sLYFa

When performing the instrument test in the A, you get the readouts for the B in the EIG (96%, should be 80, 960TIT, should be 1300, 10500FF, should be 4300). Also, the starter overspeed lights dont come on.

Well you get the correct cat crew signals (no launch bar up) and tomcat ball ​I only ever get "slow" at the start, never after that (unless I'm actually slow). Not sure about ICLS as I dont use it in the groove but its certainly good enough to get you a good start during case III. Not sure about hook-to-eye problems as having the ball centered in the wires usually gets me a 3 wire. Anyway, the are certainly some quirks but thats EA. Saying the SC is incompatible with the Tomcat is plain wrong (and HB worked hard for that) . There are obviously issues with the A that OP mentioned though.

The B works just fine with the SC

You need to physically press the weapon selector switch on the VFX to move it from off to gun regardless of any software settings, so what exactly is unrealistic?

In the B, carrying 6PH+Sidewinders will get you above max trap weight, even with 0 Fuel. The A being a little lighter, you still get about 1500lbs of fuel to land with, which however gives you very little room to deviate from your fuel planning or doing bolters.

The optimum climb speed (and thus climb angle) varies with available engine power . That doesnt mean M0.9 is technically the best climb angle but thats what the manual gives you for max AB climb.

Setup: Standard day, no winds. Start at SL with 2SW+2SP+2PH+2TKS at optimum climb speed and climb to optimum cruise alt for both engine types --> 4 setups (MIL climb TF-30/F-110, full AB climb TF-30/F-110) Results: MIL climb TF-30: climb to 32500 ft with 68000 lbs initial weight at M 0.64 Fuel required per chart 2000 lbs <--> Fuel required in DCS 1300 lbs Distance travelled per chart 70 nm <--> Distance travelled in DCS 40 nm Time required per chart 11 min <--> time required in DCS 6 min MAX AB TF-30: climb to 32500 ft with 68000 lbs initial weight at M 0.9 Fuel required per chart 2200 lbs <--> Fuel required in DCS 3800 lbs Distance travelled per chart 13 nm <--> Distance travelled in DCS 26 nm Time required per chart 1:40 min <--> time required in DCS 3 min MIL climb F-110: climb to 35200 ft with 70000 lbs initial weight at M 0.72 Fuel required per chart 1600 lbs <--> Fuel required in DCS 1200 lbs Distance travelled per chart 48 nm <--> Distance travelled in DCS 31 nm Time required per chart 6:40 min <--> time required in DCS 4:20 min MAX AB climb F-110: climb to 35200 ft with 70000 lbs initial weight at M 0.9 Fuel required per chart 2400 lbs <--> Fuel required in DCS 2600 lbs Distance travelled per chart 13 nm <--> Distance travelled in DCS 14 nm Time required per chart 1:35 min <--> time required in DCS 1:40 min Conclusion: TF-30s overperform heavily during MIL power climbs while heavily underperforming during full AB climbs F-110 overperform slightly for MIL climbs while spot on for full AB climbs Tests for a clean configuration MIL climb showed spot on performance for the F-110, while the TF-30 still overperform, although not as much as with a combat load (fuel 1100 vs. 800 in DCS)

I'm not sure since I don't have a server. A good way of confirming this bug is flying onspeed in landing configuration and noting the speed. At max trap weight (54k), it should be 140 while 48k will give you 130kts. If you get higher numbers (e.g. 150-160kts at max trap weight), you have ghost weight on

The F-14s fuel flow gauges never accounted for AB fuel, as IRL

That bug is gone, unless your flight gets delayed (i.e. DCS considers the deck full and you can't spawn right away in MP)

What puzzles me a lot though is why the -A seems to have mucher lower FF numbers in both approaching the break (3000 vs. 4000 roughly) and onspeed abeam the ship (3500 vs. 4500 roughly). Hadn't had a chance to check groove fuel flows since I'm busy flying the ball, but from my subjective experience, the throttle seems far more forward on average in the -B than in the A-. Was the TF-30s SFC that much better in the pattern?

What I've noticed is that due to the large delay in engine response compared to the B, you have to think way ahead of the airplane, meaning you need to apply power before making the groove turn. Once the engines catch up, you have plenty of thrust to get through the turn.

I see the same. TTIs are still way off for long range engagements,but now TTI is cut short to 16 once the missile goes active.

Disables a system that keeps your engine stable at high alpha/mach Never

The is no preference to which engine should be started first. The hydraulic transfer pump check works either way (i.e. whichever engine is started first and thus provides power to the bi-di pump). What you are basically saying that we are missing OBC, emergency generator and stick switch check functions. I would also love to have that but I'm afraid its not trivial at all and requires substantial coding effort.

The highest difference I ever had between ATC fuel state callout and actual fuel was 100lbs.Would you mind posting a screenshot of a situation where this happens, ideally showing the fuel gauge and the ATC text.

IRL that would almost never happen. The procedure I outline is used to recover several aircraft as fast as possible without the need for positive radar control. If you are the only aircraft in the air there is of course no need to hold in the stack at all.

From page three in this thread The behavior you see is indeed different from what we had at release but is still not how its supposed to be

Marshall won't need to give you any instructions during case I. Except for carquals, each squadron has his pre-briefed altitude in the stack and will arrive there at a pre-briefed time (usually just before the next cycle has completely launched). As the deck becomes clear to land on, the aircraft in the lowest pattern will proceed to the initial and the stack will collapse until the whole cycle is recovered. This is all done visually with zero comms between aircraft and boat.

Because there were no changes to that on the 4th.

The new API didn't make it into the last patch after all, so you won't see any changes for nor. Btw the "go active" command is send via datalink to the PH (unlike the Amraaam, which IIRC goes active by itself).

Ok thanks for letting us know!

Can you confirm that any changes were made to the F-14 in yesterdays patch? Again, I can see no difference to previous behavior and certainly none of what is described in the first post in this thread.

Which carrier exaclty? There is a known bug with the CVN-75 where carrier DL is not working

But thats exaclty the point. If there are still 30s on the clock when the missile is practicaly on target (which is what I see especially for long range/high altitude engagements), the missile will never go active and I don't think TWS command steering will be enough to actually hit the target.