F14B can carry GBU12 with TGP？

[Tirak]

It is.

 

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checkerboard

 

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chessboard

 

 

Lol, I thought for sure a checkerboard was 12x12 squares.

 

EDIT: Turns out that's Canadian Checkers

Edited March 17, 2017 by Tirak

[BlackLion213]

It makes addressing points in order easier, especially as I don't always disagree with some parts of what people say.

 

Look at it this way. You have a chessboard, and chess pieces. But with them, you instead decide you want to play Canadian checkers. The board is the wrong size, the number of pieces is wrong, but hey, you're going to shoehorn it in anyway. And then you try and claim that the chessboard should be made with the number of squares a Canadian checkerboard has so that you can enjoy playing Canadian checkers better with your chess set.

 

I'm not going to tell anyone how to play their game, I'm not even going to tell them they're wrong for playing the game in a way I don't find fun. But I will argue strenuously against someone trying to push development down a path I don't agree with.

 

Where am I being condescending towards you? I attack the argument, not the man.

 

Alright, so lets say I prefer Canadians checkers and would rather play it - should I object to a 3rd party's plan to build pieces and a board for it? Should I instead say "I would really like it....but adding more chess pieces would be easier so please change back to chess"? That argument makes great sense when you prefer chess, but no sense when you prefer Canadian checkers. If you can create new pieces and a new board to support your interests, why shouldn't you? Why does the game need to maintain the status quo?

 

On the second point, you may not say that a particular form a gameplay is wrong, but you will say it is silly or pointless - how is that different?

 

Similarly, lets say I prefer watching documentaries and you prefer anime. Should I be able to take the position that anime production should be halted to make way for more documentaries on the basis that "documentaries have some value"? They are both forms of entertainment, should one be prioritized just because some feels they have a justification (constructed of flatus and moonbeams...). Both are entertainment and simply serve the purpose of distracting the mid from the rigors of daily life. Creating a hierarchy is pointless because things like educational value do not relate to the entertainment value. Why would one be superior to the other? It's all about user preference, hence both exist to fulfill different wants.

 

Case in point:

I'm not inventing whole scenarios out of whole cloth when I play a mission in DCS. There is an objective on the map, it is engageable and the results of my engagement will have a tangible effect on the mission completion. TARPS offers none of this. You have to make up the mission in your mind, there is no result from accomplishing it in any way. You're playing imagination land on your own, and if that's the criteria for what you're looking for, then quite frankly such an experiance is already on offer in FSX. Mock dogfights, simulated bombing runs and recon runs are quite frankly pointless in the realm of DCS as it is a combat simulator with objectives that can be completed beyond what we make believe in our own minds.

 

So you are saying that any task in DCS that doesn't result in an explosion is pointless? So missions that have check rides or criteria besides unit destruction are of no value? This is pretty narrow-minded and there are many DCS players who would disagree with you. Plus, you can create mission criteria that create tangible effects from completing a task.

 

I would prefer to create a whole scenario since I find that far more interesting. Why is that wrong? Why would one form of gameplay be more worthy than another?

 

This argument sounds like a "red vs blue" argument - you prefer red so anything that supports blue is wrong. Please explain how your argument differs from this logic?

 

Facetious: treating serious issues with deliberately inappropriate humor. I'm not being humorous, I'm presenting a straightforward argument with solid reasoning.

 

There are no serious issues on this forum - we are discussing a game. I'm not using inappropriate humor, but commenting on this fact of life: if you want something done to your precise specifications and preferred price you may need to do it yourself. How is this facetious?

 

It seems to be that you have a multi-player centric view of DCS. Thats fine, but not everyone wants or is able to play multi-player. I prefer realistic operations which is not the forte of servers like the 104th. Something like a multi-player squadron is not feasible given the variability of my schedule and limited hours available for me to play DCS (demanding job, family, etc). So why is that less worthy of support than "lord of the flies" MP?

 

I still don't see an argument, just an expression of preference. I realize that you'd rather have LANTIRN (as would I), but TARPS is not the replacement as Cobra said. Instead they are adding a feature that I've hoped for since the announcement in 2015, but didn't expect. Why shouldn't they create it? Just because you don't see the use? Just because there are no explosions?

 

Lastly:

 

Because I don't view developers as buddies, I view them as businesses, and businesses are out to make money. I point to things like FSX and Prepar3d where every airport, GPS system and scene pack is an add on that costs money. If you want to make your game look good you have to spend literally hundreds of dollars, and just recently ED has opened the door to that pricing system. So yes, I am glass half empty because I know how businesses work, and if for one second any third party thinks they can get away with it, they will.

 

With those sims, you pay for improvements or additional aircraft provided by other companies. The entire world (in lower detail) is available in the base sim (which costs money - unlike DCS). It's not a need, it's a want. If the idea bothers you, why not just stick the included features? These add-ons are unrelated to the company that produces the base sim, is it wrong for them to offer improvements? Should additions be banned because they cost money? How can you expect people to devote themselves to creating these items without a return for their efforts?

 

I don't regard any 3rd party developer as my buddy, but when they create something that I have always wanted or products that I hugely enjoy (like the Viggen and MiG-21) I should at least show my appreciation. To focus so much energy on the faults or parts of the module that doesn't match my expectations feels like "nickel and dime-ing" too. :)

 

-Nick

Edited March 17, 2017 by BlackLion213

[Paradox]

I've seen some offtopic posts before but... checkers?

[Tirak]

Alright, so lets say I prefer Canadians checkers and would rather play it - should I object to a 3rd party's plan to build pieces and a board for it? Should I instead say "I would really like it....but adding more chess pieces would be easier so please change back to chess"? That argument makes great sense when you prefer chess, but no sense when you prefer Canadian checkers. If you can create new pieces and a new board to support your interests, why shouldn't you? Why does the game need to maintain the status quo?

 

On the second point, you may not say that a particular form a gameplay is wrong, but you will say it is silly or pointless - how is that different?

 

Because in this hyperbolic example, there is no other maker of Chess, but several other makers of Canadian Checkers. By taking away the maker of chess so they can provide you with yet another game of Canadian Checkers, you narrow the field of entertainment. In this way, the person who prefers Canadian Checkers becomes an inherent threat to the hobby of the person who prefers Chess.

 

As to your second point, I find horror movies to be silly and pointless, but I wouldn't say ban horror movies or that they are a 'wrong' form of entertainment.

 

So you are saying that any task in DCS that doesn't result in an explosion is pointless? So missions that have check rides or criteria besides unit destruction are of no value? This is pretty narrow-minded and there are many DCS players who would disagree with you. Plus, you can create mission criteria that create tangible effects from completing a task.

Yes, that is explicitly what I am saying. There is no point to doing a check ride in DCS as there is no persistence or benefit to doing so. An argument can be made that it makes you a better pilot, but the only reason why checkrides exist in real life, is that it's dangerous to put a total novice in a plane and let them fly because they might get themselves or others killed. This is not a problem we have in DCS because it's a simulated environment. This is touching on the debate that sparks on and off in DCS about the inclusion of civillian aircraft, and while yes there are many players who would like these sorts of noncombat, non conflict aircraft to be included, there is an equally vocal and if I'm recalling the polls correctly, more numerous faction of players who would prefer that DCS focus on the Combat aspect in game, as there are alternatives for the non conflict pilots to use.

 

I would prefer to create a whole scenario since I find that far more interesting. Why is that wrong? Why would one form of gameplay be more worthy than another?

 

This argument sounds like a "red vs blue" argument - you prefer red so anything that supports blue is wrong. Please explain how your argument differs from this logic?

I wouldn't say that your desire to create a scenario where you adhere yourself to a set of out of gameplay rules to be wrong, I would however say that development time shouldn't be spent to support that thing. The reason is rather simple. No amount of gameplay simulation, however accurate, will have an impact on the way in which you constructed that scenario. Because it is based primarily on the out of game rules that you set up, the difference between modeling TARPS as a fully functional system versus TARPS as a dud 3d model is negligible to the point of being unnoticeable. Your style of play does not rely on in game assets to be simulated. The same cannot be said for a tangible in game combat system. If the Phoenix missile is not modeled, I cannot implement it through an out of game roleplay system and have a definitive result. As such, development time quite clearly should be spent on what will have impact. In the case of TARPS, there is no impact on how the game is played, since the structure of the game, by lacking persistence, does not allow for it.

 

There are no serious issues on this forum - we are discussing a game. I'm not using inappropriate humor, but commenting on this fact of life: if you want something done to your precise specifications and preferred price you may need to do it yourself. How is this facetious?

Because we're discussing how we feel development time for HB should be utilized, not the formation of Tirak Simulations Inc.

 

It seems to be that you have a multi-player centric view of DCS. Thats fine, but not everyone wants or is able to play multi-player. I prefer realistic operations which is not the forte of servers like the 104th. Something like a multi-player squadron is not feasible given the variability of my schedule and limited hours available for me to play DCS (demanding job, family, etc). So why is that less worthy of support than "lord of the flies" MP?

The 104th is not the entirety of the multiplayer environment. Missions like Blue Flag and smaller group missions allow for very realistic approaches to operations. As to why it deserves more development time than elements such as TARPS, see the above example in regards to your Red Vs. Blue statement.

 

I still don't see an argument, just an expression of preference. I realize that you'd rather have LANTIRN (as would I), but TARPS is not the replacement as Cobra said. Instead they are adding a feature that I've hoped for since the announcement in 2015, but didn't expect. Why shouldn't they create it? Just because you don't see the use? Just because there are no explosions?

The discussion was started prior to Cobra stating that they were not spending huge amounts of time coding nonsense systems like TARPS potentially at the expense of useful systems like LANTIRN. As to why they shouldn't create it; I have no problem with modeling it, however spending large amounts of development time on it would be a waste, as described in the above example in response to the Red Vs Blue comment.

 

 

With those sims, you pay for improvements or additional aircraft provided by other companies. The entire world (in lower detail) is available in the base sim (which costs money - unlike DCS). It's not a need, it's a want. If the idea bothers you, why not just stick the included features? These add-ons are unrelated to the company that produces the base sim, is it wrong for them to offer improvements? Should additions be banned because they cost money? How can you expect people to devote themselves to creating these items without a return for their efforts?

Because it will divide the community. The Asset Pack already has been confirmed that if you do not have it, you cannot join a server running it. The DCS multiplayer community is not so large that we have dozens of populated servers running a host of asset packs. As more of packs like these show up, the more divided the community becomes. As to individual module components, this is the path straight to hell, a hyperbole, but an emotive one. How long until DLC becomes based on the weapon, until developers begin to segment their modules to the point of "If you want that ECM pod to be able to fight in this mission, you gotta pay another 5 bucks". It's anti consumer. In the same way that games used to be developed in their entirety and expansion packs were added, it slid quickly to essential content being cut and repackaged as DLC. I am vehemently against any sort of price model that encourages this behavior. So yes, in my opinion there should be a banning of such DLC from being allowed to be produced by 3rd parties.

 

I don't regard any 3rd party developer as my buddy, but when they create something that I have always wanted or products that I hugely enjoy (like the Viggen and MiG-21) I should at least show my appreciation. To focus so much energy on the faults or parts of the module that doesn't match my expectations feels like "nickel and dime-ing" too. Again, the pot is calling the kettle black. :)

I'm not sure I understand your comparison here.

 

I do want to take a moment here to make sure something is clear. I have no issue with TARPS being implemented, even at a full simulation level where it acts exactly how it does in real life. The only issue I would have with it, is if it were to happen at the expense of an impactful part of the module, I.E. if LANTIRN were being not included so that TARPS could be. Cobra has stated explicitly this is not the case, so I have no real issue with that then. What we're talking about at this point is purely theoretical, and as such, mentions of implementing TARPS are on a hypothetical level when discussing limited development time.

[BlackLion213]

Because in this hyperbolic example, there is no other maker of Chess, but several other makers of Canadian Checkers.

 

Turns out there is one maker for both since there is no high quality single player combat sim for the F-14 that includes carrier ops, A-A, or TARPS set in the 1980s or 90s. Hence the confusion, you think what I (or other players) want exists elsewhere - but it does not.

 

Yes, that is explicitly what I am saying. There is no point to doing a check ride in DCS as there is no persistence or benefit to doing so. An argument can be made that it makes you a better pilot, but the only reason why checkrides exist in real life, is that it's dangerous to put a total novice in a plane and let them fly because they might get themselves or others killed.

 

So checkrides should be included in DCS, luckily you don't have to buy them, but they have the same point as blowing something up - the appreciation of the user. Equal value and equal stake in terms of development. There is no persistence for anything in DCS, so checkrides offer as much as nything else.

 

I wouldn't say that your desire to create a scenario where you adhere yourself to a set of out of gameplay rules to be wrong, I would however say that development time shouldn't be spent to support that thing. The reason is rather simple. No amount of gameplay simulation, however accurate, will have an impact on the way in which you constructed that scenario. Because it is based primarily on the out of game rules that you set up, the difference between modeling TARPS as a fully functional system versus TARPS as a dud 3d model is negligible to the point of being unnoticeable. Your style of play does not rely on in game assets to be simulated. The same cannot be said for a tangible in game combat system. If the Phoenix missile is not modeled, I cannot implement it through an out of game roleplay system and have a definitive result. As such, development time quite clearly should be spent on what will have impact. In the case of TARPS, there is no impact on how the game is played, since the structure of the game, by lacking persistence, does not allow for it.

 

I still need TARPS HUD functionality and feedback to the underlying F-14 module. But mybe that means that TARPS modeling would be easy and definitely should be included. But again, you are valuing different DCS tasks asymmetrically when they carry equal weight in the eye of many users. If no one offers development time to it, then it won't exist and there will be no gameplay for me. You are recommending neglect of my interest to support yours...why?

 

Because we're discussing how we feel development time for HB should be utilized.

 

Didn't realize you where a shareholder...because if you are not the discussion is rather pointless. :)

 

I do want to take a moment here to make sure something is clear. I have no issue with TARPS being implemented, even at a full simulation level where it acts exactly how it does in real life. The only issue I would have with it, is if it were to happen at the expense of an impactful part of the module, I.E. if LANTIRN were being not included so that TARPS could be. Cobra has stated explicitly this is not the case, so I have no real issue with that then. What we're talking about at this point is purely theoretical, and as such, mentions of implementing TARPS are on a hypothetical level when discussing limited development time.

 

Perfect, then we finally cleared this up and we can move on! :)

 

Please PM if you wish to discuss further. Have a good night.

 

-Nick

[MBot]

If ED adds a hook for the TARPS into the scripting system, it should be possible to add a recon functionality to my dynamic campaign engine. I am not exactly sure how yet, but there are possibilities. For example recon objectives that are hidden when completed and unhiding strike targets instead. Or making exact strike damage assessment depending on BDA missions.

[Angus]

Totally agree with Cobra, our first need is an F14.

If subsequently it can evolve into F14D ..... wow! It would be a party!:thumbup:

 

The pod lantirn was equipped with tomcat only from 1996. The JDAM ammunition carriage appeared only in 2001 (source wikipedia). The F14D is almost another plane( radar,cockpit....), I imagine that the time To develop it is almost as important as developing the F14 A and B.

 

If I understand what cobra says, it is in the plans of heatblur. So I do not worry, we will have a beautiful first F14 A and B then later upgrade.

 

and it's cool !!!:D

[Guitrz]

Why do we fight...

[Dudikoff]

Personally, I can understand both sides here. I don't really see the TARPS pod as being nearly as much used as the LTS one, but I'd presume that the required development time for it's control panel is not significant enough to matter (except that it would basically add a cockpit panel that the large majority of the Tomcats didn't have, but that's not really an issue).

 

On the other hand, adding the LTS pod would not only require implementing much more stuff (an extra stick, panel, PTID screen, etc.), but it would also be a rather different cockpit visually, meaning it would not be suitable for use pre-1996 at least.

 

So, even if the LTS pod is added afterwards, perhaps it would be better to handle it as a new variant in DCSW for which I wouldn't mind paying extra. Perhaps the Sparrowhawk HUD could also be considered for this additional variant to make it a more complete package.

Edited March 17, 2017 by Dudikoff

[Beamscanner]

Taking pictures... :)

 

TARPS does several good things for the F-14 module, though these benefits are largely confined to single player missions (my preference). It diversifies the F-14's mission set for campaigns and missions. It also requires a very different flight profile and utilizing unique avionics functionality for the pilot and RIO to stay on target.

 

In many ways, recon missions are strike missions without secondaries. You still have to penetrate enemy air defenses and arrive over a target with the correct parameters to obtain the right photos. It is a great reason to fly low at Mach 1 and TARPS crews were quite proud of what they did. They also got to enjoy the much better performance of the F-14A at low altitudes, ACM hard decks limited appreciation of the low altitude power among regular Tomcat crews.

 

So TARPs is good for LARPing? You build your mission, placing the enemy where you like, and then go fly over them and take pictures... Recon pilots are proud of their mission set because doing it nets the intel community a product that may be used to analyze the enemy. But you already know where you've placed the enemy forces in your single player mission.

 

As someone stated earlier, its not a worthwhile tool outside of dynamic campaigns with recon modes available to real people to look at and plan around.

 

Don't you want to photograph a Silkworm site while evading I-Hawks?

-Nick

Sure, if it had some built-in mechanic that allowed me to make use of the recon flight. (ie a reward for the action). Otherwise, no.

 

But if that is something you want to do, then you don't even need the camera pod. You can pretend to have one, and take a snapshot looking out your canopy...

Edited March 17, 2017 by Beamscanner

[spiddx]

Devs say they have some nice ideas how to make that pod useful. So why not give them the benefit of the doubt for now and see what they come up with before we draw our conclusions?

[BlackLion213]

So TARPs is good for LARPing?

 

No, LARping is really most like DCS multiplayer and I don't see TARPS getting as much use in MP. It really is a tool for single player campaigns and giving a SP mission a reason to fly a precision route at 600 knots on the deck, followed by a pop-up to 5K-10K feet for the photo run - evading AAA and SAMs. Otherwise, Tomcats generally don't spend much time down there.

 

 

Sure, if it had some built-in mechanic that allowed me to make use of the recon flight. (ie a reward for the action). Otherwise, no.

 

But if that is something you want to do, then you don't even need the camera pod. You can pretend to have one, and take a snapshot looking out your canopy...

 

I originally planned to have single player missions escorting TARPS, but having the option for player operated TARPS adds more variety. Plus it shifts the CG of the aircraft and can change flight dynamics a fair bit, especially for failure management and such.

 

-Nick

Edited March 18, 2017 by BlackLion213

[captain_dalan]

If ED adds a hook for the TARPS into the scripting system, it should be possible to add a recon functionality to my dynamic campaign engine. I am not exactly sure how yet, but there are possibilities. For example recon objectives that are hidden when completed and unhiding strike targets instead. Or making exact strike damage assessment depending on BDA missions.

 

You have a dynamic campaign in the making? I love those. They ad so much replayability to any sim. Single missions and chained missions are fun (if nothing else you can hang out with you friends), but sooner or later you get to know them all too well. And the immersion factor plays a big role as well. So what if i destroyed those SAM sites in the previous mission, the next one is just going to presume they were or weren't destroyed, depending on the campaign/mission creator.

 

So TARPs is good for LARPing? You build your mission, placing the enemy where you like, and then go fly over them and take pictures... Recon pilots are proud of their mission set because doing it nets the intel community a product that may be used to analyze the enemy. But you already know where you've placed the enemy forces in your single player mission.

 

As someone stated earlier, its not a worthwhile tool outside of dynamic campaigns with recon modes available to real people to look at and plan around.

 

 

To me it also gives a warm fuzzy feeling when i see what the TARPS sees on my display and take the pictures. I just like using the system if i know it has been modeled properly. Just like working the radar, or the INS or what ever system is there.

[MBot]

You have a dynamic campaign in the making?

 

There are two completed ones:

 

Desert Tiger 76

Desert Fishbed 76

 

A dynamic campaign for the Viggen is 99% completed and ready, but waiting for some elemental bugs to be fixed (https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3077553&postcount=399).

 

And I will certainly do a DC for the Tomcat, that is for sure.

[Andy1966]

Considering there is no dynamic campaign and no recon system in DCS, with the last attempt at implementing it by another third party was abandoned, it would seem that TARPS would be a waste of time.

 

Give them a chance, Jeez. Everyone wanted a ground radar and they gave us Viggen. I like the idea of reece flights, have a mission made just for Viggen maritime recon. so the same capability in The 'Cat is gunna be a blast to learn and use in combat, and if the Lantrin was not availible in the represented airframe its not because they don't want to include it, it just simply is not included in that block of aircraft. we would still be getting two aircraft for the price of one, and they are still WIP so we are all just going to have to wait and see what is "up Cobra and HB's sleeve" on the issue. I for one have no doubt it is going to be another outstanding module,;)

[lunaticfringe]

No, LARping is really most like DCS multiplayer and I don't see TARPS getting as much use in MP. It really is a tool for single player campaigns and giving a SP mission a reason to fly a precision route at 600 knots on the deck, followed by a pop-up to 5K-10K feet for the photo run - evading AAA and SAMs. Otherwise, Tomcats generally don't spend much time down there.

 

Depends, I think, on the construction of the scenario, and if we have a minimum of DI variant functionality. The trick is what TARPS will be permitted to trigger.

 

If permitted to simulate a trigger representing the transmission capability back to the E-2, or the ship with CD, you've now got a potential for a scripted strike becoming available in close to real time. By the time a TARPS bird is in the overhead, Hornets are being readied and launched to go kill what the player found- that's a pretty fun reward in and of itself for a job well done.

 

Expanding, if the trigger permits an update to be sent out to aircraft- even players already in the air, for something akin to an on the spot run at an HVA (Tomcats found evidence of movement of tactical nukes or a particular member of the opposing military regime), that dynamic offers a lot of interesting things to do.

[Cephei]

I'm sure everyone would rather have a Tomcat without the lantirn earlier rather than a tomcat with lantirn later ;)

 

You would be wrong. I would prefer waiting a bit more for added capability. It is very easy to remove capability in a mission editor if you want your period accurate no A/G allowed Tomcat. But if you want to actually use it this way, you're now unable to.

 

Overall pretty disappointed with this direction.

[Silvern]

You would be wrong. I would prefer waiting a bit more for added capability. It is very easy to remove capability in a mission editor if you want your period accurate no A/G allowed Tomcat. But if you want to actually use it this way, you're now unable to.

 

Overall pretty disappointed with this direction.

 

+1

 

If there was a definite; YES, Lantirn will come after release, then I'd be ok with this.

 

But it seems we're getting half the Bombcat.

[swither]

+1

 

If there was a definite; YES, Lantirn will come after release, then I'd be ok with this.

 

But it seems we're getting half the Bombcat.

 

 

Guys, you have to understand that adding the Lantirn would be a major undertaking given the difference in avionics. The only thing decided so far in regards to the pod is that we won't do it from start. The F14 from the time period you're getting at launch wasn't actually even rated to drop bombs in real life even if it had the capability.

 

If we do the Lantirn it will most likely be in a later strike update with improved avionics and so on as well. We're commited to making a great module and in order to do that we have to focus on the core features at first, we're a small Indie developer and we can't do everything at once :pilotfly:

[Silvern]

Guys, you have to understand that adding the Lantirn would be a major undertaking given the difference in avionics. The only thing decided so far in regards to the pod is that we won't do it from start. The F14 from the time period you're getting at launch wasn't actually even rated to drop bombs in real life even if it had the capability.

 

If we do the Lantirn it will most likely be in a later strike update with improved avionics and so on as well. We're commited to making a great module and in order to do that we have to focus on the core features at first, we're a small Indie developer and we can't do everything at once :pilotfly:

 

Thanks for the clarification and good luck with your project! :)

[captain_dalan]

 

And I will certainly do a DC for the Tomcat, that is for sure.

That is great news indeed. If there is one thing that might get be back into simming long term, that would be it! :thumbup:

[BlackLion213]

The F14 from the time period you're getting at launch wasn't actually even rated to drop bombs in real life even if it had the capability.

 

Thank you for the update and clarification. :)

 

Is the current plan for both the F-14A and F-14A+/B set around the late 80s to ~1991?

 

Basically when there were F-14As operating off USS Ranger, USS Forrestal, and USS Independence with the F-14A+ deployed on USS Saratoga?

 

This would make sense given the planned F-14 versions and associated carrier.

 

Thanks again for the info!

 

-Nick

[westr]

Guys, you have to understand that adding the Lantirn would be a major undertaking given the difference in avionics. The only thing decided so far in regards to the pod is that we won't do it from start. The F14 from the time period you're getting at launch wasn't actually even rated to drop bombs in real life even if it had the capability.

 

If we do the Lantirn it will most likely be in a later strike update with improved avionics and so on as well. We're commited to making a great module and in order to do that we have to focus on the core features at first, we're a small Indie developer and we can't do everything at once :pilotfly:

 

Let's hope further down the line maybe we will see it then. Would have no problem with that at all.

I certainly feel there's lots of scope for this aircraft in the future given its popularity and how the aircraft itself actually evolved. And without doubt if released with a couple of tutorials the pod and cockpit upgrades etc this would be something that we should pay for.

But for the time being I will continue to rejoice in the fact that I will soon be getting one of my favourite if not my most favourite aircraft simulated to a higher standard than ever before.

Sometimes I have to reflect and remind myself of that.

Edited March 19, 2017 by westr

[Cephei]

If we do the Lantirn it will most likely be in a later strike update with improved avionics and so on as well.:

 

That's the problem, I don't want to wait for an IF that statistically has about a 0% chance of actually happening. This sounds exactly like the average marketing phrase that everyone uses for features most of us want to see but that aren't even on the table.

 

Either say it will or won't happen, so I can think about if the module is worth my time and money, because I was looking forward for 2 seater bombing missions more than I was looking forward to anything else.

 

Besides, the F14 was designed and capable from the ground up to be able to employ A/G weapons, it was a navy policy that prevented it from being used in this way. This argument is not only weak, it also screams "excuse".

 

Guys, you have to understand that adding the Lantirn would be a major undertaking given the difference in avionics.

 

That's the point, that's why we're disappointed, because instead of leaving out some minor details, you cut out the part of the plane that it was used for for the overwhelming majority of combat missions total.

 

See, nobody had a problem if you decided "oh we'll add idk, TARPS or some other non essential systems later", not only would we actually believe you, this would also mean you have your priorities set straight. Core systems are more important than auxiliary ones. Nobody is going to believe you you'll patch in a huge system like the LANTIRN as an after thought in just some casual patch after launch. Absolutely nobody.

 

Bombcat capability isn't some secondary role of the plane, it's what the plane was mostly used for. Besides you had a shot of breaking some new ground in DCS with making the first 2 seater strike aircraft and you blew that too.

 

Sorry if that comes off as too harsh, because you personally aren't responsible for this, I'm blaming whoever set the development roadmap and decided to favor nonessential systems on launch over a more complete product by relegating a huge part of the plane to the mythical "maybe we'll do it later, but not really, because nobody ever actually does this and this is just marketing BS".

 

Like the other guy put it perfectly: Either confirm or deny it later, don't put this "maybe" stuff, it doesn't make you look better.

[BlackLion213]

Besides, the F14 was designed and capable from the ground up to be able to employ A/G weapons, it was a navy policy that prevented it from being used in this way. This argument is not only weak, it also screams "excuse".

The F-14 was originally intended to be multi-role, but when the Marines backed out the Navy did not proceed with any weapons separation testing or racks to support A-G ordnance. The F-14 did have CCIP functionality from the start, but it was not cleared to carry any bombs till 1992. Grumman published publicity photos of the F-14A with MERs, but those weapons were never dropped or tested.

 

CCIP capability and BRU-32 bomb racks are currently planned according to Heatblur. The core A-G capability of the aircraft is also still planned and Mk 82s-84s will be available.

 

That's the point, that's why we're disappointed, because instead of leaving out some minor details, you cut out the part of the plane that it was used for for the overwhelming majority of combat missions total.

 

This is part of the problem with managing expectations in an aircraft with a long service life - the aircraft's mission dramatically changed over time. The "F-14 experience" means a lot of different things to many different people.

 

For the first 18 years of the aircrafts 32 year service history, it only carried A-A weapons with no exceptions. From 1992-95 there was a transitional capability of unguided iron bombs. Only for the final 10 years did the aircraft have precision strike capability (courtesy of LANTIRN). This era was very important for the F-14 and an interesting change, but it only represented the final third of its life span. That said, recent history is often best remembered for obvious reasons, but it is only one facet of the aircraft's existence.

 

The announcement of the Forrestal class carrier to accompany the DCS: F-14 module put an emphasis on early operations (Heatblur previously mentioned mid-80s for the F-14A and mid-90s for the F-14B). USS Independence made one cruise with a LANTIRN equipped F-14A squadron (VF-154 in 1998 ), but otherwise none of the Forrestal class carriers carried LANTIRN equipped F-14s. This set the stage in my mind for the module to focus on earlier operations.

 

I think it would be great if Heatblur discusses its "vision" for the module, that might help potential customers to better understand their priorities since the F-14 took many different forms during its lifespan - setting expectations.

 

I certainly understand why many would be disappointed with this announcement (I wanted LANTIRN too), but like the real F-14: the Heatblur module has the potential for a long operational life with many future upgrades. The module already represented a mammoth undertaking, not every potential feature can be offered in the beginning.

 

Not the answer that many want, but it the answer that we have.

 

My 2 cents,

 

Nick