Will the F-14B be coming with the DFCS?

[Hummingbird]

Dear Leatherneck,

 

Will the upcoming F-14B module be coming with the Digital Flight Control System?

 

http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-detail-dfcs.htm

 

Would be absolutely amazing we could experience both the old F-14A AFCS and the newer DFCS operationally introduced in 1998.

[turkeydriver]

It shouldn't, its a mid-90s F-14B which had the same A-G capability as the F-14A. The DFCS system was still in testing until the later 90s and was first implemented on the remaining F-14A fleet, followed by the F-14B and F-14D. That way there are no major FM changes between the 2 versions they give us besides being heavier with more powerful engines and no glove vanes.

[Destroyer37]

Dear Leatherneck,

 

Will the upcoming F-14B module be coming with the Digital Flight Control System?

 

http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-detail-dfcs.htm

 

Would be absolutely amazing we could experience both the old F-14A AFCS and the newer DFCS operationally introduced in 1998.

 

As for the short answer, we don't know. Leatherneck hasn't announced specifically the years or variants to the A/B Tomcat. If I recall correctly they are still working out the specific avionics suites as well as payloads. It would however be nice to experience both, I guess we will have to wait and see!

[Hummingbird]

It shouldn't, its a mid-90s F-14B which had the same A-G capability as the F-14A. The DFCS system was still in testing until the later 90s and was first implemented on the remaining F-14A fleet, followed by the F-14B and F-14D. That way there are no major FM changes between the 2 versions they give us besides being heavier with more powerful engines and no glove vanes.

 

This statement from them suggests otherwise though:

"Both -A and -B model Tomcats will be included in the DCS: F-14. We are aiming for a mid 80’s model -A Tomcat, and mid-90s’ -B. This, for example, means that the Glove Vanes will be disabled on both models, while other improvements (Engine, Control Systems & More) will differ."

 

Hopefully this means we will be getting the DFCS for the F-14B, fingers crossed!

[Hummingbird]

Why would DFCS matter? It's not an interactive system and doesn't contribute anything to gameplay, in fact just the opposite because it only makes things easier. Seems like a thinly veiled excuse for MP powerhoarding.

 

A real cat lover loves all cats equally, DFCS or no.

 

Which is why you would want to try both versions.

 

I would love to experience first hand the difference that the DFCS made in comparison to the AFCS, and I will enjoy flying both. Infact I am very sad that we wont be getting glove vanes for the -14A as this was the version I had intended to fly the most.

[Tirak]

Why would DFCS matter? It's not an interactive system and doesn't contribute anything to gameplay, in fact just the opposite because it only makes things easier. Seems like a thinly veiled excuse for MP powerhoarding.

 

A real cat lover loves all cats equally, DFCS or no.

 

[Hummingbird]

+1 Tirak, really don't know what he was on about with the "real

cat lover" mumbo jumbo.

[BlackLion213]

 

+1 - very nice Tirak!

 

I love the F-14 and I actually like the F-14A best. But DFCS would offer a nice contrast to the AFCS in the F-14A - just as Hummingbird said.

 

I wouldn't be disappointed if the F-14B had the AFCS, but if given the choice I would prefer a DFCS F-14B to contrast with the AFCS F-14A. But either way, I'll fly the wings off it. :)

 

-Nick

[Krinje]

 

I don't think his point is wrong, but MP is just as bad a reason to not have DFCS as it is to have DFCS, why would you let multiplayer dictate the implementation(s) of the aircraft?

 

And in his own words; Don't you love the F14s with DFCS? Should you not embrace them too 'true cat lover' ?

 

Related: I don't like the Bearcat :music_whistling:

Edited January 16, 2016 by Krinje

[hvymtal]

 

I don't think his point is wrong, but MP is just as bad a reason to not have DFCS as it is to have DFCS, why would you let multiplayer dictate the implementation(s) of the aircraft?

 

And in his own words; Don't you love the F14s with DFCS? Should you not embrace them too 'true cat lover' ?

 

Related: I don't like the Bearcat :music_whistling:

 

Loving the liberal use of PBS' fallacy vids :thumbup:

 

I would like to point out that due to not having any additional text for elaboration we cannot assume that he was completely dismissing "true cat lover," that's not how PBS' fallacy vids are normally used. PLEASE NOBODY TRY TO START THE FALLACY FALLACY FORUM LOOP FOR OUR OWN GOOD!!! :fear:

 

Now, let's please stop with the :poster_offtopic:

[Cobra847]

We're currently leaning towards no DFCS considering how late the system was introduced.

 

Our workload is already high and we have far more, solid data on the AFCS.

Subject to change, but current focus is on the AFCS only.

[BlackLion213]

We're currently leaning towards no DFCS considering how late the system was introduced.

 

Our workload is already high and we have far more, solid data on the AFCS.

Subject to change, but current focus is on the AFCS only.

 

Makes good sense. Thank you for the update.:)

 

-Nick

[Hummingbird]

We're currently leaning towards no DFCS considering how late the system was introduced.

 

Our workload is already high and we have far more, solid data on the AFCS.

Subject to change, but current focus is on the AFCS only.

 

Don't you have the manual on the DFCS ? :)

 

Definitely hoping you will bring it along, would make the module twice as interesting IMHO :)

[SDsc0rch]

We're currently leaning towards no DFCS considering how late the system was introduced.

 

...

 

 

: ((

[King_Hrothgar]

I really don't see how DFCS would make the module any more or less interesting. It's nothing more than a marginally different control augmentation system that makes flying it ever so slightly easier for a novice pilot when stall fighting.

[probad]

I really don't see how DFCS would make the module any more or less interesting.

You can always count on people having their own vested interests disguised behind vague reasons.

[BlackLion213]

You can always count on people having their own vested interests disguised behind vague reasons.

 

Huh?

 

I really don't see how DFCS would make the module any more or less interesting. It's nothing more than a marginally different control augmentation system that makes flying it ever so slightly easier for a novice pilot when stall fighting.

 

It would have improved handling a bit, mostly by improving roll response and improving departure resistance at high AOA (especially since the roll SAS in the AFCS system actually worsens departure resistance above 17 units of AOA).

 

The biggest benefit would have been lower pilot workload during carrier approaches, especially the Tomcat's notorious wandering nose.

 

I'm not really going to miss it, but it would have offered a nice contrast between the F-14A and F-14B handling. That said, I prefer aircraft that are a handful on landing. :D More entertaining!

 

-Nick

[Hummingbird]

I really don't see how DFCS would make the module any more or less interesting. It's nothing more than a marginally different control augmentation system that makes flying it ever so slightly easier for a novice pilot when stall fighting.

 

I think this is reason enough:

 

"The Navy decided to incorporate the GEC Marconi Digital Flight Control System (DFCS) into all F-14 aircraft to significantly improve flight safety. The system is designed to protect aviators against unrecoverable flat spins and carrier landing mishaps. DFCS also incorporates a lateral stick-to-rudder interconnect designed to improve less than desirable flying qualities in the powered approach configuration. Pilots agree that with the DFCS the Tomcat is more maneuverable and has crisp response to pilot control inputs. The new system should improve performance and safety during carrier landings. This modification affects 211 active duty and 16 reserve F-14 aircraft. The Foreign Comparative Test (FCT) demonstrated that DFCS drastically decreases the chance of entering out-of-control flight and improves the F-14's ability to recover, if a spin is entered. Departure from controlled flight has been a primary causal factor in 35 F-14 mishaps. Also significant is its ability to improve carrier approach line-up control addressing a problem often cited as a contributing factor in carrier landing mishaps. The incorporation of DFCS increases safety, both during "edge-of-the-envelope" maneuvering flight and carrier landings.

 

The new the Digital Flight Control System [DFCS] provides enhanced maneuverability for the F-14. The DFCS control panel replaces the current AFCS panel in the front cockpit, the analog system in use since the aircraft's inception. It contains the modified SAS switches, and also displays maintenance codes for system failures identified during IBIT and in flight. The DFCS system has lived up to its promise of enhanced controllability and performance in the high AOA regimes and in the landing configuration. However, the structural issue raised by the enhanced roll rates achievable with the DFCS is a potential factor affecting the crucial problem of F-14 fatigue life."

 

 

Plenty of info available on the DFCS too, so I definitely hope Leatherneck adds it, esp. as it would allow players to a feel a real difference between flying the A versus the B model besides from just a more responsive and powerful set of engines.

Edited February 1, 2016 by Hummingbird

[streakeagle]

If only one version/option can be provided, I generally prefer the older, more difficult option. However, in this case, the F-14A is the older, more difficult option. I would appreciate the difference in control offered by DFCS on the F-14B. Better yet, having F-14B versions with and without DFCS. The more variety, the merrier.

[King_Hrothgar]

I think this is reason enough:

 

"The Navy decided to incorporate the GEC Marconi Digital Flight Control System (DFCS) into all F-14 aircraft to significantly improve flight safety. The system is designed to protect aviators against unrecoverable flat spins and carrier landing mishaps. DFCS also incorporates a lateral stick-to-rudder interconnect designed to improve less than desirable flying qualities in the powered approach configuration. Pilots agree that with the DFCS the Tomcat is more maneuverable and has crisp response to pilot control inputs. The new system should improve performance and safety during carrier landings. This modification affects 211 active duty and 16 reserve F-14 aircraft. The Foreign Comparative Test (FCT) demonstrated that DFCS drastically decreases the chance of entering out-of-control flight and improves the F-14's ability to recover, if a spin is entered. Departure from controlled flight has been a primary causal factor in 35 F-14 mishaps. Also significant is its ability to improve carrier approach line-up control addressing a problem often cited as a contributing factor in carrier landing mishaps. The incorporation of DFCS increases safety, both during "edge-of-the-envelope" maneuvering flight and carrier landings.

 

The new the Digital Flight Control System [DFCS] provides enhanced maneuverability for the F-14. The DFCS control panel replaces the current AFCS panel in the front cockpit, the analog system in use since the aircraft's inception. It contains the modified SAS switches, and also displays maintenance codes for system failures identified during IBIT and in flight. The DFCS system has lived up to its promise of enhanced controllability and performance in the high AOA regimes and in the landing configuration. However, the structural issue raised by the enhanced roll rates achievable with the DFCS is a potential factor affecting the crucial problem of F-14 fatigue life."

 

 

Plenty of info available on the DFCS too, so I definitely hope Leatherneck adds it, esp. as it would allow players to a feel a real difference between flying the A versus the B model besides from just a more responsive and powerful set of engines.

 

So exactly what I wrote then, just a lot wordier.:P

 

To restate my previous post, I don't care one way or the other. I'm simply arguing for the status quo as I don't see a reason to change plans at this stage. The F-14B will have massively improved engines and other refinements. A little idiot proofing might be nice for some, but I just don't see it as necessary. This is especially true since it's being packaged with the F-14A at what I'm assuming is no additional cost to us. If it were a separate module, then yes, more separation in the models would be more appropriate, but it isn't a separate module.

[Hummingbird]

So exactly what I wrote then, just a lot wordier.:P

 

To restate my previous post, I don't care one way or the other. I'm simply arguing for the status quo as I don't see a reason to change plans at this stage. The F-14B will have massively improved engines and other refinements. A little idiot proofing might be nice for some, but I just don't see it as necessary. This is especially true since it's being packaged with the F-14A at what I'm assuming is no additional cost to us. If it were a separate module, then yes, more separation in the models would be more appropriate, but it isn't a separate module.

 

It's not just a little "idiot proofing" though, it actually makes the aircraft more responsive, a major improvement according to the pilots and if the pilots refer to it as such then I wouldn't call it insignificant :)

 

Anyway I'd really love to see it added, if not at release then at least eventually :)

[SDsc0rch]

wow - what if they could add the DFCS as a paid upgrade!

 

I would so jump on that!!

[Cobra847]

Perhaps we can introduce it in a patch after release. (not paid)

 

It really is too early to speculate however. We have to perfect the AFCS and other control augmentation systems first.

[Hummingbird]

Perhaps we can introduce it in a patch after release. (not paid)

 

It really is too early to speculate however. We have to perfect the AFCS and other control augmentation systems first.

 

Would really love that Cobra, still crossing my fingers that you will find the time to implement it for release however. But if not then adding it in a post release patch would be the next best thing :)

[tobaschi]

Perhaps we can introduce it in a patch after release. (not paid)

 

It really is too early to speculate however. We have to perfect the AFCS and other control augmentation systems first.

 

do you already know which sensor packages you will include to the B - Version or is it to early for that question?