mattag08

Why do separate, distinct targets appear in RWS or on the DDD, but not TWS?

Hmm, I certainly understand that the most important items in resolution are the beam width and the bandwidth of the transmitted pulse. I changed the wording, since resolution is probably not the right word. This has a good explanation: https://www.richardsonrfpd.com/docs/rfpd/Radar_Tutorial_Book1.pdf However, I do not know the beam width of the AWG-9. I would certainly love to know it.

At some point in the last year the modelling of two or more contacts being identified as a single return by the AWG-9 was implemented. This was changed in a patch at one point and has now become quite excessive. Targets will no longer breakout if they are within 100 m or so of each other. In general, the likelihood of properly detecting all aircraft in a 2-4 aircraft flight is near zero. I'm not an expert in the AWG-9 or on military radar, but I have doubts about the accuracy of this model (or perhaps it's a bug) for a few reasons: 1. The AWG-9 is extremely powerful (in transmit strength) eclipsing some 4th gen radars that were built after it. This should offer higher probability of detection. 2. There are situations where the radar sweep can fit between the two contacts yet they are not discriminated as discrete contacts on the TID. There are other situations where the DDD returns are obviously two distinct returns, but the TID does not display them as such. 3. Normal U.S. Navy combat training and tactics on BVR weapons employment are invalid and unusable with the current implementation. 4. The AWG-9 was built to simultaneously launch six AIM-54s at large formations of enemy aircraft due to the danger of the nuclear threat, meaning discrimination of targets in formation and building a trackfile on each to guide AIM-54s would be a high priority. A couple of gameplay reasons for a potential change: 1. The modelling of the radar is something the player (or perhaps even the developer) cannot know is 100% accurate to reality, so it would be good to err on the side of improved gameplay experience. I like the idea of late breakout contacts, but if it only ever happens at very short ranges regardless of contact separation, then tactics cannot be executed properly it is a very annoying experience to constantly end up unable to employ weapons on all aircraft in an enemy flight. 2. Enemies flying in combat spread should be observable as distinct contacts. If an enemy is not attempting to hide himself in a wingman's radar return by flying an extremely tight formation or behind his wingman, the radar should be able to discriminate between them. 3. It is impossible to use Jester to sort targets with another player if the TID does not display them as independent targets, which makes multiplayer BVR frustrating.

I don't think so. We've seen two main bugs regarding this: wingsweep changes and flaps changes, mostly in the direction of wingsweep to 20° and flaps full down. I don't think it's possible to click both simultaneously.

Had this happen to a squadron mate, but I'm unable to reproduce. No idea as to the cause, but the RIO joining was definitely involved.

Keep in mind that what you don't see on the HUD is the missile IR seeker is moving in a figure 8 pattern to try and locate the target which is why it can take a few seconds to get a good tone. It will keep moving in that pattern until the CAGE-SEAM light goes out, so just press the CAGE-SEAM button only about once every 3-5 seconds if you don't get a lock. It should be much quicker if you have a radar lock beforehand.

You don't always get to fly tacform.

AFAIK it's fine. The crosshair doesn't move, but HB has stated that's accurate. But if you press the CAGE-SEAM button the light will illuminate and you will hear a good tone after a few seconds if the enemy is near the crosshair.

Nah, I'm aware of the carrier magnetic field. Just fly away from the carrier and enter a turn of about 30°. The heading error will reach a large deviation rather quickly in my experience. For reference the F10 map is true heading not magnetic heading. You have to subtract/add the magnetic variation to find what DCS is saying your magnetic heading is (which is the actual heading used by pilots and indicated by instruments in the jet).

I'm curious if the INS heading drift is accurate or currently still bugged. Regardless of human RIO or Jester it is common to find the heading error reaches a maximum of approximately 20° within about 60 seconds of any pitch or roll deviation greater than 0°. Perhaps real tomcat crews had to deal with such inaccuracies, but as a commercial pilot who has navigated some inhospitable terrain, I would say that such a navigational error with such a rapid and continuous onset would be untenable as a navigational source. I would rather use my magnetic compass than such a system. Flying in IMC on instruments would be (is) completely unreliable and dangerous with this sort of error. Is there something I'm configuring wrong? I've tried every switch on the compass panel to no avail (I don't believe those are completely implemented yet?) as well. In coming up on 1.5 years of flying the DCS: F-14B I've never found a solution to this constant problem.

So you never fly formation as a wingman. Got it.

The difference is, we don't have the same dexterity as real life. We need a keybind or increased sensitivity to compensate.

The FPM shows true 1-to-1 velocity. The HUD is an abstracted representation of attitude like the VDI or BAI.

this is actually useful for those of us trying to sort in MP

Use STT

Is this implemented fully? If so, what does it do? I read the manual about it, but there's approximately 4 sentences that reference A/A mode and the QADL mode. I assume that since the LANTIRN in the F-14B isn't integrated with the AWG-9 there's no capability to slew the LANTIRN to a radar lock or vice versa and the LANTIRN can't be used for A/A in the way that the F/A-18 uses a TGP to VID aerial targets.

The maximum speed of the carrier is something like 27 knots right now.

I fly with an air wing of over 20 pilots. All are able to fly the ball and land on the carrier using the IFLOLS. I've personally trained about ten people to land via the US Navy's CV training manuals and have had all of them land properly utilizing the ball and trap 2-4 wires with normal passes. The issue in this thread is one of technique. I spent many hours and hundreds of passes getting good. So will you. The only issue with the ball atm is it is too low on the deck, which has already been reported as a bug.

I believe this is a known and reported bug. With Jester you pretty much must use TWS-A and not mess with it at all.

No speed limits for Case I departures.

Bump for response from ED.

I think he means ICS (Intercomm System) used to communicate between pilot and RIO.

It's actually closer to 10.5°, which is why you see about 7.5° pitch up when flying the effective glidepath towards the carrier of around 3°. This is also why the LSO thinks you're slow. You're about 2.5° higher AOA than the nominal Hornet.

The wings have to actually move, so you have to have hydraulic and electric power.

Locking datalink contacts doesn't usually work, if that's what you're trying to do. Otherwise it's usually because you're being notched.