mattag08

Since the TID has no indication of the radar gimbal limts, you should reference your heading before the crank and just turn 55-60 degrees of heading change as opposed to trying to use the TID for cranks. Make sure to begin rolling out at about 45 degrees because you will continue to turn until the wings are completely level. I just tested it again and had no issues. You can reference the MB (Magnetic Bearing) which is the bandit's bearing relative to your nose as well and keep it between 300-60.

You didn't understand what Victory said and you didn't watch your own video carefully. The Tomcats do exactly what Victory said both in the video and in game. The current setup in game is fine even if we don't get the aft stick movement due to the bob weights.

A scenario with an F-14B and a JF-17 isn't realistic to begin with, so who cares if the RWR library is updated? If you don't like that, just don't put those two aircraft in missions together. For those of us that participate in PvP on servers that allow any module, this is vital and would be perfectly reasonable that the RWR library would be updated on the real jet if it was still in service.

Ah, interesting. I've never used the assisted start in all this time.

Can someone explain what this does? I've seen it, but never really understood what it is telling Jester to do. When I use it nothing happens.

The compass doesn't have a lubber line. It should unless we are saying that it rubbed off or wore away. Generally (at least in the civilian world) one of the aircraft instrument maintenance items is to make sure the lubber line is visible and to repaint it if it is not. Technically an aircraft isn't VFR certified if it doesn't have a working compass, which includes a lubber line for reference. Our F-14B is currently not airworthy technically. :P

Nah, these aren't radar tracks though. They are datalink position locations which isn't the same. Back in the day I could see basically everyone on the server, which was approximately 30 people and all of their missiles. I know it's different because I used this to very good effect to maneuver vs. the enemy at ranges in excess of 100 NM.

I'm having the same issue except mine is showing it bind the same axis on the same device twice. The only current work around I've found is to click on that box and hit "Default" which allows it to work again until DCS is restarted. See attached image. I've tried uninstalling and reinstalling the module to no avail.

That's not what AC stab and ground stab means though. It's just the point that the TID is locked to. So A/C stab = your aircraft doesn't move on the TID. Ground stab = your aircraft moves on the TID.

Perhaps something changed I'm not aware of, if so please advise. I have been flying the F-14 since launch and playing with it on multiplayer PvE and PvP servers. Yesterday I encountered something I have not seen to date, a complete lack of datalink contacts on the TID. I believe only approximately 8 were shown. Up until the last few weeks I'm sure that I've seen dozens of datalink contacts on the TID. I know there was a recent update to some of the TID functionality, so did the number of allowed datalink contacts change or is this a bug? Is there a realistic limit? If so, does it preference the closest contacts? Does it preference enemies over friendlies? My issue was that after taking off, every datalink contact around me was friendly (about 8 total) as I got close to where the actual air battles were taking place enemies started to appear as they got close and the friendlies disappeared if they were further away. All the friendlies, enemies, and myself were in LOS and range (<100 NM) to the AWACS (an E3). It seemed that the enemies only appeared because there were less than 8 friendlies around me. This seems very counter-intuitive as you would want the D/L to preference enemies over friendlies generally. The server I was on was heavily populated (60+ people), so I don't know if that played a factor. Unfortunately this has made the datalink quite unusable and stripped the tomcat of one of its main advantages over older and less well equipped aircraft.

Is there anywhere where ED has said if the new carrier will have a proper wake? For instance, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBntiTDu7rU&t=18m17s You can see how dramatically different a real carrier wake is from the DCS carrier currently. This is important because it is used as a reference during the turn to the groove. It's also one of the ways to find and identify the carrier visually.

I'm trying design missions for a multiplayer group of 20+ players and in doing so I would like to be able to include some more realistic procedures regarding rules of engagement and the declaration of radar contacts. The idea would be to increase the difficulty of air-to-air engagements by forcing pilots to properly IFF and/or VID targets in certain cases. Is there any way in the ME or through scripting that I can create hostile aircraft that will pretend to be not hostile until within shooting range and then "go active" and lock and launch on the enemy fighters? I'm aware of some of the ROE functions and radar functions, but it seems difficult to truly make DCS consider a hostile aircraft "not enemy" until it attacks. Does anyone have any experience with trying to create ambiguous bogey contacts for friendly fighters to investigate? Were you able to create a contact that would only engage after certain conditions were met? What were the results and what techniques did you use?

Would you be willing to share your templates with the community? That seems really useful.

Yes, because you don't want them to blind you. Your night vision relies on having the lowest possible intensity of light coming into your eye. You would be blind at night if you constantly had the external lights visible to the eye. Usually some spill is very slightly visible against certain aircraft surfaces, but that's in civilian aircraft that have a very different airframe setup and light placement when compared to military jet fighters. On the aircraft I've flown (IRL) there is usually a small glare shield specifically to prevent the light from blinding the pilot if the pilot would otherwise have a direct line of sight to the light.

I understand the point of the implementation here, since you wouldn't want to fumble with the menus in WVR, but I would imagine this would also screw up people who use Voice Attack, although they seem to be in the significant minority. Personally, I don't care either way. It's not hard to know how to overcome the limitations of either method with a little practice.

I do the same. The altitude loss is on the order of about 50-100' depending on airspeed.

>(e.g 300 lbs of unusable fuel) Yeah I said that right here. Gotta read my friend. As I said, the F-14 RIO claims that there is an error in the gauge. Dunno what the manuals say.

This is not what's occurring. For reference, I am a real life commercial pilot with extensive experience and training. I've flown hundreds of hours in the F-14 in DCS at this point. I can fly the aircraft and hold an altitude. When I engage the autopilot I am perfectly level with a zero'd VSI and altitude holding steady. However, your pitch angle will always be greater than zero (some small amount above the horizon) at normal cruise speeds. The current autopilot behavior is to always zero out the pitch (commands an immediate nose down) even if you are in level flight and then climb back up to altitude after the resulting altitude loss. This is counter to every autopilot I've ever used (including older autopilots that were designed and manufactured in the same time frame as the F-14).

Can someone from HB comment on this please?

It would be nice if the F10 map could function as a bullseye reference (spider) card. Currently players must make and print their own card or have a second monitor, which excludes VR users from being able to use a spider card. All that is needed is to add another icon next to the two current grids (MGRS and Lat/Long) that is shaped like a spider web. When activated it would show concentric rings of range outward from the bullseye (preferably based on map zoom level, but as close to 10 NM as possible) and bearing lines every 10°. An image is attached to show the typical layout and information depicted. This function would allow aircraft that don't have a digital display capable of indicating bullseye to still quickly (and realistically) use bullseye format AIC and friendly fighter information during multiplayer, with very minimal development effort.

I searched before posting, but I couldn't find anywhere where someone from Heatblur actually replied to a thread about this: When engaging altitude hold with the NWS button, the autopilot immediately commands a rapid pitch down to 0° pitch and then steadily raises the nose to return the aircraft to the appropriate altitude. This occurs regardless of the original vertical speed rate of the aircraft. Even if you are perfectly level at 0 fpm vertically, the aircraft will command a pitch down and then slowly climb back to exactly the same altitude you were at when you engaged the ALT hold with NWS. This behavior runs counter to every autopilot I've ever encountered in my real world professional career in at least 7 types of light and commercial aircraft. Not saying that alone makes it inaccurate, I just find it hard to believe that autopilot laws and servo commands/gains are so differently programmed in the F-14. An altitude hold autopilot mode generally does not primarily reference the pitch attitude for servo commands, but the altitude delta, pitch rates, and vertical speed. This is fed to the pitch trim which is adjusted to drive the elevator into the correct position. I know the F-14 does not have trim or elevators, but a similar concept of adjusting the trim position of the horizontal stabilizers to compensate for altitude/VS deviations would apply. The F-14B's manual states in the autopilot/altitude hold section: "Altitude hold should not be engaged during any maneuvers requiring large, rapid, pitch trim changes because of limited servo authority and slow automatic trim rate." In the attached image, you will notice that Pitch Channel B controls the autopilot/ACL functions. Pitch Channel A does not reference Altitude Error or Altitude Rate, while Pitch Channel B does, which I believe supports my theory that altitude hold references those parameters as opposed to pitch attitude. These pieces of flight manual information seem to imply behavior much more similar to what I've experienced in my real life flying. If the current implementation is an accurate representation of how the ALT hold actually functions then that's acceptable, but absent any documentation on the autopilot programming it is difficult to believe this is correct behavior and I cannot find any public documentation that indicates that it is correct. As a pilot, the behavior seems unnatural and potentially dangerous. If someone from HB could weigh in and explain if this is a bug, work-in-progress, or accurate behavior as indicated by SMEs/manuals, I (and some of my F-14 squadron mates) would be very appreciative.

The fuel gauge has an error of up to 300 lbs. Heatblur seems to have been told by SMEs this means the engines quit at 300 lbs (e.g 300 lbs of unusable fuel). I saw a tomcat RIO state this is not correct, rather when you hit 300 lbs the jet could be empty or it could have 600 lbs remaining. Either way the implementation in DCS right now is that at 300 lbs on the gauge you are empty.

X band also works. In some cases Y seems to break, but X almost always works.

Is there somewhere we can read about the new missile API and what it will do? I don't remember any announcement on it from ED.

I see so you're seeing the bandit notch you even in pulse (sorta). I can see how ED would not have innately provided for that situation, so it makes sense. I hope it gets corrected soon.