Why are the f14 instrument clusters so poorly designed?

[Nexus-6]

Having no difficulty whatsoever with the placement of the F-14's instrumentation. Very easy to read quickly.

 

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

[Harlikwin]

What I think needs to be discussed, is that the Soviet doctrine was less focused on the aircraft using their radar as a search tool, and more as a tracking tool. Their strength was using ground based radar to search for, and guide to contacts. Once the aircraft was in place, it would use its radar in the final stages of attack to prosecute the target. Further, the aircraft only existed as a supplement to the air defense coverage. It was a very large supplement, and some would say it was equal to the SAM systems in place. Once the idea of Soviet air doctrine being primarily defensive in nature, a lot of what looks like being "behind" comes into focus as being specific to their needs. I would say that their air defenses, and radar control of aircraft, was far superior to the US's for many years. It's because their strategy was of full-on defense, no matter what the propaganda of a Soviet invasion of Europe would show.

 

Sure, the soviets didn't design their aircraft using western criteria, and therefore comparing the planes can be difficult because the mission space was quite different between models. However from a strict electrical engineering standpoint, the soviets were well behind the west when it came to electronics from 60's onwards. I've worked on alot of soviet era RF and EO equipment and compared to a similar western model you end up doing alot of face palming. However, in some ways the performance of their avionics is admirable once you actually understand what they had to work (relative to the west) with and the barriers they had to overcome too.

[Victory205]

I honestly don't think the Tomcat's pit is laid out poorly at all, with the exception of the difficulties in seeing the TiD in the pilot's seat. Then again the only other module with a HUD I fly is the Viggen, so I'm used to looking at dials.

 

I would add that in all DCS aircraft, the cockpit geometry is a little different than in real life. Not sure if it is FOV, or head location, etc, but some things are more difficult to see than in real life. Some of it may be due to our human stereoscopic vision.

 

For example, the windscreen and HUD cameras are located properly in the sim, but in reality, when your eyes are focused at distance, those items are a blur. The compass is easily seen while sitting in the F14 seat, but I can't see it at all in DCS. Same with the ASI and engine instruments. They are clipped on my screen, but in reality, you could see and read them without difficultly. I could read the DME on the BDHI within a tenth of a degree, even though tenths are not displayed. I can barely see it in the sim.

 

The whole geometry of the cockpit has been meticulously scanned and recreated, but there is something just a little off for some reason.

 

What sort of FOV are you all using on your screen? I zoom in until only the windscreen, VDI and top of the engine instruments are visible. I can see ASI, ALT and BDHI, etc but have to move my head to see anything else.

 

How does it look in VR?

[IceFire]

That's why I fly VR. Everything is as you just described it in the VR environment Victory.

[TLTeo]

What I think needs to be discussed, is that the Soviet doctrine was less focused on the aircraft using their radar as a search tool, and more as a tracking tool. Their strength was using ground based radar to search for, and guide to contacts. Once the aircraft was in place, it would use its radar in the final stages of attack to prosecute the target. Further, the aircraft only existed as a supplement to the air defense coverage. It was a very large supplement, and some would say it was equal to the SAM systems in place. Once the idea of Soviet air doctrine being primarily defensive in nature, a lot of what looks like being "behind" comes into focus as being specific to their needs. I would say that their air defenses, and radar control of aircraft, was far superior to the US's for many years. It's because their strategy was of full-on defense, no matter what the propaganda of a Soviet invasion of Europe would show.

 

Eh, the US' Sage (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-Automatic_Ground_Environment) system was far more advanced than what the soviets operated at the time.

 

As a (obviously overly simplified) comparison, the F102 Delta Dagger had a data link to the ground that allowed it to receive target information from the ground, display it on the radar scope, and guide the airplane to said target without any pilot input if necessary. The aircraft entered service at the same time as the Mig-19P, yet it was far more advanced and capable. Eventually the Soviets developed similar systems and introduced them to their interceptor fleet, but even then they had to catch up to Western capabilities.

 

To get back on topic,

 

What sort of FOV are you all using on your screen?

 

I just use whatever amount of zoom feels right, I have an axis bound to it on my HOTAS so I can zoom in/out as needed. For the TID i've just been moving my head to the side (using track IR) and it's mostly fine, but I do have to micromanage Jester and tell him to adjust scan range frequently for that to work.

Edited March 19, 2019 by TLTeo

[some1]

Stereoscopit vision and 3D definitely changes how the cockpit looks. The cockpit geometry looks fine in VR, except for the stick that almost hits the TID, but I reported it in the bugs section so hopefully it will be adjusted.

 

Unfortunately current VR has its own issues with resolution and instruments readability, but cockpit proportions seem to be as good as it gets in DCS.

[Victory205]

Stereoscopit vision and 3D definitely changes how the cockpit looks. The cockpit geometry looks fine in VR, except for the stick that almost hits the TID, but I reported it in the bugs section so hopefully it will be adjusted.

 

Unfortunately current VR has its own issues with resolution and instruments readability, but cockpit proportions seem to be as good as it gets in DCS.

 

I'd like to try VR, but decided to wait for full, interactive cockpit holograms to be modeled. It's the future. ;)

[rrohde]

the stick that almost hits the TID, but I reported it in the bugs section so hopefully it will be adjusted.

 

What's there to adjust? The stick clears the TID just fine when pushed fully forward, and I am sure that HB designed it correctly that way - based in input from their SMEs.

[lancerr]

Great discussion. Couple of points I've seen you all make.

 

1. F14 cockpit seems naturally laid out. Perhaps. Coming from an Su27, I think the very different design philosophies jump out at you (sort of like the iPhone vs Android debate). Once you get used to one, it feels intuitive while the other feels awkward and hard to use.

 

2. RWR - This one will take some getting used to. When you have information displayed in a radial form around a central point, that's a design pattern that is intuitively understood to indicate relative position and distance (Planetary orbits, Ripples in a pond,etc.). This one is just a matter of studying the RWR for a while and getting used to the display.

 

I'm still curious why Grumman or Aircraft designers picked the current RWR layout but maybe we will never know. This is just my design curiosity speaking.

 

3. TID - Given Victory's comment and the comments of those using VR, this one looks like an artifact of the FOV/Projection on a flat display rather than a design issue.

 

 

4. HUD - I am getting used to the minimalist HUD but then again its supposed to be a "Heads Up Display" and I'm spending a lot more time heads down. Feels like it's missing a couple of key data points.

 

 

More digging and here's what I found. F14D seems to have addressed a few of these issues. More comprehensive HUD, VDI (or more likely MFD) moved to a more logical position right of center MFD, though I can't tell what happened to RWR.

 

Attached a bunch of images - ignore the graphics (clearly stylized) but the layout seems accurate comparing it to real world F14B and D pits.

Edited March 19, 2019 by lancerr

[some1]

3. TID - Given Victory's comment and the comments of those using VR, this one looks like an artifact of the FOV/Projection on a flat display rather than a design issue.

 

Please let's not go full denial on the problem :) https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=3845574

[Tirak]

I've been flying the Community A-4E for the past few months, so when I started flying the F-14, things were pretty easy to transition into, especially with being able to just ignore the HUD. It's nice to have the descent rate shown on the HUD during landing, but I've got no worries about putting her down on deck without the HUD at all because of all the practice I did with the Scooter.

[VC]

Great discussion. Couple of points I've seen you all make.

 

1. F14 cockpit seems naturally laid out. Perhaps. Coming from an Su27, I think the very different design philosophies jump out at you (sort of like the iPhone vs Android debate). Once you get used to one, it feels intuitive while the other feels awkward and hard to use.

 

4. HUD - I am getting used to the minimalist HUD but then again its supposed to be a "Heads Up Display" and I'm spending a lot more time heads down. Feels like it's missing a couple of key data points.

 

 

1. The Su-33 was my first DCS plane, Mig-29 second and Su-27 third. I love the layout of the Russian cockpits and HUDs and being used to that was the main cause of my difficulties transitioning to F-15. Despite that existing bias as you describe, that I completely agree with, I prefer the Tomcat pit to the Flanker (as far as logical layout of head down analogue instruments is concerned).

 

 

4. One or two things would be handy but this one really is sign of the times. I believe the limitation was what and how much the HUD projectors at the time could physically display, not unwillingness or poor decision making in design of what to put there.

[lancerr]

Please let's not go full denial on the problem :) https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=3845574

I stand corrected. Perhaps it is a modeling issue in DCS

 

Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk

[Harlikwin]

Please let's not go full denial on the problem :) https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=3845574

 

LOL... troublemaker ;)

[draconus]

I hate the clutter of the F-15 HUD.

You think it's cluttered? Look at F/A-18C :helpsmilie:

[VC]

You think it's cluttered? Look at F/A-18C :helpsmilie:

 

 

Oh yeah, I tried the Bug on that weekend it was free and the experience saved me a lot of money! :lol: I've got used to the Eagle now, very capable plane and fun to fly. '80s pit also looks nice and feels very cool to sit in. Still some illogical elements to the HUD design, e.g. the direction the airspeed tape moves in feels backwards to me.

[orcbuster]

I mean moving from the M2000C which has the best HUD in DCS (All the luxury of a western cockpit with none of the clutter) Its quite the shock but you get used to it. Reading the dial position comes naturally after a few hours.

 

 

As for the RWR its the other way around for me. I hate the Russian RWR and adore the added info in the western ones.

[RustBelt]

2. RWR - This one will take some getting used to. When you have information displayed in a radial form around a central point, that's a design pattern that is intuitively understood to indicate relative position and distance (Planetary orbits, Ripples in a pond,etc.). This one is just a matter of studying the RWR for a while and getting used to the display.

 

I'm still curious why Grumman or Aircraft designers picked the current RWR layout but maybe we will never know. This is just my design curiosity speaking.

 

 

Grumman didn't, this is an off the shelf piece of avionics. They did it this way because at the time (Late 60's) they were limited to a single color vector CRT. a pilot needs to know Priority more than they need to know distance since, unlike us playing in a sim, they actually studied and were briefed on where threats would be and so they have the situational awareness to know spatially how far away something should be based on where they are. What they NEED to know is how likely something out there may be looking at them. And that's based on Intensity.

 

So given that the designers were limited by a simple X,Y without even INTENSITY initially, their decision was intensity equals "distance" from the center of the screen. That way the thing near the middle is your biggest right now problem.

 

Now days, with Color and the ability to cross reference receiver data with position and Nav databases An RWR would probably use color and size to denote priority, but up through the 80's there just wasn't the technology to do that yet. At least unlike the USSR unit, you know WHAT it is and Where it is, and can see more of them. That alone was stunning on late 60's computers.

[lancerr]

Grumman didn't, this is an off the shelf piece of avionics. They did it this way because at the time (Late 60's) they were limited to a single color vector CRT. a pilot needs to know Priority more than they need to know distance since, unlike us playing in a sim, they actually studied and were briefed on where threats would be and so they have the situational awareness to know spatially how far away something should be based on where they are. What they NEED to know is how likely something out there may be looking at them. And that's based on Intensity.

 

 

 

So given that the designers were limited by a simple X,Y without even INTENSITY initially, their decision was intensity equals "distance" from the center of the screen. That way the thing near the middle is your biggest right now problem.

 

 

 

Now days, with Color and the ability to cross reference receiver data with position and Nav databases An RWR would probably use color and size to denote priority, but up through the 80's there just wasn't the technology to do that yet. At least unlike the USSR unit, you know WHAT it is and Where it is, and can see more of them. That alone was stunning on late 60's computers.

This!! This was what I was hoping to learn about. Thank you for that reply.

 

Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk

[Cake]

Everything is relative ,,,,,,

 

 

.https://goo.gl/images/qrWNHY

Edited March 21, 2019 by Cake

[westr]

I'd like to try VR, but decided to wait for full, interactive cockpit holograms to be modeled. It's the future. ;)

 

I would definitely recommend you try it Victory. It may take a bit of getting used to and made me a little nauseous the first few times but the level of immersion it gives you is huge. It’s one of the biggest jumps in simulation I would say. It would probably make you feel all nostalgic :)

 

And it definitely helps with viewing instruments the stick in the way etc.