Jump to content

Quid

Members
  • Posts

    315
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Quid

  1. Simply tell him this: "I could agree with you, but then we'd both be wrong."
  2. According to the 2001 F-14B NATOPS (Change 1) prohibited maneuvers in Chapter 4, page 4-16 includes the prohibition of either dual-engine or single-engine afterburner takeoffs, waveoffs, bolters or catapult launches. Later, in Chapter 7, the highest setting allowed for afterburner takeoffs is single-engine, minimum afterburner takeoffs, waveoffs, bolters, or catapult launches. The reason provided in chapter 11 is because of controllability in the event of engine failure during takeoff. So, NATOPS says don't do it. That doesn't mean it was never done, and if memory serves, there's at least one video of an F-14B doing just that at an airshow, but I'd have to go digging to find it. The plane lifts off ridiculously fast and as it passes the cameraman, the blowers are clearly already engaged to maximum. Another prohibition was the dump and burn, yet pictures exist of F-14s doing dump and burns, and I know from pilot interviews that it was done, even if it was against the rules. Similar with the 6.5g official symmetrical limit being thrown out the window with enough consistency that I truly wonder if there was a single Tomcat airframe in the Navy that didn't do multiple "excursions" to or beyond 9g. Hope that helps.
  3. OK, tested it this morning and suddenly it works. I'm not sure why my old password died (the username was not the problem) or why it took a while to accept my new one, but it does and it works. I will note for other players and folks paying attention to bugs, Malwarebytes did trigger on three files upon launch: A-10C\bin\Cockpit_A10Common.dll, C-101\bin\Abase.dll, and MiG-21\bin\FlightModel.dll.
  4. I did notice a few people have had this issue, but it hasn't been reported as an issue so I am doing so. Since updating to 2.5.6.49315, I receive the error "Invalid Username or Password" (see attached screencap) every time I try to sign on. The game was working last night. I have attempted to repair DCS World OB, which did not resolve the issue. It is not related to Kaspersky, since I do not use Kaspersky, nor is it related to Malwarebytes. I have attempted to update my password and login with the new password and I continue to receive the same error. I'm not sure what else I can do other than a total uninstall/reinstall, which itself may or may not work, especially given the error seems to be related to account authentication.
  5. Tried a repair and still am getting the invalid username or password. I also attempted to reset my password to remove any possible doubt. Same problem.
  6. I'm getting an "Invalid username or password" any time I try to log in.
  7. It was 21 December 1970. The movie Top Gun had its general theatrical release 16 May 1986 (first screening was 4 days before in NYC). Sounds like the two dates got confused.
  8. Cooper and Bishop's book have pictures dated to the early 1980s with IRIAF F-14s carrying AIM-7Es, as well as interviews with their aircrews who indicated that they absolutely did carry them during the Iran/Iraq war. One pilot interviewed, "Maj Nuzran," explained "the normal load comprised two AIM-54s, two or three AIM-7s and two AIM-9s for the leader of the pair, and six AIM-7s and two AIM-9s for the wingman. On a number of missions, especially during 1984-85 - my Tomcat carried only one AIM-54, and usually I had none at all." Reference: Tom Cooper and Farzad Bishop, "Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units in Combat," (UK: Osprey Publishing, 2004), 63.
  9. Squadron Name: N/A Teamspeak/Discord: Discord Contact person Discord ID: EQVES#4588 Aircraft Selection: F-14B Pilots: Rescue Toaster
  10. You don't need to search far - it's actually just one page back (Page 18 ), described by IronMike: "it will have the covered TCS (means inoperational) as it did irl," but the IRIAF F-14 doesn't have the TCS/IRST pod with a cover, it's flat out not there. There are pictures of the first production Turkey for the then-IIAF with the covered pod under the nose (BuNo 160299), but every model after, either photographed at Calverton or post-delivery in Iran only have the ALQ-100/position light spur, and not a covered TCS/IRST mount. This is why I brought up what I did with respect to the Iranian F-14; if it's a bonus, don't expect it to be an accurate representation of what the IRIAF has, but rather a Navy Tomcat in Iranian colors. In the long run, I don't care. I fly F-14Bs with 1970's high-viz paint that they never used, I'm very much looking forward to the challenge the F-14A will bring, and like I said, it will be interesting to me if servers start running F-14As as REDFOR with F-14Bs as BLUEFOR, since it would give both sides a Phoenix shooter and it will be a little more accurate (or for that matter F-14As vs F-14As). Edit: removed the sunglass face from page description.
  11. I’m guessing there needs to be some expectation management for an Iranian F-14A if HB's target is a Navy F-14A from either the 1980s or early 1990s, because there are more differences than just the armament. Yes, the Iranian F-14A never received the AIM-7F or AIM-9L, and was stuck using the E-2/-4 Sparrow and the -E/-J/-P Sidewinder. However, there are other differences too, which I don't expect HB to make. Some of them that might be noticeable to players: 1. No Sidewinder seeker-head position on the HUD (introduced with AFC 713 during the mid-1980s and included in the manual 1 Nov 1985). [1] 2. No "Stall" warning lights to the left/right "Jail Bars" (introduced with AFC 654 during the early 1980s and included in the manual 1 Sep 1982). [2] 3. No AN/ARA-62 ILS. [3] 4. APX-81-M1E IFF interrogator could only interrogate Soviet-designed aircraft. [4] 5. No TCS or IRST - TCS was only experimental during the 1970s and did not see fleet-wide introduction until after February 1981. The Iranian F-14s would not have even had a covered TCS, but rather only the position light/ALQ-100 receiver under the nose. [5] That's not all, but I'm guessing HB isn't going to make another custom cockpit with missing or different components, a different jammer, etc. as a “bonus” so if I had to guess, it will be a Navy Tomcat in Iranian colors. That said, it will also be interesting to see IRIAF F-14As vs. USN F-14Bs. References: 1. NAVAIR 01-F14AAA-1, NATOPS Flight Manual Navy Model F-14A Aircraft, (15 May 1995, Change 1-1 February 1997), 7. 2. Ibid. 3. David F. Brown, "Legends of Warfare: F-14 Tomcat," (Pennsylvania: Schiffer Military, 2019), 120. 4. Tom Cooper and Farzad Bishop, "Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units in Combat," (UK: Osprey Publishing, 2004), 12. 5. Paul T. Gillcrist, "TOMCAT! The Grumman F-14 Story," (Pennsylvania: Schiffer Publishing, 1994) 96-98.
  12. The AIM-54C was 25g. That's been out in the open since about 1984. The AIM-54A, I've never seen an actual limit number published but it demonstrated 17g during testing so it was at least that and HB uses 18g as the listed limit.
  13. It's neither chaff nor datalink - check the videos and discussion from the past few pages - the ghosting happens even without any defensive action from the target aircraft or as a result of friendly or enemy weapon usage.
  14. I was able to get in a few flights online today - TWS-A worked perfectly. I recorded every instance I used it, and I can post the videos, but I got zero ghosting from straight-and-level targets to include multiple targets on the scope at the same time. Only after either being shot down or going defensive did they ghost (as they are supposed to). I just figured I should report that it doesn't break every single time.
  15. It's longer than that. The 110NM test shot back in April 1973 took just over 157 seconds from missile launch to intercepting the drone target. Overall max flight time was estimated 180 seconds (3 minutes) for the AIM-54A, so its battery limit was at least that long.
  16. Thanks for taking the time to check! I've made another track file and took a video of a single-player mission against 4x Tu-22M3s to check to see if the “freak out” against co-altitude/straight flight targets it is MP related. During my first run of the mission, I only got the weird ghosting when the bandits started to react, dropping altitude quickly and notching, which based on this thread's conversations, is correct radar behavior. However, on my second run, no changes to the setup, it did its freakout while the four-ship was flying straight and level until about 55NM away. At this point, TWS stopped having a conniption, but had difficulty discerning the returns, and they were close enough that this was anticipated as well. By about 45 miles or so, the radar could discern two contacts on TWS. After firing a Phoenix at both, everything held for a few seconds, then the bad contacts started coming again. In this case, I started receiving bad contacts before the bombers had really gotten into their defense. In the video, you can see the first bad return flying in the wrong direction and I swap the camera over to the bombers – none of them are near the notch yet, and have just started diving away. As they get into their defense, all bets are off, as I’d expect, because they are all now trying to deny my radar. So, the takeaway I have from running this is that yes, TWS-A can still, for some reason, freak out even in SP against a co-altitude, non-maneuvering, non-defending target. That said, in the first run, it didn’t mess up until the expected enemy defense. On the second run, it did upon detecting the bandits. I hope this helps with your assessment. Video here: TWS-A_Test_Track_1.trk
  17. When defending, certainly, but if you check the videos and discussion, it's happening when aircraft are straight and level, doing nothing to defend. I don't think that's even remotely realistic.
  18. Okay, so, this is the video I took; like I said, the track file is 145MB and is a multiplayer track file so I have no idea how useful/corrupted it will be, but it's larger than what I can post here. I don't have our audio because there was some colorful language going on with all of the ghosting, but the text at the top describes what is happening. The pertinent data I can think of: Crew: Both players (human pilot/human RIO) AWACS: Yes (human) Datalink: Yes initially, the RIO turns it off as noted in the video text Bandit actions: Flying straight and level, roughly co-altitude. Never go defensive until AIM-54s are launched in PDSTT (watched on TCS), so there are no notching attempts, chaff, diving towards the deck, etc. while in TWS-A for all four bandits (2x MiG-23, 2x F-5E) NOTE: The RIO could see normal returns on the DDD, even with TWS-A freaking out. This is how we eventually went to PDSTT. If there's anything else you think might be useful, please let me know. Video here: As to defensive maneuvering/jamming/etc, I do have another track file from further experiments with another player, but basically, yes, if the adversary manages to notch the radar, it can produce a track-off, but it was always a single. Will try to upload that later.
  19. We did some more experimentation last night and it does seem that when a target starts defending that can cause the bad track, however, we also tested it where (with a human RIO), we were closing on two non-maneuvering, co-altitude targets and I did not fire. The radar started doing its "tracks everywehere" thing and they were not defending, just flying straight and level. It happened twice, and both times, TWS-A became unusable even with the RIO trying to re-assign "must track" repeatedly back to the original targets. That was MP, but was PvE, so it wasn't a player reacting to being painted, and like I said, the AI hadn't gone defensive. Track file is 145MB so I can't post it, but I did take video and will post that hopefully later tonight to show what was happening.
  20. Concur, it isn't chaff. When I mentioned that, I was remarking that when I switched to PAL it would pick up chaff, which I anticipated it would because I've seen it before, then confirmed later tonight with another player. TWS never was doing so. Also, I was able to test TWS-A with a human RIO on MP tonight. Unfortunately, the massive track-offs happened and made the mode unusable. Didn't get a track file, but did take video. Will post vid and details at a later time.
  21. Ran it again with similar results. Attached is the track file. TWS-A_Test_Track.trk
  22. Hello Again! With TWS-A, I was definitely stoked to actually be able to launch a Phoenix at someone and more properly crank away, rather than trying to hold the guy ~+/-20 degrees off center-line. But, this whole "track-off" thing is really throwing a wrench into that ability. I went ahead and made a video from a single-player 1v1 test of TWS-A. I ran the scenario twice and it executed exactly the same both times. The video is from the second test. Because this is a potential bug, I made this an unlisted video. The "target" aircraft was a Mirage 2000C. At the start of the video, I tell Jester to select TWS even though he's already in it just to keep him in it (I don't want him to switch out). I fire the first AIM-54 at 1:03 and take an offset to the right, very slowly and not too extreme because I'm still testing the mode, allowing the radar to maintain track (still smiling that it can do this). I then pull back across, bringing the nose back left, and the target is now offset right of the nose. As I level off, the trouble starts. At 1:36, the radar will generate another (false) return which tracks off of the actual target very rapidly. TWS-A attempts to track the false target and pulls itself off of the actual return. At about 1:55, I pull to put the proper return on the nose, and the radar continues trying to chase the false return. I switch to PAL, then back to TWS-A and the radar reacquires the original return. At 2:40, I fire at the original return again, which then turns into a bad track, and the radar again goes chasing a false target. At 2:55, I switch to PAL, and the radar continuously is picking up chaff packets (expected behavior for a pulse mode), until I eventually find the target (when he fires a Fox 2 at me) and shoot it down with a pair of AIM-9Ms. I don't know what is causing this, and I will need to do a lot more testing, but if this false return stuff isn't supposed to happen I can see it breaking TWS-A functionality because the radar keeps getting pulled off by a bad return and keeps adjusting relative to that return. If it gets multiple bad returns (like in OP's picture and as I've experienced before), I'm not sure what the behavior will be, but it certainly won't be good. Will see if I can simulate that. Other notes: I was using the AIM-54C, and did NOT have an AWACS. Video here: Hope this helps figuring out the strange behavior, and keep up the good work, HB!
  23. +1. It happens to me a fair amount. I just figured it was an implementation to show the target was jamming and the AWG-9 hadn't burned through (though enough has been posted that jamming effects haven't been implemented, I began to assume maybe it was some other weird behavior). Sometimes it is just a single contact track-off, other times it is as the pic OP posted with a whole bunch. I'll have to start paying attention to see the circumstances of when it happens, if it's only with an AWACS, or if the radar does it on its own, etc.
  24. Really, the F110 for both, because you're going to accelerate a lot faster with an F110 for a long time before the TF-30 catches up. You're only getting more thrust out of the TF-30 when the jet is already beyond the speed of heat, and it takes a lot longer to get there.
×
×
  • Create New...