Added to that there's not much data available on what the menu system looked like on the PTID and in any case having a TID is as correct as having a PTID for the late versions we model anyway.

The patch didn't fix the issues with some reloads. It restricted unrealistic loadouts. The remaining issue has to do with model argument changes and a restriction we need help from ED with.

Yeah, that's absolutely not the purpose of the breaker. And yeah, I think the biggest loss of power is actually with wheels down where it cuts in to prevent flameout of an afterburner at launch.

Not a counterargument but more of an addition to the above: The amount of thrust you describe is also a worst case scenario. People need to remind that pulling the breaker stops the system from operating the MCB. Basically the MCB removes compressed air to stop the fan blades from stalling in certain situations and that might remove thrust. But depending on situation it might not be that much and is also very likely to be in a situation where the removed thrust doesn't matter much at all or might be much less. Especially not compared to the things it counters in regards to engine function. So the notion that the MCB breaker adds thrust is false and the potential thrust removed (which might not be as much as stated) is done to stop the engines from stalling.

All information and manuals we have about Link 4A all say 8 tracks was the limitation for how many tracks the AWACS or ship could send to the aircraft. You have to remember that Link 4A was first introduced over 50 years ago. So afaik this is correct and not a DCS limitation. I'd say it's likely he's confusing it with Link 16 that had no such limitation, afaik he did fly the F-14D and that had Link 16.

More or less because it became a thing due to some high profile individuals talking about it.

Which is also why I personally lean towards wanting to remove it, but not my call. And yeah, that's kinda why, it making so little of a difference and it being so hard to see the effect.

Well, it's still there so feel free to press that button as much as you want!

I can assure you I'm not upset in any way. I was just a bit surprised by the comparison that's all. Looking at it from the other side it's kinda hard to see why people are so single-mindedly chasing a circuit breaker that does so little it might as well just be a fidget spinner.

You're comparing something that adds visual fidelity that everyone will see to a non-intended function that does so little people actually thought it was bugged and not working while in fact it worked all along.