Spiceman

We disabled the glove vanes in VF-41 in 1986, if I remember right. I remember seeing them function when I got to the squadron, but don’t remember them functioning on our 1987 deployment.

You are absolutely correct. IRL I was an engineer on the FAA’s CPDLC system for years which is VHF datalink and it was stuck in my head. Good catch.

Not sure what you’re saying/asking there...

The AWG-9 transmitter has two TWTs, one for the radar and one for CW. CW is used for SARH illumination and also for AIM-54 Missile Messages which are a modulated version of CW and sent out the CW antenna which is a waveguide opening at the bottom center of the AWG-9 antenna. I hope we're not confusing the AIM-54 missile messages with the LINK-4 datalink which is VHF.

The initial start procedure and ground crew participation is no different on land vs. boat. The right engine is always started first. On the boat, you don’t do any wing movements or kneeling. You do the hook check if the tail is over the deck. But typically you do the start, OBC, trim checks and then that’s it.

Hostile Area is just another waypoint. It does have a few special uses. It is not available as a waypoint for Destination steering, but it is the waypoint used for a Datalink INS update, and it’s used in TARPS steering. So it doesn’t really have a use in DCS. if I remember right, and it’s not really described in the NATOPS, the PT To PT function allowed the placement or modification of a waypoint position from another waypoint. So you’d hook a waypoint, enter range and bearing and then press the function button for the “other” waypoint and it would place it at that relative range and bearing. Something along those lines... it’s been a while.

No... you push outward then push forward and it’s one smooth motion from there to full AB.

Don’t export it as the AMPCD. Use Center_MFCD as the viewport name.

Don’t export it as the AMPCD. Use Center_MFCD as the viewport name.

Yeah, it’s weird that the paddle originally did not disengage the switches (ref preliminary NATOPS), then for whatever reason it did, then it didn’t again (ref -A circa 2004 and -A+ circa 2001). They must have been giving the pilot a way to protect against issues discovered in the early FCS then decided it could do more harm than good when the DFCS came along.

Thanks! That certainly settles the issue for the models you flew. I’m looking at a 2004 F-14A NATOPS that says “Depressing the autopilot emergency disengage paddle on the control stick (Figure 2-60) disengages the autopilot and DLC only. The PITCH, ROLL and YAW SAS switches and functions will remain engaged.” Do you think this changed at some point (some version of FCS?) or perhaps the NATOPS wording is just misleading there?

I’ve been hoping you’d weigh in. Did it disengage the SAS switch solenoids in the buno’s you flew?

Well, again, it’s not as simple as it did before and now it doesn’t. The F-14 Preliminary NATOPS from the pre-deployment 1970s clearly stated it did not disengage the switches. Even put it in a big Note paragraph.

Another point of confusion is that many people think this is referring to the SAS switches. It’s not.

The NATOPS are very confusing on the behavior of the SAS switches when the paddle is depressed. It is certain that depressing the paddle momentarily disengages the pitch and roll servos. There are conflicts between NATOPS on whether it disengages the pitch and roll SAS switches. The preliminary A NATOPS from the 70’s clearly says no. The A Plus NATOPS from 2001 clearly says no. The B NATOPS from 2004 clearly says no. The A NATOPS from 1997 says yes, or at least is really confusing and leads one to think yes. So, the jury is not out but it sure looks like the SAS switches should not be disengaged by the paddle switch.

Thank you, I'll give it a shot....

It’s probably because the model with the upgraded engines was originally going to be designated the A Plus and the P was for Plus. Many people say that A+ was never a formal model designation but it absolutely was.

No... spoiler deflection is proportional to the degree of thumbwheel rotation.

Can someone walk me through a checklist for getting the transponder function to work? I've got a dedicated server with three instances of DCS and three instances of SRS and LotATC. We'll say the IP of the machine of 1.2.3.4. My three instances of DCS are 1.2.3.4:10301, 1.2.3.4:10302, 1.2.3.4:10303. My three instances of SRS are 1.2.3.4:5001, 1.2.3.4:5002, 1.2.3.4:5003. Just focusing on getting the first instance to work. My understanding... I've gone into the SRS server.cfg file in the subdirectory for my first DCS instance on the server and I have entered this: LOTATC_EXPORT_ENABLED=True LOTATC_EXPORT_IP=1.2.3.4 LOTATC_EXPORT_PORT=10711 This is all I have to do on the server. This turns on the LotATC export from the SRS server on the DCS server. Now the client... I've gone into my LotATC config lua on my client and I've modified these two lines: srs_transponder_port = 10711 srs_server = "1.2.3.4" That's all the config I need to do? I start my client LotATC and connect to the server. I don't see any transponder info and the guys flying on the server see a red indicator for transponder on their overlays and can't enter any transponder digits in the overlay. What do I have wrong?

+1 on this bug it is annoying as hell.

No, I use the stock cams but with the extra heavy springs that you can buy separately.

There’s no way HB should spend precious development time and effort on something as niche as IRIAF weapons mods, IMO. They should finish the Tomcat and then put their full effort into the A-6, again IMO.

The flight controls in the tomcat used a cam mechanism to provide an artificial sense of feel not unlike the Warbird or the other cam/spring bases. It also included bob weights that would “pull” on the stick as a result of acceleration, all to give a sense of touch to the flight controls.

AI bandits in DCS can “see” missiles at 50% of their max range. It’s coded into the game. This is why you see bandits start pumping chaff when you launch in TWS even at a very long range. It’s not the radar they’re reacting to, they’re seeing the missile visually even at that range.

54