fat creason

This thread seems to have served its useful life and is becoming pointless circular discussion. We may take a look at some of the tire and landing gear stuff but it is a low priority. The FM in this part of the envelope is not going to change.

Both versions of the A will come out simultaneously I believe.

This seems like a DCS input problem that happens rarely or is somehow related to user's hardware configuration. I've never seen it on my MS FFB2.

Just in time for the release of the F-14A :book:

The location of the CG relative to the mains, your airspeed, and your rate of decent will all affect your ability to hold the nose up with the stabs as you touch down. In order to aerobrake you'd need to land fast at a low rate of descent, preferably with an aft CG. You're welcome do to that if you want, it's just not SOP. Maybe the Iranians do it to save the brakes since they don't have many spares.

That video you posted is an F-14A, not F-14B. SOP in the A model uses afterburner for all takeoffs unless the aircraft is very light.

Aero braking is theoretically possible with any aircraft as long as the stabs are powerful enough to keep the nose up at speeds less than flight speed. This is possible but not SOP for the Tomcat; you can use the stabs as aero brakes once you've got all the wheels on the ground, you can even use them for directional control on the ground like Victory noted above. He's an actual F-14 pilot, he would know. The FM in this respect is highly unlikely to change unless Victory finds something new that we haven't already addressed.

Vibrations have not been touched or tuned in about a year, you are most likely experiencing transonic buffeting which is true to the aircraft.

One of our SMEs told me that there's a microswitch on the flap lever that locks out ground spoiler deployments if the flaps are not down. I think lateral stick will wash it out though. Reconfirming with our SMEs to double check.

I might add this option when the A comes out, it will help with preventing compressor stalls that occur when the power is not set to MIL or Zone 5 AB.

Jamming the flaps is probably as far as we'll go in terms of damage, and that jamming model is more or less complete at this point.

Yeah, I think (with no real proof) that it's related to initialization call order or some memory issue that sometimes (rarely) goes bad.

Yeah this is an extremely rare bug that even our testing team has encountered maybe once I think, in all the hours testing the cat. Seems like it only happens in MP and is related to damage state, despite it (supposedly) being reset every time you spawn. Only a game restart fixes it. DCS logs don't help, and I don't think track files would even provide insight to the cause. I basically need to get lucky and have it happen to me while I'm running in full debug mode while playing MP. Don't hold your breath.

If you make this claim, the burden of proof is on YOU to prove it, not on us to disprove it. Is it not our job to investigate every wild claim that someone makes. We have better things to do with our time. Is the F-14 FM 100% perfect, with zero error across the entire flight envelope? No, and no flight model on earth can claim this. Is it within an acceptable margin of error in the critical areas? Yes. Even Level D flight trainers have acceptable margins or error (I would know, I used to work on them). I would invite you legitimately test every other module in the game across their entire flight envelope and report your results with proof. I'd bet the F-14 FM is closer than most. Totmacher's testing methodology is by far the most valid way of testing EM chart in-game. We appreciate his efforts and candor regarding his test results, we plan to make the FM even better in the future. Another aspect beyond pure FM performance is subjective handling qualities which I have been spending far more time on, working closely with our SME pilots, (in addition to the A/TF30) over FM performance aspects. This is far more important to the feel of the FM than a ~7% 1.1 deg/sec turn rate error. I will probably spend more time on FM performance in the future, but it is in a state that does not require immediate attention. Totmacher's test demonstrates that the actual Ps=0 peak is somewhere in the area of the blue dot. These two claims are wildly different, and only one has validity. On top of all of this, I would like to point out that these EM charts are purely based on estimations of available energy. These charts are estimated from flight test. It even says it right there, at the top left. There is no way to verify these charts in any real-world scenario, since it would require constant weight (aka no fuel burn) which would be impossible at full after burning power. Once you stray from the Ps=0 line, this testing becomes even more implausible since it would require an instantaneously measured stabilized turn right at 5000 ft while having a significant climb rate at a constant speed. I have seen takeoff climb charts from FAA approved performance manuals that under-report the actual climb rate from real flight test data by 50-100%! The flight test data showed that the aircraft was capable of climbing twice as fast as the manual stated. In this context, I consider a 7% error to be a very minor concern. I hate to break it to you, but if you are losing dogfights to Tomcats it is not because of this issue. :music_whistling:

This issue is likely something related to your system or DCS install itself and not the F-14 specifically. I have the exact same stick that I use for FFB dev work and mine works on the F-14 without issue, along with likely hundreds of other people who use FFB. If the F-14 specifically caused FFB issues this thread would be blowing up. We simply get the input state from DCS (it's the same for FFB and non-FFB), only difference with FFB is that we tell the stick where the neutral point is and send it a spring-stiffness value (which is constant, btw) via the API provided to us by ED. The API for FFB is very basic and we just send the stick information through it. How DCS handles inputs for FFB is not something I know much about and we have no control over what we get from DCS in terms of input values or how/when they are updated. It seems like this issue occurs with a very very small percentage of FFB users which is a strong indicator that it's on a per-system basis. I'm very sorry I can't help you troubleshoot but it's unlikely that it's the F-14 specifically causing this. If I can ever reproduce this issue I'll make a post about it, I've just never seen it. FWIW I run an i7 6700k, GTX1080, and 16GB of RAM, so by no means a top-tier system.

Yeah, all I can say is that it's probably something related to your system or DCS install. This doesn't happen to everyone using FFB and we just get the inputs from DCS via the API. The stick animation in the cockpit itself has a bit of fast filtering on it to smooth things out, but has nothing to do with the actual input we send to the flight controls. This issue seems isolated to a handful of FFB users and I cannot reproduce any of these issues with my Sidewinder FFB2.

I believe it's a raw input indicator, post-curves (if you have any). It could be a USB power issue or something. Have you tried other USB ports? Are you running the stick through a USB hub? The fact that this only happens to a handful of FFB users and I can't reproduce it is a strong indicator that it's something related to your system in particular.

If it's not your hardware then it might be DCS or some other setting. This problem does not happen to everyone using FFB on the Tomcat and there's nothing we really do other than ask DCS if FFB devices are present. The FFB API in DCS is very rudimentary, if any input lag is happening we have no control over it from our side. DCS handles all the inputs.

This is almost certainly a hardware issue on your system. A few people have reported this in the past but I don't remember what the solution was. I use a MS Sidewinder 2 to test FFB and I cannot reproduce this issue.

This is an interesting idea. Maybe I'll explore if it's feasible, not sure I'd even do it regardless. Consumer grade FFB devices just can't provide anything near the required force to feel realistic. In order to get something close to reasonable we pretty much have to fully saturate the Sidewinder's motors even at 1G. It would be nice to be able to increase force per G but there's noting left in the motors. I also consider the F-14 FFB model to be the bare minimum, but anything more complex isn't possible in terms of precision and force needed from the motors. The trim feel is nice though, trimming on spring stick feels very awkward. I'm optimistic that this may change in the future now that those FFB patents have expired.

Yeah, this will never happen. I've also never even once torn the wings off the Tomcat, it's VERY easy to avoid. Do you turn the steering wheel on your car all the way to one side when on the highway going 140 kph?

Yeah we're trying to figure out what's going on. Seems like something has changed on the ED side and I've only seen it happen from parking spawns on the Stennis, never on the Super Carrier.

The damage model is in there, just made a few more small tweaks to it that will show up in the next update, but it is mostly complete in current OB.

I'm still making final tweaks to the flap torque tube damage model, but the first pass is in current OB/today's hotfix.

I would generally ignore this patch, even we were not able to test anything in it. The patch cadence recently has made any testing very difficult.