Chaogen

Stop treating the aircraft like a science experiment. As if every exact input must equal an exact output. Stop executing every action because its a checklist item and instead understand why you are doing it. Checklists are there to make sure you don't miss anything. It is not instructions on how to operate the aircraft. Then relax and just fly the plane. Be adaptable and if the A/C behaves differently than expected, assess, analyze, adjust. Be an Aviator, not just a pilot.

Yeah, I understand its coding/developer thing and not a real A/C issue. Was just having fun with the irony.

I was able to shoot down my first fast mover in a combat MP session. Pretty exciting. The RWR is very helpful in figuring out where to aim the seekers since my Vive doesn't really help with visual identification. I shot down what I thought was a Mig 21 since it showed up as a U on the RWR among the 23's. Turns out reviewing my Tacview file it was actually an enemy Mirage. So I'm wondering why a French Helicopter RWR can't ID a French Fighter? Just curious.

Could it be magnetic variance setting of both donor A/C and receiving A/C? As Viper said the Radar Contact is relative to your A/C irrespective of what the INS thinks your heading and co-ordinates are. The Datalink contact is sending the co-ordinates and heading vector according to the Donor's INS systems. Presumably the Sentry has GPS built in, but the point being any discrepancy/drift would cause a Vector Difference. I assume a heading drift would be more noticeable than XYZ Co-Ordinate drift.

Besides that the INS system is more than capable of letting a RIO punching in Co-Ordinates and navigating there (or marking the map and asking Jester to do it), even doing ripple MK-82 bomb toss like Jabbers did early on.

By rewriting history? Ignoring what the real planes were/are like, to introduce a more usable version because "80%" have decided they don't like what it was like even though all the real pilots had to deal with it, and many, many users use it just fine in DCS?

Look I hear what you are saying. Just saying ironically though the worst worn A/C are usually the trainers.

Fair enough. I have a Vive. So there are numerous labels I can't read. But having flown several GA/Business planes, its pretty normal to see worn labels. I can't read some in the 18 either, so to compensate I have studied guides such as Chuck's, and simply remember where they are. The F-14 really does not have that many. Which as the same as you would do in a real A/C. You wouldn't have time to read the labels anyway. I mean unless you buy an A/C from the factory, it will not be pristine, especially for something subjected to the environment of a carrier. I don't think comparing it to other modules isn't fair since HB set the bar higher than other developers. But ok. How about this, just like in real A/C, how expanded use of vintage Dymo Lables for the hard to read ones? Keeps it realistic and makes it readable?

Wait. Are you talking about Server QOS being the fault of either party here? Further more I launch all my missiles within 20 nm in Active Mode in case I have to defend since I am now in range of the majority of A/A missiles? Beyond that, if I lose track of my bandit in TWS, the missile always stops tracking and proceeds in a straight line. What am I missing here? If you are within 60nm (definitely within 30) of a F-14 and not flanking or at least maneuvering you are asking to be shot down.

I think its great. This is as much a story of Grumman as it is of Heatblur modelling the Cat. The F-14 got me into Aerospace, and while I never did get to work on it in person, I do get to work with some of its legacy. Seeing things like that makes me helps you realize how little has changed in 60 odd years, and or maybe just how far ahead the engineers were at the time. As for textures, maybe people that haven't been in real A/C, are disillusioned with the reality of what a plane really looks like in the field.

I'm sorry. I play multiplayer exclusively and there is nothing OP about it. If you are getting shot down you lack skill. I've had AI and Players defeat the AIM-54 regularly even if I kept an SST lock on them, but you have to at least try. Your tactics do not adequately account for the F-14 and its missile. Just as I have to account for sneaky SU-27s and their Datalink system coupled with IR missiles. Me and my pilot fired a 60 mile Phoenix shot the other day, because we knew it was a player with his down low approach and figured, since we had just gotten to the AO, what the hell. Why not. Well the player died. Something that AI planes would have defeated in a heart beat with the slightest of maneuvering. No this player, even though he most certainly knew we were in the area, didn't maneuver. Didn't stray from his course. Just kept flying towards us and got a Phoenix in the face. We laughed then continued our CAP. Personally the hysteresis control of the missile is unrealistic but you don't see me complaining about it. I just wait till they get closer.

I was flying yesterday on a long flight, looking around the cockpit in VR and noticed the sealant smudges around the canopy frame, thinking if that mechanic was working in business aviation they would be fired. Then I noticed the Anti-Fog piccolo tubes, running around the bottom of the canopy. Never thought about how the anti-fog was routed, but what a simple but elegant solution. The detail is really astonishing. Even the P-Clamps are modeled. Sadly its also probably lost on most people.

Somewhat off topic. Found this incident interesting given all the reservations there were at release that the RIOs would ejects pilots as a joke.. 12.08.1997: The pilot of the F-14B was accidentally ejected from the aircraft during a landing aboard USS John C. Stennis. It's said that the Rio had an older GPS system they used to clip to the handle on top of their console. He hadn't stowed it prior to arrestment and during the violent stop from the hook/wire the GPS system got thrown forward from momentum and hit the pilots rocket motor iniator which bypassed the whole ejection system (pilot never touched the ejection handles ...) Next thing the pilot went THROUGH the canopy! He was recovered from the water by helicopter. Stennis personnel rescued the RIO from the pilotless aircraft as it sat on the flight deck with engines still running. Aircraft was repaired and is back in service.

In regards to 3 and 4. I've been shot down by single IR missiles a few times. I personally don't think there's an issue. Besides when I do survive from a hit, it generally either takes out an engine and/or hydraulics. The latter, more than likely, resulting in an mostly uncontrollable situation which will end up in the dirt eventually. Otherwise it will take out my radar in which case I'm mostly combat ineffective anyway. Now the SU-25.. There's a hard to kill tank. I have yet to kill one with a single Sidewinder. SU-23s, will also sometimes take more than one missile.

Last night I ripped my wings off for the first time in months. I realized I had been flying the 18 all weekend for the first time in months, to play with the Targeting Pod and it only took a few flights, but I unlearned the number one rule with the Cat. DO NOT YANK THE STICK. With the 18 you have to because of the FBW safety net restricts your inputs, but in the the Cat it will bleed your energy in a heart beat if it doesn't kill you.

I flew the 18 yesterday, pretty much for the first time since I got the Cat. Even though I fly the Harrier regularly as my A/G goto, the 18's HUD just is so cluttered. The F-14's instruments are clearly visible, as opposed to for instance the obscured RWR on the 18 forcing you to overlay it on the HUD, or lose a MFD, which is now even less of an option with the Targeting Pod. The E-Bracket on the Velocity vector is nauseating. And then to top it off I'm watching the airspeed dropping and getting nervous I'm going to stall it even though the AOA indicate say Fast. 6 months in and I still don't know the Cat's approach speed. I just don't reference speed when landing. It's all AOA and velocity vector. As someone else said in another thread the 18 feels like a science experiment that you have to input just the right controls, read the exact measurements, have the perfect environmental variables and observe the plane doing its thing. In my opinion the Cat is much more symbiotic, seat of your pants, Mk1 Eyeball, lets be spontaneous, I DON'T NEED A SHOOTING QUE, my speed is irrelevant, type flying that doesn't need a information overloaded HUD to make the magic happen.

Just this week I started dabbling in the RIO seat. While I have flown the Tomcat since release and have gotten pretty proficient at it, the RIO is another story. The amount of work that went into Jester is amazing. I've watched the RIO videos, done some training missions and I still can't even get a radar contact with two bandits straight on. There is a lot of things that Jester does back there without the Pilot even realizing. A big part of it too, is your pilot giving you something to work with. You are not flying an AWACS. The position, attitude and aspect of your craft vs the bogey plays a big role. As for STT locks, I still don't understand why anyone uses it. Outside of 20nm you should be using TWS. Why let them know you are coming for them them, and inside of 20nm your PAL Mode is more than able to get the lock, granted you have your plane pointed in the right direction.

Just to sidetrack the conversation. I was reading book that stated that Iran saved Grumman from bankruptcy with that order, because the Navy and US Government was giving them the runaround with financing after changes they wanted inflated the unit costs to where Grumman was loosing $1 Million with each unit they built.

I've never gotten a hot trigger light on a unknown TWS contact. Besides you need to know which friendlies are around you, especially those ahead of you. Communication is key. The lead A/C needs to direct the engagement. Within 20nm I always turn on the TCS. Takes the ID guesswork out of the equation, regardless of what Jester is telling me. And I get instant aspect on the target. Regardless of IFF, if you fire into a furball you are asking to hit friendlies. And if you do get into one, IFF isn't going to work fast enough anyway. We regularly have all friendlies flare to de-conflict in a multiple A/C merge.

Its on Multiplayer. Which in of itself could introduce several factors outside of the F-14 Module, consequently why replied to this tread and did not post a new thread in the bug section. Trying to make sure I didn't missing anything in my setup and the OP described very similar conditions to what I experienced. Hoping its just something I did. Yes, I verified on my kneeboard during startup, that it was set to the same code they were broadcasting ( 1688 ). Now I did not change the code since its already preset, which is another thing I'll try next time along with CCRP mode. I know the Harrier had issues with AGM-65Es and TPOD, that would not track on the preset code unless you changed it deliberately. I have had other F-14s lase for me and that worked great. Its just when the FAC Helo is lasing when this happens (Have not tried other A/C. I did lase for a Mirage from a Harrier and that didn't work either). It may very well be a FAC script issue, but that's why I mentioned that it worked with other A/C's GBUs. Since GBU is from DCS, it makes me think that I missed a step. For now I'm going to assume user error, since no one else is experiencing the same issue, and systematically rule out causes/conditions until I have a better picture of what it isn't. My goal is to get to a point where the FAC Helo can get close behind terrain and a Cat can loft/toss a GBU in from several miles away onto a SAM site.

Right. We coordinated on the ground and verified laser codes. We're using FAC script on Helos that reports all the lasing unit's information (Also the laser is always on and will report if he loses the target), places a smoke marker on the target so there's no confusion, even though we were coordinating on TS, and using the GBU-16s. It works with all the other A/C Types dropping GBU's, so I'm trying to isolate if its something I'm missing in my checklist. Other than having Jester select the ordinance, setting the mech fuze, A/G Mode and ORD selected, is there anything else I'm missing?

Any resolution to this? I've been trying to drop with FACs lasing for me and me as FAC for other F-14s (The A-10,18 and Mirages worked). The GBUs will not track in CCIP mode. I have not tried the CCRP but I will. The bombs in CCIP mode landed only a couple of feet from the target from around 20k ft on average, which I'm sure would have been well within the cone. I have dropped GBU's with other F-14s lazing before and that worked just fine.

So modeling a workaround for "everyone" is something YOU would like, instead of the documented, historical and systematic design attributes of this Aircraft. We'll ignore that the LANTIRN controls on this platform are located in the RIO cockpit. We'll ignore that RIOs and Naval Aviators didn't arbitrarily switch places for the fun of it, since each pit requires a specialist to be combat effective. The part that really blows my mind, is that the HB Tomcat only carries 4 LGBs, yet this seems to be a universe breaking tear in the community. How much control do you really want to exert on finding targets instead of asking Jester to do so. Why add the weight if all you have to do is have a JTAC of FAC do it for you? Or a CAS aircraft in the area that's considerably more effective at A/G anyway? The question is why should a option be included (I've said it every time, what you do in SP is your business. My personal issue is with MP options) that fundamentally strays from the aircraft design, instead of what should be modeled through the RIO as he is the one with the control stick? Yes we can't achieve realism in all aspects due to inherent differences from your armchair sim-pits and the real thing, but why make something integrated that wasn't there to begin with? Look we can split hairs about definitions all day long. And argue using the bottom half of Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement but you have made up your mind. You have a fantasy of what the Tomcat should be stuck in your head and you are not going to let it go, instead of spending the time to learning how to fly it and find creative ways around the abilities of the Aircraft. Btw, I think most of those arguing for it would be the anti-social lone-wolf individuals at the party who seem to like to do everything themselves, won't to share anything and refuse to talk to another person be it AI or God forbid another human being. I miss the per-release crowd on this forum..The were considerably more appreciative of just getting an A/C that flew instead of nitpicking everything and ran-off the SMEs

Like Viper said, you know there are other rolls, for instance interceptor/cap, that the Cat is fairly good at. Horses for courses. I have never used a LANTIRN pod on my own A/C to deploy GBUs. I'll fly the Harrier if I want to plink tanks or for serious CAS work. And no-one ever joins me as my RIO in MP either (because most prefer to pilot and I don't blame them), but as I said pages ago, get someone else to laze for you. Get on the radio and talk to other players. And who said the Tomcat can't use the LANTRIN? We're just saying the PILOT can't do it. The only reason this mod even exists is because of the way the Pilot and RIO keybindings are programmed and exploited by the MOD. What you do on your personal computer is your choice, although it still won't make you a better Aviator. Right. Just as well as it worked for Microsoft Flight. The standard ADD gamer out there is not going to be enamored by the level of simulation DCS employs. Yesterday I was flying over the Black Sea to a tanker. Spent the better part of 20 minutes just staring at blue water followed by having to do AAR. How many of the regular gamers, you are trying to recruit, are going to have the patience to fly deep strike missions just to get shot down after 45 mins in the air, without the ability to load their last quick save? They will buy it, get bored, and ditch it after a few hours. And probably complain that they had to pay $80 to do so. That's why arcade fighters exist. And that's fine. I'll play those if I'm looking for a different experience. I am very concerned about what happens when a developer starts chasing new "majority" of players for revenue over fundamentals. Any studio that got swallowed by EA? Origin? Bioware? Bethesda?

Buddy, I've played a myriad of games for 30 years. I know the difference. You don't seem to understand the difference between games and simulators. This sim and others like it, gives the user the ability to explore real world equipment in real world scenarios without the nasty side effect of billions of dollars wasted and lives lost.The goal is accuracy and faithfulness to real world parameters. That's what these other customers and I have paid for. Not cave in, because someone doesn't like the design of the Tomcat and can't be bothered to improve their skills. I used simulators to help me get my pilots license. There is a real world aspect and application to Sims. And while I won't ever get to fly fighters, this is as close as I am going to get. Btw, the A-10C module is used to help train National Guard Pilots. Why should any other modules be any different? If I want to have fun there's tons of other games like battlefield, COD, ARMA, Ace Combat ect I can go play that takes lots of artistic license to ensure the game is "fair" and fun for everyone.