RustBelt

I sort of get nozzle area in that it’s a volume vs pressure deal since it’s 3rd law and mass going out the back with the most force is the goal so you balance flow vs pressure. I just can’t buy that DCS is running that way, and best I see is it modifies exhaust plume drag or some other black box factor so all missiles don’t just behave with identical rocket dynamics. At its core, DCS just isn’t that sophisticated.

Most likely Heatblur needed to fudge that number in order to rectify some game engine issue with their actual data numbers build of the missile. Most of the LockOn vintage missiles are probably complete fabrications fudged to act convincingly. No I insisted its a fudge factor because it was a relatively small change for the difference of what 5 orders of magnitude? As, I’ve said many times before, DCS is not a physics simulator, its a Simulacra. They aren’t just plugging values into real physics equations to get a simulated real output.

No, in the real world there’s a thing called Exit Area. Never assume in DCS that “Nozzle_Exit_Area” has anything to actually do with that real world term.

That has as much to do with ED’s model of the atmosphere as it does Heatblur. And since ED has a lot of “we’re gunna” plans out there it’s not like Heatblur can do much since an ED change can mean scrapping everything to go back to square one. Agile development is a nightmare that never ends.

What do you mean by “addressed”? That’s clearly some modeling fudge factor that doesn’t actually have anything to do with an actual measurement of any sort if a change of that magnitude makes such a moderate difference. We come down this road a lot with DCS, where numbers in a LUA are dimensionless coefficients used to fudge the old game engine.

The auto chaff. And given how fundamentally primitive chaff mechanics are in DCS, it’s a crap shoot either way.

Wait, why is it over? The West has shown no evidence that it plans to stop punching down on 5 airframe fleet podunk countries if it feels like it. It certainly has no intention of engaging with “those other guys” in their current temper tantrum. Nor did they in Syria. The west will still only pick fights it knows it can win. Meaning things were always going to go this way with the Tomcat. Once the F-22 program got started, a big reflecty muscle-car of a plane had its days numbered. Unlike the A-10, there were reasonable replacements for the interceptor turned strike fighter with the big thirsty engines. The D was supposed to just fill in the gap for the Navy “F-22” that ended up never happening because the Cold War was on hold.

The pilot shouldn’t need to worry about Chaff. The system should be chaffing as the pilot evades. Flares are far more important since deployment involves both complex evasion tactics tied to release, and preemptive use.

No It’s not unreasonable to expect some kind of update. Most of us here have bought in to an in development product and as always as soon as the product is in EA, all the exciting self promoting development updates die off. Which also goes back to time available. With 2 EA and 2+1 in development projects, the people who would make those “Lookie what we’re doing” posts are now spending most of their time explaining and re-explaining why the tank pylons won’t come off or why they really wish people would lay off about Glove Vanes. Only so many hours in a day. And most teams don’t have a dedicated hype pusher, unlike Razbam….

Oh I’m sorry, you confused my statement for baseless accusations. The 106 had basically a bigger heavier sidewinder seeker bolted to it. Most of the point of sidewinder was making a smaller version of that which you could afford to blow up. plotting Azimuth and Elevation is not a track. It’s just a return. I’m sure all the senator and industry big wigs spoiled brat kids who were put in 106 National guard units to hide from serving in Vietnam thought they were great given that pac-man hadn’t been invented yet.

Problem is, the person doing the pilot body, doesn’t program flight models. Heatblur isn’t a one man band. Things are being worked on in parallel by different specialists.

It’s basically a Sidewinder head. It sees an IR bright spot and tells you where it’s looking. That’s not search and track. That’s just a very good sidewinder.

0-15 in the Tomcat? The disadvantage is between your ears. Not the pylons. edit: having read the rest of the thread, i’m now 100% convinced of my statement.

Never assume something that should be easy, is easy in DCS. It’s decades of stuff built on top of stuff.

Agile development, it’s like being on fire all the time, except people keep yelling at you to be on fire harder the whole time.

Isn’t the ACLS just autopilot coupling to ICLS? Which would need to be adjusted per-aircraft just like the IFLOLS? edit: Never mind, I didn’t know they were actually completely different systems, with ICLS being like ILS and ACLS being more like an automated feedback PAR approach. https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-with-the-instrument-carrier-landing-system-and-the-automatic-carrier-landing-system

What you mean it isn't actually working like an actual ICLS at all?

You're confusing channel and Code. Channel for least interference, Code to address a specific missile.

Are you running SC or a real carrier? SC still thinks you’re a Hornet.

Channels are I believe another level of that. Because depending where you are and what else is going on, you may have interference and noise on certain channels or other since it’s just part of the radar spectrum and in a war zone there may be all kinds of noise. Especially if you have stuff like high altitude burst Nukes EMPing in theater, which was an actual cold war consideration prior to full MAD.

Right so, since the repair is unrealistic, why not just allow Ground Power? It’s still a simulacrum, you have to make compromises for usability. Or only play in no repair.

I believe each sparrow is set to a discrete code as it launches that’s Pulse Width Modulated embedded in the illumination. So that multiple aircraft can fire simultaneously on separate targets without the sparrows getting confused. You can only light up one target for one designated missile at a time.

As it lists in NTRP 3-22.4-f14ABD - Store limitations(appendix A): AIM-7 Default launch sequence is 1B, 8B, 4, 5, 3, 6 AIM-9 Default Launch Sequence is 1A, 8A, 1B, 8B AIM-54 Default Launch Sequence is 1B, 8B, 4, 5, 3, 6 With 3, 6 being the front row and 4,5 being the back row. So you shot 1 AIM-9 1A One AIM-7 1B and 3 Aim-54 4, 5, 3 Leaving you with an AIM-54 on 6, an AIM-7 on 8B and an AIM-9 on 8A They do note "Default Launch Sequence is affected by MAS/MOAT degrades and Missile model. For Details to paragraph 33.2.7.2 of NAVAIR 01-F14AAA-1A" So if you have the magic -1A nobody can get their hands on you could learn more, but Missile Auxiliaries Subsystem and Missile On Aircraft Test are in the "not modeled BIT test sequence for the RIO" category. You have a lot of confidence in 1969 tape based first IC computer technology to think the WCS in the tomcat would have the overhead to worry about keeping the missiles "balanced".

They’ve already said they plan to but that it’s more and different work by a different person who was doing other stuff this patch cycle.

Grumman put roll trim on the stick for that.