Naquaii

Legend, sure! But the fact is that the more we delve into the stories and talk to SMEs the more obvious it becomes that the people who did that were the exception and that it's very doubtful that there were any real advantage from doing it.

It's because the new F-15E isn't added to the list yet.

The coolant for the gloves was actually routed from the fuselage pallets to the gloves. Have had SMEs saying it was a pain to flush those lines. Afaik the F-14D didn't have a liquid cooling system for its AIM-54 at all so it could only carry the AIM-54C+ with internal coolant. And also, afaik the F-14A and B still used the liquid coolant even for that version of the AIM-54C so the same applies for that missile on those aircraft. The only photo I've seen with AIM-54 on the gloves without pallets on the fuselage on an F-14A or B was with training or inert AIM-54.

Intentional change, the loadout you're describing is not realistic for an F-14A or F-14B as without the forward pallets on the fuselage you have no coolant for the AIM-54.

Well no, because everyone understands what the chart shows and then extrapolate from that. No performance chart for an aircraft can show every possible kind of variation or permutation, you have to extrapolate everything inbetween. In DCS we have the luxury to actually be able to test more exactly against them which helps us recreate them.

Which is why you need unlimited fuel at 50% and a script controlling the aircraft to get as close to perfect as you can.

Just to be clear I'm talking about the real world charts that we try to match in DCS. And yes, there'll ofc have been a lot of time and smart minds put into those but you also have to realise what they're for and how exact they need to be or can be.

Only momentarily if flown correct and at that exact fuel level. That's why you need a script to have any chance at really matching the charts in DCS. And even so those charts aren't calculated to be as exact as many people expect them to be.

A very large part of those settings is what is already implemented, increased thresholding making the jamming less overpowering on the displays. There are additional features on the higher settings IRL but those are irrelevant with the current ECM implementation in DCS. You should not expect those until a time when/if the ECM simulation is increased in fidelity.

It might only be that, I don't remember if the delayed settings were implemented as they don't really do much in DCS.

Basically we added restrictions to limit loadouts that wouldn't work IRL, the two big ones being either loadouts that physically wouldn't work or the AIM-54 needing the cooling system that's in the forward fuselage pallets.

The missing pylons is due to an issue with rearming. If you begin with a new clean aircraft and mount AIM-54s the pallets should show. The only limit in this regard is that you can not have AIM-54s without the front tunnel pallets being present as the cooling for all AIM-54s are located in those. There's currently a new loadout lua on the way that will likely come with the next update which will restrict some of the more outlandish loadouts that shouldn't be possible.

Normal, when you're hooking a TWS track and pressing STT you're basically asking the computer to do the job for you. All real RIO SMEs we've talked to always did it manually via the DDD as it was a much safer bet.

Had a look at this and you're right about the pitch ladder, it should not have the 5 degree lines and marks outside of 30 degrees. I know we discussed this at length when implementing it but the fix for this must have got lost or forgotten down the line. In regards to the HUD FoV however we realised the NATOPS just wasn't correct. The real HUD cam videos we've used as reference show the FoV to be closer to what exists in the current DCS model.

I'm not sure about how the mirror movement was designed but as to the mod the only way I know how to do it is to remove it for now. I've seen people mention how to modify them so they work but I don't use them myself so can't really say.

You must be seeing things, there's no-one here saying the manual won't be updated. Not agreeing with what you think should be in a manual is a whole nother thing.

The mirrors are because you're likely using custom cockpit textures. You have to edit those or remove them.

Having originally written the manual I can assure you the webpage version is not 4 years old. I last updated it last year. Afaik it will be updated for out of EA release (in addition to the pdf version) but I’m no longer the editor so can’t speak for when. Assuming a bit much maybe? Not that old and also by far not the only reason for making it a web manual.

Can't really say tbh, you'd need to ask @Cobra847or @IronMikefor that.

The reason for it not being an option in DCS currently is basically just that, it was never done outside of demonstration or testing and it was a <profanity>-ton of work to do. Operationally it just wasn't done unless for specific maintenance reasons. Early on there were even a skinnier version of the pylon with AIM-9 launchers only which had the lower part be more slim. But I'm not sure that was ever used operationally and if it was it was removed really early on as the advantage was minimal.

We've added a tighter model of the illuminating radar systems lobewidths so you'll get much less spurious warnings from systems that are not actually targeting yourself. But as for systems that are actually targeting you it shouldn't be that much of a difference.

IIRC you need to tell him to do it.

The problem is that there's no definition of what a unit actually is in the F-14 anywhere. They only list what amount of units are preferred in which situations. That formula might be correct but it might also not be the same for every aircraft using units. The conversion from units to degrees AoA might not even be linear so it might be impossible to do correct conversions to and from units in some cases. The real question is if it matters outside of those set reference points?

As it is now only RPT actually jams. The criteria for when the REC mode could be forced into RPT was not that clear and hard to transfer neatly into DCS so the decision was made to have it like that. Could change in the future ofc.

This. And I'd also like to add that the major example of us changing something, which is the AIM-54C change, wasn't about finding contradictory information. It was about finding new sources with additional information. During that process we were open about that we had much better data on the AIM-54A than the AIM-54C and because of that we used those facts and then changed those parts of the baseline AIM-54A that we knew were improved in the AIM-54C to model that missile. The information we later received then got us additional info in regards to the difference between the AIM-54A and AIM-54C which we then tried to implement as best we could in the AIM-54C. The fact that we didn't change these things until we had more solid information on the AIM-54C should show our sincerity in how we use our sources imho. In this example we have explicit sources saying the zero doppler filter was like this. No ambiguity. Added to that we also have SMEs (including myself) corroborating that early pulse doppler radars had these issues due to the antenna design and limited signal processing available. This is why later pulse doppler radar systems have specific features added combating this issue.