Whiskey11

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Problem Solved Also, not IF, but WHEN it is developed, they've already said a Naval variant will come. More details to be announced in the FAQ, when it gets posted.

Just speculating here based upon the F-14 release, I'm guessing it'll be a late F-4E with the bells and whistles and an earlier E and other variants will come out later.

They are, as are jamming effects on the radar, but these features doesn't mean you can't use the jet to it's capabilities in the way that the F-16 and F/A-18C launches didn't have certain features like the fricken AIM-120 at launch (looks at Hornet) or a functioning damage model (F-16). The AIM-54 is perfectly serviceable in the current environment, and Jester was more than capable of the A2A role and most of the A2G stuff (sans LANTIRN) at launch. But LANTIRN was there at launch for a Human RIO to use.

It says "Coming in 2022" in the video description, Heatblur's Trello has said they have an unannounced module coming in 2022, now this trailer... the F-4E is coming in 2022 as an EA module. "Nearly Feature Complete" I know it's a hard thing to understand, but the F-14 launched in a Nearly Feature Complete state. What has been added since, is, in the grand scheme of the complexity of that aircraft, been pretty minor. TWS-Auto and Navgrid being the only features really missing at launch. Contrast that with the F/A-18C or F-16 launch, or nearly any other module launched into EA and tell me how my statement is incorrect again.

When has Heatblur ever released an aircraft which wasn't nearly feature complete? The F-14 was missing some minor features, but was effectively feature complete on launch... so suffice to say, short of ED forcing an early launch of this, it'll be nearly complete on launch. I'm fairly comfortable and making that assertion.

https://trello.com/c/nW4yZLfY/3-dcs-next-generation-jet "Next Generation" refers to their internal "generations" not implying we are getting a 4th/5th gen per se. Label says 2022.... so whatever it is, isn't announced yet, but is due out this year... it has to be the F-4.

This... even if HB were to lower their standards of simulating an aircraft, they'd still need some performance data to plausibly stimulate the capabilities they do implement... even if the back end was a simple as "can detect" or "can't detect." I suspect we could probably find the requisite IRST functions from a satellite view of its functions (A2A search, handoff, etc), but anything specific about the effectiveness is going to be HIGHLY classified. The latter is where I imagine HB is going to not compromise... Then again, we are getting an IRST on our Eurofighter.... so who knows.

Speculation on my part, nothing to back it up other than convenient coincidence... I don't think we are getting teased the C-130. We know the C-130 is coming as a payware module, but I don't think it's an ED module. The F-4, however, is... and I've long hypothesized how that could be. It requires some logic following though. First, we know Heatblur has an unannounced module to be released in 2022 before the A-6E and the EF. Second, we know Kate from ED has said an F-4 is coming. We know that BST had art assets, and possibly some programming assets done on the F-4 before the F-4 was shelved. We also know whatever future model HB is releasing is supposed to be "compatible" with the Forrestal class. With that in mind, anything Heatblur is going to be releasing next year is going to have to be significantly complete at this point for them to release it. That means art assets would have to be done (model and textures), systems programming, flight modelling, etc. Those would have to be done enough to feasibly release a module in 2022. What my hypothesis is, is that Heatblur and ED are working on the F-4 together. POSSIBLY HB is working on the F-4N/S while ED is working on an E/G. They are working on it together, sharing the workload to get it out sooner, rather than later.

The wing sweep issue is them spawning wings OUT momentarily before retracting them. It's been a minute since I spawned in without a player RIO, but it seems to be consistently happening with a player RIO spawning in with the aircraft. Possibly a return of the RIO wing sweep position bug?

The F-14 has a "CCRP" mode for dropping dumb bombs level which is called "Computer Target." No need for the LANTIRN pod. Computer Target also uses the TCS for initial target identification and it is scary accurate for dumb bombs in all sorts of deployment methods (lofting, high altitude level bombing, dive bombing, etc). Couple of really good guides out there on how to use Computer Target mode. There is also "Computer IP (Initial Point)" which could be used if you trust the INS... I don't... but others do. Computer IP is effectively Computer Target, except when you designate your IP via the TCS, it automatically calculates the offset and angle via INS info and gets you "on target" for the release... personally, I don't trust the INS that much even if I haven't been flying it hamfisted!

Yup, going to go with this one as well. Here is my logic: -Heatblur has an unannounced module being released next year some time. In order to accomplish this it'd have to be something with much of the assets already done. An F-14B(U) isn't out of the question here too (a lot of recent changes to the F-14's systems and the AIM54C getting an INS and go active on its own would fall into the same documents to make the B(U)), or a Grippen, but humor me for a minute. -We know Belsimtek was working on an F-4 Phantom before being absorbed back into ED and the F-4 went into stagnation. -Heatblur is not opposed to working with other developers (TruGrit as an example) -Heatblur joked and had an uneasy answer on the Air Combat Sim podcast (Episode #22) about the F-4 -Heatblur has laid the ground work for multicrew, AI RIO combat. What does Heatblur have to do with an ED F-4? Well, it makes sense for a HB/ED F-4 collab for the above reasons. I could EASILY see the collab being an ED F-4E/G and a HB F-4J/S using the BST modelling and aero assets already produced with Jester AI being a big part of the contribution from HB. ------ The only other modules I'm hoping for are a the V-22 (Half Life flashbacks intensify), a UH-60 variant, or an AH-1W/Z.

I got really good at learning the orbit parameters for moving targets... turns out, about 225 knots (so effectively cruise) at about 20-30 degrees angle of bank got me through the mission without issues... Out of curiosity, and without going into spoilers Did you the first time? Did you the second time?

That's the document HB has said does not contain enough verifiable information to base an AIM54C change upon. They were looking for something from a much more reliable and authoritative source. They discuss that article in the link above to my bug thread. It's also in ANOTHER discussion about the AIM54C on these forums.

Ohh do tell... it's not any of the ones publically available that has been discussed ad nauseum because this has been hashed out probably a dozen times with the same four sources. The result has been the same each time: "These aren't credible sources to base this info on." I personally think THEY HAVE A redacted version of the 1A which would explain a number of their recent changes to the Tomcat. Info which was buried in the 1A and told no public source existed for.

Given much of the recent changes to the AWG9 are buried in a document they weren't able to get their hands on, maybe. I'm talking about the NAVAIR 01-F14AAD-1A... things like dual row TID, AWG9 velocity gates, and probably 54C info... It'd be nice to get the 54C+ but I'm not holding my breath. I'm just happy the 54C is going to get LAL tactics finally opened up to it. Where can I read about C going active on it's own? This thread devolved into that discussion with HB confirming they found a reliable source stating it could go active on its own.

This happens with all player controlled F14s as well, not just AI. Huge problem during the 107th's liberation campaign.

Thank God too! Wouldn't want it any other way! TOMCATS!

Alrighty, built a really, really, really basic (awful, actually) mission involving two Su-33's and a single F-14B at the parameters for my previous engagement and while the AI didn't launch the Phoenix's at any real range, I definitely found the quirk I was talking about. First missile seems to impact fine. Second one though... the minute the Su-33 starts to maneuver (which it was set not to... I suck at Mission Editor) it pulls lead and then pulls WAY TOO MUCH lead. The missile is defeated, the Su-33 stops maneuvering and the AIM-54 is trashed while still under power. Note: These Su-33's are on a heads up course, not a slight offset like in my OP. Tacview attached as well. Really interesting behavior against high closure targets. test1.trk Tacview-20211005-174857-DCS-test.zip.acmi test.miz

I, for one, am SUPER EXCITED about a 54C which can go active on its own... Love the work you guys are doing. All of it will be a huge improvement, but I really hope the subject of this thread: Problems with high closure rate tracking with a valid TWS track until well past TTI=0 and AIM-54's self notching, gets looked at heavily too. I still need to set up the mission to test this. I haven't forgotten... but time has sadly been limited!

Awesome, I'll see if I can't put together a "sanitized" mission and test just the closing targets against a lone F14 to reproduce it without the excess data. Hopefully should get a bunch of proper track files then. Unfortunately it'll be next week before I get to it.

Out of interest to the original topic discussion, have you looked at or forwarded on the Tacview for my above engagement? Any thoughts? It seems to me like the lead pursuit calculations fall behind at these higher speed engagements causing missiles to self defeat based upon rather simple changes in target behavior. In this case, a simple 25 degree heading change is all it took to trash my missile... not once, but four of them from two separate tomcats. Had this happen again in another similar situation a few days ago.

Good to know! Thanks, now in going to modify my start procedure!

Really? In the Hornet NATOPS it specifically states that crossbleed starts are restricted unless otherwise authorized by the airboss due to the relatively high throttle positions and potential for FOD/Damage/Death to other aircraft and people on deck. Haven't looked at the F-14 NATOPS that heavily, TBH.

Maybe, but I doubt it given that they both track their respective targets until they cannot due to notching the missile. They don't adjust and calculate the intercept correctly. Downloading the TACVIEW would show the issue well. It's like they receive no mid course guidance at all. Probably old missile API, still important for HB to look into when the transition occurs.