fat creason

If using the FFB implementation option for the F-14, the AP will not engage unless you meet the criteria to engage the AP which includes having your FFB stick at the trimmed position (hands off). With the FFB option unchecked the assumption is you're using a spring stick, which is in the "trimmed" or hands-off position when perfectly centered. This is obviously not the case in real life as control positions change with trim, at least in reversible control systems or ones with artificial feel systems like the F-14. With an FFB stick, the hands-off position of the stick should be changing with trim position just like the real aircraft. If you're applying a force to the stick resulting in the stick being away from the trimmed position, the AP will not engage because the AP knows stick is not at the trim position. This is mostly what activating the special FFB option does. Another thing you'll notice is increasing stick force if you physically hold the FFB stick in position while running the manual trim. The stab will stay in position but stick force and trim point are changing because the trim actuators are moving, causing the artificial feel system (bungies) to apply force in an attempt to push the stick back to the trim/neutral point. Once you release the stick, the stab and the stick will shift to the new trim point wherever the trim actuators stopped. If you're using the FFB option and meet all AP engage criteria and AP still won't engage then maybe we have a bug. At the time of FFB model development this all worked without issue and I'm not aware of anything which could have changed it.

It'll be done when @Victory205and myself are happy with it. No timeline. The stuff we're adjusting isn't in the manuals or in the NASA data so it just takes time to get right. We'll try to minimize the number of times things change in the future but our primary concern isn't the amount of "re-learning" people have to do. The F-14 doesn't have the luxury of a FBW system like the F/A-18 or the F-16 which keeps things in an FM "safe space" and masks practically all FM changes besides performance. We're running "open loop" so to speak...the level of difficulty is higher.

Maybe in the distant future, very low priority at this point.

We're going to remove the pitch up from the early portion of the flap deploy (including man flaps) as well as tweak the spoiler pitch moment in the next hotfix. Those are both causing too many issues at the moment.

Yes, @Cobra847will swap out the card on the gauge for the proper one soon, just didn't get to it in time for this patch.

Alright guys, as stated in the patch notes the FM is still WIP. This was just phase one. We're still dialing in the performance because @Victory205and I spent the bulk of our time working on handling. That matters more to us than trivial sustained G errors. The performance numbers are in the ballpark but not exact. Again, take anyone posting sustained turn rate numbers in here with a massive pile of salt. Unless they're posting videos of their tests you might as well just ignore said results. Additionally, if you're looking at the cockpit gauge you have to consider the location on the aircraft where the gauge is measuring (hint: it's not at the CG), as well as the resolution of the gauge itself, parallax error, etc... Anyone claiming with authority that there's a measurable .1G error while looking a shaking cockpit gauge or even the infobar while hand flying this maneuver can be effectively ignored. Actionable results from hand flying these tests are not really possible. I will dial in all these numbers over time and you guys will get updates piecemeal as I get each altitude level tuned. It takes a massive amount of time to do this and we just didn't want to wait any longer with the rest of the FM since everything was already kind of close. Again, a friendly remember that all these charts you guys are referencing are mathematically derived and/or estimated from flight test data. While they're the only "hard" numbers we have, remember they're estimated. Posting your test results here without at least a video showing how you acquired that number isn't going to result in any action on my end, I've got ways to test and measure that are far more accurate than anyone here has. I'll run these tests and do the tuning as I have time to do them. Don't expect everything to be tuned by the next patch, it's not as simple or timely of a process that many here seem to think it is. Thanks for you concern and patience!

This is a feature of the TF30 and has been there since the F-14A released.

Interesting discovery, bring this to ED’s attention.

I'm the wrong person to ask for the first two questions and let's keep this thread on topic. As for the last question, the real answer is: It depends. The handling stuff won't affect performance, and the performance changes are entirely dependent on what part of the flight envelope you're in.

There will be an FM update in the October patch, but the extent of it is TBD. There will hopefully be a large number of handling improvements that will make flying around the boat much easier and more realistic (hand-tuned by @Victory205 himself, having spent extensive time on this task) as well as most or all of the following: Updated stores drag while attached to the aircraft to correlate more closely with drag index data from performance manual Updated flap and gear pitch and drag effects Updated flap deploy rate Updated speedbrake drag Updated overall airframe drag Fixes to DLC stab behavior Fixes to slat deployment schedule Updated spoiler pitch effects Updated AOA buffet Updated F110 performance - required after airframe drag changes Possible stab behavior updates in relation to trim actuators Possible yaw SAS updates - still under investigation Slightly increased stab roll power Engine malfunctions added to Mission Editor More misc stuff I can't think of right now Things that probably won't make it due to time limitations: Fine tuned TF30 performance - we're going to apply the same tuning deltas from the F110 to the TF30 in the meantime which should get it pretty close Fine tuned drag/excess power while maneuvering (although this should already be close after the thrust/drag updates) Landing gear and ground handling improvements

The standard reply for all current and future F-14D wish threads should be links to these two posts:

I think you're somewhat confused on how typical fighter aircraft bleed systems work and the bleed system's impact on thrust. You're focusing on the amount of thermodynamic cooling work needed, which isn't very relevant. The reason why high bleed demands can affect thrust is related to the mass flow diverted from the engine to the cabin and avionics cooling ducts, not the cooling work required. The amount of bleed air needed in the F-14 for the ECS and avionics relative to the total mass flow entering the engine is very small. This is drastically different from a transport aircraft with huge bleed demands. Typically the largest consumer of bleed air on an aircraft will be the anti-ice system, assuming it's powered via bleed air and not electric. Disabling your gun and cooking your HUD, VDI, WCS and other misc avionics to try and outclimb an F-16 isn't a smart play or a cool "trick" to one-up your opponent. We have no documentation or SME knowledge that suggests there is any appreciable thrust increase from turning off the air, and we plan to add consequences for doing so in the future.

All of this is correct. If you spend more than 10 seconds thinking about it, there is no reason anyone would fly into a combat situation with the air source off to a get a miniscule boost in thrust. Why would you fly into combat with the WCS off (not just in standby, OFF!) and unable to fire the gun? On top of that, the cockpit would become very warm, very quickly. Something you don't have to deal with in DCS, but a factor in the real world. I can practically assure you that no pilots did this in real life and it's most likely an embellishment that makes for a good story. This is the same as the full flap deployment while combat maneuvering myth.

It should start with takeoff trim set I believe. If your stick is going all the way to the forward stop it's mostly likely an issue with your hardware or an axis setup issue in DCS.

The stick will snap to wherever the trim setting is.

Should be able to fix this fairly easily...I think.

Great info, thanks!

Yes, the hook shearing off is a function of the kinetic energy (a function of mass and velocity) being absorbed by the hook from the arresting gear. If you trap heavy and fast, there's a decent chance you shear the hook off. Remember that at higher speeds/lower AOAs the hook is less likely to grab a wire. Here's a hook break happening in real life: This was most likely a break due to fatigue, a maintenance issue, or a problem with the arresting gear since an approach too far out of parameters would've been waived off before the plane reached the wires.

Well said. Many of the sounds in the F-14 are there for additional feedback that would be available in physical form to an actual pilot. If you wanted "real" sounds the pilot would hear (with helmet on) it would just be a bunch of white noise with no changes in pitch or volume. 99% of users would hate it. You'd have no idea what's going on with the engines or anything else, you'd have to look at the engine tapes and nozzle position to figure out what the engine is doing since you can't feel it. Same with switches, the pilot would have tactile feedback. We play switch sounds to let you know that a switch was moved. I can keep going but hopefully the point has been made.

I need to tap out of this discussion, I've run out of ways to explain this. Hopefully someone else can explain things.

There is no G limiter on the F-14. Not sure how many times it needs to be repeated. It can pull much more than 6.5 or 7.5G if you ask it to, that's extremely obvious. In most situations at that load factor, you're going to be losing speed (negative excess power) and it cannot be sustained.

A slide about the Navy's requirements for the VFX is not hard proof that it was achieved in reality. Best I could find was this, on a random internet forum: If this is to be believed, it sounds like 2.4+ may have been achieved on a development test flight by manipulating the AICS ramps manually. This test article was not reflective of production aircraft. I see at lot of 2.34 numbers being tossed around, again, on internet forums with no hard evidence.

This is true, but the charts above are not from the acceleration data. These numbers are much higher than where the acceleration charts stop.

Ok, if you have the doc or a link post it here. Also the performance manual is a tale for children? That's an interesting take.

Keep in mind that right-most line is with 8 missiles and 8000 lbs of gas, so clean max speed will be a little higher. Also note that neither aircraft comes close to 2.4 according to flight test. Kinda skeptical that removing the missiles would result in a 0.25 mach speed increase ("2.4" clean vs 2.15 with 4x4 loadout), that's a lot of extra drag at those speeds.