Tomcat FAQ - pls give us your input

[Steve Gee]

Brief history of the plane/your reason(s) for making it, maybe a background on the one you based your model on. Plus, differences between the A and B, along with summaries of the major subsystems. Also, a brief summary of any other components to the package...Forrestal class carriers, any AI aircraft.

 

Make it like a sales brochure. :)

[DblGonzo]

Will there be a possible option to have the glove vanes deploy as a cosmetic part when exceeding mach 1 on the -A model?

 

I was in VF143 from 81-85 the glove vanes had already been disabled on all of our jets.

[S. Low]

 

 

 

 

No worries, such input is always appreciated, hence we double check, that's a good thing. The trim caused a fwd position, and has been fixed some patches ago, which should have fixed the issue. That said, it is possible that the fwd position might still clip a bit, as you say, or could be a tad too far forward, hence Cobra said we'll take another look towards the end. But from comparison to our scans the neutral position seems correct and it does indeed almost touch the lower screen when full foward.

 

I double-checked, craned my neck to both sides to inspect the stick in full forward position as closely as I could and checked video. Either I was wrong from the beginning or you did adjust it. I'll eat crow, sorry for the criticism!

[draconus]

 

I double-checked, craned my neck to both sides to inspect the stick in full forward position as closely as I could and checked video. Either I was wrong from the beginning or you did adjust it. I'll eat crow, sorry for the criticism!

 

However it is now when adding pilot hand they'll have to fit it somehow :)

[sadjad-vosoul]

 

holy....No icls and standrad ILS?I could stop working when bad weather!LoL.

And I have PM two question could you take look?thanks

 

Thanks for reply.

 

Iranian Air Bases have Radar approach Units , it works for bad weather but not like ILS 3 C :music_whistling:

[WolfHound009]

Not sure if this is planned, but will there be an option to replace the TCS on the 135-GR (early) -A with just the ALQ-100 "nub" or will the Iranian 95-GR -A be the only variant of the F-14A that will be able to have this option?

[captain_dalan]

Will the alternate beaver tail be available for the Navy planes as well?

[BreaKKer]

On 11/20/2020 at 4:33 PM, captain_dalan said:

Will the alternate beaver tail be available for the Navy planes as well?

The early F-14A tail with the ALR-45, yes

[captain_dalan]

3 hours ago, BreaKKer said:

The early F-14A tail with the ALR-45, yes

nice

[LanceCriminal86]

I think we need to get a clear reply on exactly what HB are doing before we get our hopes up. If TCS, ALR 45/67 bits, etc are going to be controlled by animation arguments, that would be ideal, then one base Tomcat A and one base B model with the details controlled at will. But if they're going with specific configs for the external model that's going to alter plans.

 

Right now the A/B external model obviously has a lot of mixed features. It sounds to me like visually we need:

1) Early A external model with old style beaver tail, no extra RWR blisters by intakes. This should be okay for both the early USN Tomcats and Iranian ones.

2) Late A external, with the ALR-67 bits, newer beaver tail, RWR blisters/antenna by intakes. This should represent any of the upgraded jets to Block 135/140 final A models, of which I've got a good amount of photos from VF-201 and VF-202 who had both the early Block 60/65 rebuilt to 135s and the last 4 140s.

3) B model external with GE engines, RWR antenna for ALR-67s and all the other visual cues the B had like external RWR blisters by the intake. Mostly same to the late A external but would need to check for subtle differences.

 

If the TCS can be controlled by animation arguments though, that means we can easily represent all the weirdness that was the F-14 fleet. Late cats with bullet fairings, old jets mixed in squadrons with Block 135s, all kinds of stuff that happened.

 

My personal concern is the fact that DCS doesn't allow mixed formations. To accurately represent some squadrons, a single formation might need to have both an early block and Block 135s. They should have the same flight performance but DCS only allows for homogenous, single type formations.

[IronMike]

We will see, how we will manage the TCS removal, bullet fairings, etc... We would kinda like to offer them as special options, but we have to see what and how it will be possible.

Thank you all again for your input for the FAQ, even though this thread derailed a bit, haha, but that is ok.

The FAQ is now up!

Check it out here:

 

 

Edited January 29, 2021 by IronMike

[LanceCriminal86]

12 hours ago, IronMike said:

We will see, how we will manage the TCS removal, bullet fairings, etc... We would kinda like to offer them as special options, but we have to see what and how it will be possible.

Thank you all again for your input for the FAQ, even though this thread derailed a bit, haha, but that is ok.

The FAQ is now up!

Check it out here:

 

 

 

 

How much of the visual model can be handled by the Description.lua and via loadout screens?

 

I ask because the desire to represent the earlier Tomcats it seems would have to rely on the Iranian Block-95 visual model, but some of the US systems we'd still want present ala the early or even late 135.

 

Example, even late in the game old Block 90 jets like BuNO 160396 were flying in 1998 without a lot of the later upgrades. It did have TCS at some point during the year but also was seen with a bullet fairing near the end of the year.

 

If the late 135 has the upgraded beaver tail and RWR blisters I won't be able to accurately depict that jet and some of the other old workhorses that survived through the 90s into the 2000s. But if on the Block 135 we can use some animation args and in-game flags to use the older beaver tail, a bullet fairing, and disable TCS it should be a decent representation of a Block 90 that survived. Otherwise I guess I have to use the Block 95 and live without some of the features the jet should have had.

[Quid]

On 1/29/2021 at 12:55 AM, LanceCriminal86 said:

I think we need to get a clear reply on exactly what HB are doing before we get our hopes up. If TCS, ALR 45/67 bits, etc are going to be controlled by animation arguments, that would be ideal, then one base Tomcat A and one base B model with the details controlled at will. But if they're going with specific configs for the external model that's going to alter plans.

 

Right now the A/B external model obviously has a lot of mixed features. It sounds to me like visually we need:

1) Early A external model with old style beaver tail, no extra RWR blisters by intakes. This should be okay for both the early USN Tomcats and Iranian ones.

2) Late A external, with the ALR-67 bits, newer beaver tail, RWR blisters/antenna by intakes. This should represent any of the upgraded jets to Block 135/140 final A models, of which I've got a good amount of photos from VF-201 and VF-202 who had both the early Block 60/65 rebuilt to 135s and the last 4 140s.

3) B model external with GE engines, RWR antenna for ALR-67s and all the other visual cues the B had like external RWR blisters by the intake. Mostly same to the late A external but would need to check for subtle differences.

 

If the TCS can be controlled by animation arguments though, that means we can easily represent all the weirdness that was the F-14 fleet. Late cats with bullet fairings, old jets mixed in squadrons with Block 135s, all kinds of stuff that happened.

 

My personal concern is the fact that DCS doesn't allow mixed formations. To accurately represent some squadrons, a single formation might need to have both an early block and Block 135s. They should have the same flight performance but DCS only allows for homogenous, single type formations.

 

Not sure what you mean by old style beaver tail; if you mean either the one with the fairings, or the squared off version with them removed, that wouldn't be representative of a Block 135.  The new design was already in place by Block 75, so unless there are rebuilds which didn't include that airframe change, you won't see a Block 135 with the older beaver tail.

[IronMike]

We might be able to include an option for the TCS pod, more likely we will divide between 135 and 95, we likely wont implement options for different tails, etc (although iirc Cobra wants the tails ofc correct for each variant), making options for them, too, just blows the limits...

[Skysurfer]

2 hours ago, IronMike said:

We might be able to include an option for the TCS pod, more likely we will divide between 135 and 95, we likely wont implement options for different tails, etc (although iirc Cobra wants the tails ofc correct for each variant), making options for them, too, just blows the limits...

 

Yeah, as fun as it sounds it's still a tremendous workload to have these as options. Like someone else said the early ducktail wasn't a thing since the 75GR and also not a thing on the 95's. No TCS on early A's and IRIAF birds + having removable fuel tank pylons makes themost sense as far as options go, in my opinion.

[SkyhawkDriver]

PTID now.

[TMS up]

IRST now.

[BSantos]

DFCS now.

[Quid]

PTID won't happen and there was an entire discussion thread about why.  IRST won't happen because we're not getting an F-14D, and the IRST in the F-14A (unrelated to the much later one used in the "D") wasn't used outside of limited testing with extremely early blocks (60-75) after which point it was decided it did not have useful tactical utility and was abandoned.  I wouldn't count on DFCS either.

[LanceCriminal86]

4 hours ago, Skysurfer said:

 

Yeah, as fun as it sounds it's still a tremendous workload to have these as options. Like someone else said the early ducktail wasn't a thing since the 75GR and also not a thing on the 95's. No TCS on early A's and IRIAF birds + having removable fuel tank pylons makes themost sense as far as options go, in my opinion.

 

The 95 had a different beavertail from the 135, that's what I was referring to. I wasn't asking about the early -75 or prototype jets, there's something like 4 different beaver tails, the ones in question here being the production ones on 75+ and the late As that got the ALR-67 style one. When I said "Early" it was in comparison to the current B/135, which in itself is still missing the ALQ-126 antennas and some other changes to make those "right". Since the model needs work anyways, why not lay a little groundwork that gives us more options?

 

A -95 gives us:

 

-Accurate representation of the 1981 shootdown jets from VF-41, and within a block or two of the two 1989 shootdown jets (Blocks 85 and 90). The time period where Tomcats actually saw some A2A combat, in the Med. Maybe not Syria but they were patrolling there and Lebanon during the same era, and in the PG. It's a more correct flavor of A model for that time period.

-Accurate model for the Iranian Tomcats.

-Accurate enough model to use in late 70s scenarios with the ALQ-100 only option or even with the TCS housing but TCS disabled.

 

Also of note, Block 95s, 135s, even the last As, 140s, came with the older gun vents, not the later NACA style we have now. Many still had the older vents through the 90s.

 

Honestly I'm not sure what even denotes an early vs late -135, they were some of the last built/upgraded in the mid 80s between 84/85 and 85 is when the 140s were built, aka the last As. So far all I'm really seeing is gun vents and switching Lantirn off? I guess that's a 135 in say 1987 vs a 135 in 2000? I'm not sure if the As had ALR-67, I know they had the beaver tail with the hump in there but trying to find actual info on As having it seems spotty. Bs and Ds definitely did from what I've read but there seems to be some info that the -67 was planned for As but was cut. Or, it may be that an upgrade to the -67s was cut and never made it to the A, not sure. But what I do know is making the -95 proper and having it for both US and Iranian usage gives us a better "early" jet without the hassle of all the crap that comes with Block 75s, original IRST, or any of that.

 

Keep the underlying systems of the "early" Block 135 they were planning and just use the -95 visual model. Set it not to allow for Lantirn or anything as an option until a certain date if you want, as they did serve on into the 90s and I'd bet some did get the 135 upgrades maybe Lantirn. I'd think the jets that got those upgrades should have been the newer As with less hours on them

 

I do know a lot of the 135s/140 from VF-201 and 202 made their way to VF-211, 41, 14, and 154 and dropped bombs in Afghanistan and Iraq. So far it seems like the block 90s and such didn't have the same fate and either went to the RAG or got written off pretty quick.

[IronMike]

Don't get too ahead of yourself, Lance, to then not be disappointed.

The 95, will likely be IRIAF only. The early 135 will be for the US, what the 95 is + the features the IRIAF version is lacking. The diff between late and early 135 is primarily alr45 and ecm page on HSD, some minor stuff like that. Likely we will allow Lantirn on it as well.

Also, it is unlikely that we will make the fuel tank pylons ever removable. That has something to do with the ambient occlusion of the surrounding surface, which would get borked if we removed them. If you want to know more about that, you need to ask Cobra, but short story even shorter: it is very unlikely that we will do it. It is just too much effort for too little return. We'd love to please specifically the aerobatic community here, but we also have to keep the lid a bit on the pot, or else everything just starts cooking over... We already keep constantly increasing the content, one more campaign, two more variants, etc etc... As much as we would love to, but we cannot do everything.

Either way, the 3 A variants will be discernable and consistent in their realism for each one, but we'll see how much will be just fixed, and how little optional. Don't count on anything there too much. If you check in the FAQ, that's the basic outline. late 135 is basically like a B minus engine tapes and engines ofc, early 135 is just that, an early 135 before it received upgrades like the alr67, etc... But since it has the TCS channel, Lantirn is possible with it the same way (and actually iirc got tested first on very early As anyway), etc. The 95 will be like an early A, minus everything which is locked away for the IRIAF faction in DCS. Mind you, the IRIAF and later 135 variant were not even planned as part of the module. But then again, not having them, would be just kinda sad. However: extras also need to have their limit. Hope that makes sense.

Edited February 1, 2021 by IronMike

[captain_dalan]

1 hour ago, IronMike said:

Don't get too ahead of yourself, Lance, to then not be disappointed.

The 95, will likely be IRIAF only. The early 135 will be for the US, what the 95 is + the features the IRIAF version is lacking. The diff between late and early 135 is primarily alr45 and ecm page on HSD, some minor stuff like that. Likely we will allow Lantirn on it as well.

 

 

So just to recap, no external visual differences between 95, 135 early and 135 late, right? (TCS not taken into account here). 

[WolfHound009]

2 hours ago, IronMike said:

Don't get too ahead of yourself, Lance, to then not be disappointed.

The 95, will likely be IRIAF only. The early 135 will be for the US, what the 95 is + the features the IRIAF version is lacking. The diff between late and early 135 is primarily alr45 and ecm page on HSD, some minor stuff like that. Likely we will allow Lantirn on it as well.

Also, it is unlikely that we will make the fuel tank pylons ever removable. That has something to do with the ambient occlusion of the surrounding surface, which would get borked if we removed them. If you want to know more about that, you need to ask Cobra, but short story even shorter: it is very unlikely that we will do it. It is just too much effort for too little return. We'd love to please specifically the aerobatic community here, but we also have to keep the lid a bit on the pot, or else everything just starts cooking over... We already keep constantly increasing the content, one more campaign, two more variants, etc etc... As much as we would love to, but we cannot do everything.

Either way, the 3 A variants will be discernable and consistent in their realism for each one, but we'll see how much will be just fixed, and how little optional. Don't count on anything there too much. If you check in the FAQ, that's the basic outline. late 135 is basically like a B minus engine tapes and engines ofc, early 135 is just that, an early 135 before it received upgrades like the alr67, etc... But since it has the TCS channel, Lantirn is possible with it the same way (and actually iirc got tested first on very early As anyway), etc. The 95 will be like an early A, minus everything which is locked away for the IRIAF faction in DCS. Mind you, the IRIAF and later 135 variant were not even planned as part of the module. But then again, not having them, would be just kinda sad. However: extras also need to have their limit. Hope that makes sense.

 

Just out of curiosity, In the Tomcat FAQ it was mentioned that the -135 early will be representative of an F-14 in the late 70s early 80s period. Will the early -135 have the option to remove the TCS and just have the ALQ-100 nub, because the TCS wasn't introduced until later IIRC? Or will the -135 early have the TCS option like the -135 late and F-14B?  Thanks!

[Quid]

1 hour ago, WolfHound009 said:

Just out of curiosity, In the Tomcat FAQ it was mentioned that the -135 early will be representative of an F-14 in the late 70s early 80s period. Will the early -135 have the option to remove the TCS and just have the ALQ-100 nub, because the TCS wasn't introduced until later IIRC? Or will the -135 early have the TCS option like the -135 late and F-14B?  Thanks!

The Block 135 should not be representative of the F-14 in the late 1970s/early 1980s because the first Block 135s were not delivered until April 1985, and the last March 1986.  Based on its feature list, the Block 135 Early would be representative of an F-14A from about 1985-~1995. The TCS was introduced in 1981 to the fleet after testing in the 1970s through ACEVAL/AIMVAL, so it pre-dates even the earliest Block 135 Tomcat; this doesn't mean it was always installed, always up, always needed, etc. so yes, there are plenty of pictures of F-14s with bullet fairings installed after the mid-1980s, but unless it was broken, unneeded, not enough available, etc., it would have been standard equipment by the time the 135 was around.

[WolfHound009]

6 minutes ago, Quid said:

The Block 135 should not be representative of the F-14 in the late 1970s/early 1980s because the first Block 135s were not delivered until April 1985, and the last March 1986.  Based on its feature list, the Block 135 Early would be representative of an F-14A from about 1985-~1995. The TCS was introduced in 1981 to the fleet after testing in the 1970s through ACEVAL/AIMVAL, so it pre-dates even the earliest Block 135 Tomcat; this doesn't mean it was always installed, always up, always needed, etc. so yes, there are plenty of pictures of F-14s with bullet fairings installed after the mid-1980s, but unless it was broken, unneeded, not enough available, etc., it would have been standard equipment by the time the 135 was around.

Ah ok, my bad. Thanks for the clarification!