Karon

No problem, no hostility Let's see if I can myself more clear: the core of your aircraft is the AWG-9 WCS. It has been around since 1962. You cannot expect the same level of processing power and automation of a modern aircraft. Take the AN/APG-73 used by our F/A-18C: it has been adopted in 1992 (source: wiki), that's 30 years after the AWG-9. Time-wise, it's the same interval that goes from the Red Baron's WWI planes, to the first jets. Now, this comparison is a bit silly, but hopefully, it helps me to convey the message: you cannot do what a Su-27 or an F-16 do. You can actually do many things better than them, but you need a good RIO and you, in primis, need to learn how to play as RIO. That is, imo, the only way to change your forma mentis, learn first-hand the limitations, the quirks and the tricks that such an old WCS. Allow me to rephrase: the AWG-9 is incredibly powerful, but it's old, and it does not process and display the information as a Viper does. This is, again, due to the technological gap, but also the fact that the Viper is a single-crew aircraft. Hence, you need another human brain in the backseat to really make the Tomcat shine. In fact, I would even argue that a good crew have better SA, generally speaking, of any Viper or Hornet, especially as the situation becomes more confusing because you have a person dedicated to deal with such mess. All the reasons I mentioned earlier also mean that you have to outsmart your opponent whenever you can, and you have to play using the F-14's strengths. You can't play as, sadly, the Flankers have to play, low and EOS, because the TCS is not nearly as good for that purpose. The AIM-54 is spectacular, but at shorter ranges it is worse than an AIM-120C because it accelerates much slower, not to mention the fact that you have no 9x nor HMD to launch them at almost any angle. If you instead focus on building a superior SA, work on your positioning and press the advantage, then you can even merge without feeling inferior (although it'll always be a dangerous business). Building and improving your SA is straightforward, the manual gives you the technical details you need, the rest is up to your ingenuity. It really does not take much to learn to improve your awareness, trust me. There is an unlimited number of ways to learn and practice by means of the mission editor, for example. However, when you say "I'm not doing that BS" or "No balls no fun", that's where I draw a line and say that we do not speak the same language: if you want to play like a Viper does, by all means do it, but then you will run into the issues you are experiencing already. Alternatively, you can play in a Cold War server vs anything from the 60s to the late 80s, and you will definitely have more success with such tactics than when you are fighting versus post 90s aircraft (a shame we do not have the F-15A and the F-16A, btw). That being said, all you need to start was suggested at the very beginning of the thread by Spiceman himself: use a 35nm timeline, Skate, Assess and so on. But if you want to Banzai every time, well, it simply does not work vs more modern aircraft. I hope my message makes more sense now. Again, good luck out there!

You alert it for less than a second, and the mention of the AIM-7 was a sidenote. The focus was on the AIM-54. Look, I think we are not understanding each other. We are speaking different languages. It's fine, I'm sure you'll find what you are looking for. The only suggestions I can give you, if I may, is to improve your SA. If you get killed by a 120 or someone's sneaking up on you, it means that your SA can be improved. If I were you, rather than aiming for kills, I'd work hard and try to stay alive first. It is the superior SA that makes you win, not the AIM-120 or the AIM-54. Good luck!

Yes, you said that in the title of the post. I had my fair share of PvP, PvE and sim through the years. You don't need much to realize that the average airquake player has poor SA at best. Ergo, if you find a way to employ something that gives you an advantage (in this case, no hard lock or sustain required, you can immediately defend) even versus the cheating, all seeing, AI, then chances are that procedure will work even against the typical random airquake player (if the caveats are respected). Pulse has many other advantages, and enables the Sparrow. Regarding the tactics instead (ref your post on Sunday), I wouldn't do anything you did, so I can't really suggest much. However, some of your other questions are well explained in the manual, such as the limitations of PD/TWS, Pulse, LINK 4A/C and so on. Those pages hint you what is simpler or more efficient to use in different conditions (there is no "best"), and how to compensate for the limitations of the hardware. You can get a better idea by testing and practising yourself.

Because at the moment PSTT is fire-and-forget, sort of TWS that allows you to engage a target without giving him almost any warning from any range. Caveats: 1- the WCS is not guiding, so no loft; 2- same reason, no lead; 3- the PSTT lock may warn the target, but for a second, then no warnings until 10nm. Even the old AI that used to defend vs TWS was not defending until 10nm. 1 and 2 mean that you need fairly short range and TA I'd say ±15° top. 3 is due to a limitation that HB ran into (long story short, they need ED to provide stuff). As silly as it may sound, in some situations it is even more effective than TWS (but the hostiles must have the SA of a brick). I recorded this video to answer a question, and I was honestly quite amused in the end. Fun stuff starts at 10'18".

Another short overview, as requested in one of the comments of the STT, this time about Track While Scan. The footage was instead recorded to answer a post on hoggit.

**embarrassing and awkward girly noises**

Added new F-14 Video Snippets under Resources. Youtube Playlist - More info here. I must say that the PSTT "salvo" of AIM-54 was a quite interesting and funny test to do. I should record it again vs 6 targets

Hi mate, there's an italian-speaking section down below. Here: https://forums.eagle.ru/forum/33-italian/ This is the international section of the forums, hence English is appreciated Ciao, la sezione italiana é piú in basso, questo é il link per accedervi direttamente: https://forums.eagle.ru/forum/33-italian/ Questa é la parte internazionale del forum, quindi si preferisce l'Inglese. Se é un problema, usa il link di cui sopra. Riguardo a DCS World, avvia il gioco e poi scegli in funzione di cosa vuoi fare: vai su Tutorial e seleziona quelli del Su-25T per esempio, oppure puoi creare al volo qualcosa tu con il mission editor o aprire una delle missioni in-game. DCS é un sandbox, quindi le possibilitá sono infinite, una volta che hai capito cosa vuoi fare. Se ancora hai problemi, vai nella folder dove hai installato DCS, poi subfolder docs (e.g. F:\DCS World OpenBeta\Doc) e lí vi trovi diversi user manuals elementari.

The last time I tried the procedure described by the manual worked correctly. I wrote about it almost two years ago exactly (jeez how Jon Snow I was - and still am), and I had no issues reaming or changing the ratio between Chaffs and Flares in the AN/ALE-39 (I do not write anything I haven't tried myself beforehand). The LAU-138 IIRC behaved like the Fuel Tanks, swap them out and then load them up again. However, again IIRC, in order to "apply" the CM I had to change something in the payload, basically forcing the merry ground crew to work on the aircraft. That triggered the CM reload process. Then, once everything's done, double-check the kneeboard, reset the thingy and you are good to go. I see if I can find some time to quickly record a brief video. EDIT: just tested with the F-14A-135. It works as always had. I'm going to record a 30" video later or tomorrow. EDIT2: there, 20' job. Quickly cobbled together but I hope it helps. Nice findings @The_Tau, I added your post in the description if that's fine for you.

I forgot to update this post: Part VIII: Intercept Progression & Lead Collision [P-825/02]; Part IX: “Unknown Procedures” & Fleet Conversions p1 [P-825/02]. The first was released a month ago, the second one today. Part X should not take too long. If everything goes as planned (spoiler: it haver happens), Part XI should be about the F4 syllabus (just a quick overview), some words about the even older intercepts. Part XII the updated BVR Timeline (that's going to take some time).

Which one you have? P-825/17 I guess. Anyway, we are going OT, sorry OP.

I cannot answer for the post-IQT training program but the docs I have push the trainee to learn to do the maths almost instantaneously. The P-825/02 is quite hilarious in this (yes, bold and underline are exactly as they appear in the documentation lol): "To execute the intercept, aircrew must be able to accurately and instantaneously determine heading reciprocals around the compass rose. This requires constant practice!" - p21 "Because of the complexity of the above procedures, it is necessary that the weapons officer memorize the following table such that displacement points and ranges can be instantly recalled." - p62 "The correct counterturn sequences are listed below. They must be committed to memory for instant recall." - p76 I think this mantra is repeated a few more times, but you get the idea. Eventually, after some practice, calculating the TA is a matter of 3-4 seconds top, sometimes even less, especially if you use BR→BB with a human AIC or you are in timeline in the point and assess, so ATA is zero and Cut = TA. What I find interesting is that a good chunk of the "bedrock" geometry procedures are dropped in the P-825/17 and the documentation even says that the Cut is basically outdated. On the other hand, the aircraft used for the training (T-45 IIRC?) has a modern attack display with the HAFU indication so, unless I missed them, so it makes sense that concepts such as Cut, DOP, DTG lose part of their importance. The 2002 version instead, not to mention old syllabus for the F-4 from the '70s, it's all BDHI and mental maths (and I absolutely love it ). (shameless) EDIT: if anyone has an idea about how to get it touch with Ward or other former RIOs please give me a shout. I have a metric ton of questions I'd love to ask, but I don't know how to get in touch with them directly.

I'm a bit late to the discussion, but on the matter of RIO training offline / as single player, would this help?

Added another "back to basics" article. This time I tried to introduce the Target Aspect. The thing is, everyone knows that speed and altitude are important, but the aspect is rarely mentioned. However, if the target is beaming rather than hot, it affects the missile employment way more than a few decimals of IMN or thousands of feet. Let me know if the article makes sense, I sit on it for months and I'm still not sure if it conveys the message properly. Gracias hermano!

It's an honour coming from you Sir, thanks! Thanks mate! I worked a bit on Raspberry Pi 6-7 years ago but for other purposes. I now have my libraries, and I'm comfortable with Arduino, so I'll probably stick to it unless I need something specific that Arduino does not provide. It's incredible what this cheap and simple boards do, especially how simple their usage is. I worked with 8-bit microcontrollers a century ago, and when I learned about Arduino I was mind blown!

It was good, OK, but perhaps it was due to a number of imperfect parameters that are now being tweaked to improve the FM. If the solution were as simple as rolling back, I'm pretty sure they'd have done it already. That being said, it's not that the F-14 is crashing DCS or the module is completely inoperative, it's a minor aspect, when everything is considered, that is being worked on. It sucks that is the part you enjoy the most, but perhaps you can take the opportunity and learn different aspects of the aircraft, exactly as I'm doing as well. Worst-case scenario, you can always level the field by playing a mirror match vs another F-14.

I don't mean to sound too simplistic or dismissive, but this is a perfect example of the pros and the cons of EA. The F-14 was launched in an excellent state features and bugs wise, but it is still WIP: there are still some bugs to smash and things to polish; and that takes time, more than some people can expect. You say you are still waiting after 6 months. Well, if it makes you feel better, I stopped all tests and studies on the '54 and WCS when they announced the new API in OCTOBER 2019 and, for a reason or another, I'm still waiting. That's 19 months and counting So, my point is, if it's taking time, there is a reason. The devs acknowledged the issues, and they are, quoting, "working hard on it and have been for a while". Unfortunately, we can only wait and focus on something else if the handicap of the unpolished FM is too much of a burden.

Thanks mate! Added two articles to the "Basic stuff": Heading, Bearing, Track and Course: old stuff, I forgot to add it to the list; RIO Training in Single Player : a short video + article I put together in a couple of hours, discussing how the backseat role can be trained offline.

I missed this point from January I took for granted the reference is the horizon, but I will add a note to the article pointing here. Lesson: never take anything for granted! Sidenote: this makes me think of the Stab switch: we were able to turn it off even in PD modes at release, then the devs fixed it, and now we can use the aircraft as reference only in P mode.

RAZBAM? That's why you are having issues, HB devs are offended and sabotaged your INS Jokes aside, I haven't noticed any unusual drift issue since HB fixed the one induced by lag right after the launch of the EA. As a matter of fact, the last mission I flew was almost 4 hours and the drift was minimal and entirely as expected. You are probably causing the drift in some way, probably not respecting the G limits for a prolonged period. Moreover, if you keep pulling you can not only cause a drift, but actually damage the avionics. Btw, there's a plethora of ways to fixing the INS, some take just a bunch of seconds. Finally, if you are not interested in this kind of issue, try with Game mode or perhaps setting your aircraft as indestructible. I'm sure if this prevents this type of damages, but I guess it should.

I tend to disagree. The difference between guiding an ATGM and a 12.7mm MG is huge imo. In primis it's not a single device, it's two of them. In fact, the piloting gauges and whatnot are placed on the left side to make room for the MG aiming and firing equipment, so there is a spatial offset that should be taken into account. I'm not an expert, I don't know the name but google the Mi 24P and V front cockpits and you see what I mean. Then, an MG is not a precise weapon, especially fired from several km whereas the ATGM is. Its task is suppression, especially for a low calibre weapon, so the firing pattern and the goal is different. The aiming procedure is also not the same, as the ATGM wants to go for the centre of mass every time, but the MG doesn't. The latter also has to compensate for the movement of the target (lead) and the helicopter. The ATGM goes pure only. All of this without mentioning the different set of valid targets, the capabilities of optics and gimbal limits. At the end of the day, the point in common is the fact that the AI is slewing something around, but this can be said for the turrets of a Ju-88 as well.

Apologies again, but I'm having quite a hard time following you. Let's step back for a moment and clarify a couple of things, shall we? STT and TWS describe how the radar operates. STT is Single Target Track, TWS is Track While Scan. Intuitively, the former is focused on the tracking of a single target, the latter tracks a number of targets, plus scans for others. Then, you can decide, for some radar modes, what "technology" you are using: the more modern High PRF Pulse Doppler or the older Low PRF Pulse (PRF = Pulse Repetition Frequency). The radar modes that support both or, better said, the radar modes that provide similar information for both "technologies" are STT and SEARCH. Therefore, we have: Pulse Doppler STT and Pulse STT; Pulse Doppler SEARCH and Pulse SEARCH. On the other hand, RWS (Range While Search) is available only in PD mode. Now, back to my answer above, clearly I was referring to PDSTT and TWS, not PSTT as this mode cannot be used to guide AIM-54s. I took for granted that the difference was known to everyone but next time I will be more precise. As GGTharos said, the RWR part you described is confusing, that's not how it works. Did you mean that TWS can be used to IFF without alarming the target perhaps? Moreover, having the target knowing you are targeting him is often a good thing: imagine I'm CAPping and covering my area, if the hostiles run away after a simple STT lock well, I'm successfully completing my mission without even wasting fuel or ammo! That's a big win in my book! The part about the TID and the DDD is incorrect: the DDD shows radar returns in every mode, IFF included. It's the TID that does not show anything in PSRCH. As a matter of fact, you can zero the brightness of the TID and perform a complete "old style" intercept using Pulse mode to evaluate parameters such as the ATA (the relative bearing from your nose to the target) and Drift and using the AIC/GCI to fill in the information you do not have. The part you mentioned targets displayed on the TID with no actual radar return makes me think you are talking about the LINK4?

Apologies, but I do not understand your reply. Which one is worse in your opinion? The first part of your sentence suggests the TWS, the second part STT. That being said, it depends on how RIO is good at doing its job. Defeating ZDF and notching is quite simple and once you do that, there aren't many ways out for the target.

Yep, IRL STT is much more used than in a videogame because it is more reliable and stable as Mr @Noctrachcorrectly said. The doctrine (initial / IQT level) use STT pretty much everywhere to gain more info about the target, to sort (TWS lead, STT wingman) and so on. Until the overhaul of the WCS it was quite pointless (besides PSTT, that mode was amazing to re-steer a notched missile onto the target) but now it is a much more important mode. Also, @WelshZeCorgi, although it is correct that the AIM-54 should go active in certain conditions even when the radar lock is lost, it is guided towards a dead track and the actual contact may be quite far from such point. The seeker may not be able to see it anymore; meaning, missile thrashed. Imo it all comes down to the usual SA. Simplifying, if the target is not aware, you can use TWS but if it knows you are there and reacts to your manoeuvres, then STT increase the odds of landing the AIM-54.

Brilliant, I checked when the new forum was deployed and haven't seen it. Thanks, problem solved!