The Legit Discussion for the D Model Tomcat

[RustBelt]

 

While you may be hard pressed to refer to DCS as a simulator, I think the US military may disagree. Sorry, it's not F-14 related, but this discussion seems to have veered away anyways.

 

They call it a "Trainer" not a Simulator.

[RustBelt]

Question: did some of the B model get the upgraded HUD from the D? Or was that a D model only thing.

 

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

 

 

No the B got an upgraded hud called the Sparrow Hawk, the D was a diffrent HUD I believe.

[Northstar98]

2) DCS in the very end, is still a game, why so? in my opinion, you need a certain reputable level of endorsement from many departments to even qualify it as a actual simulator software. However, in the games's market, it doesnt take much to call a game a "simulator"... for that matter, many flight related games have been classified and regarded as a "simulator"... heck even goat simulator is a "simulator"... to keep things simple, i just treat DCS as a game... also, it pisses alot of arm-chair pilots (like skysurfer) off which really makes my day.

 

Yeah, DCS is a game, but it's a game that's supposed to "offer the most authentic and realistic simulation of military aircraft, tanks, ground vehicles and ships possible." Now we can go on all day long about how well DCS in its current state achieves that. But my main point is why do people have this idea that because DCS is a game, it should necessarily be unrealistic and go against the own stated goals of developers?

 

This whole simulator vs game thing is irrelevant - the focal goal and design of DCS is to be realistic, whether you want to call it a video game or whatever.

 

No the B got an upgraded hud called the Sparrow Hawk, the D was a diffrent HUD I believe.

 

Pretty sure the D HUD was Sparrowhawk.

 

[draconus]

Pretty sure the D HUD was Sparrowhawk.

 

Uhm, no, Kaiser AN/AVG-12 HUD.

 

To remind people: our simulator is a sub-genre of video games. It does not need to be at any level to be called simulator although it does for a study sim label. However you look at it or call it, you can use real life manuals to operate the aircraft and fly in life like areas specifically based on real places, obeying real life forces and physic laws (within limits). Mind you even 30-year old 8-bit sims were simulators because that's what they did and were designed for. And in those times military sims were not much better either.

 

AI F-14D is totally possible now with minimal effort taken to consider the radar limitations, IRST sensor simulation and minor model adjustments. No AI full-fidelity aerodynamics are modeled atm in DCS. Our PCs' processing power is not at that level yet.

Edited November 24, 2020 by draconus

[Northstar98]

 

Uhm, no, Kaiser AN/AVG-12 HUD.

 

Cannot find anything whatsoever on the AN/AVG-12 but if you say so. There's stuff on the Sparrowhawk for later Bs, but found absolutely nothing on the AVG-12 on the D

 

EDIT: Found this but from the rest of the description it sounds like they're talking about earlier Tomcats (they mention the VDI and HSD), earlier RWR...

[Swordsman422]

From an article in Aviation Weekly about the Sparrowhawk HUD upgrade for the F-14B:

 

"On top of all this, the system had to be more reliable, more maintainable and, in the case of the HUD, surpass the performance of the more sophisticated HUD in the F-14D, which was built by Kaiser Electronics. Reliability was key. Specifically, mean time between maintenance actions (MTBMA) had to be improved over the current rate of 50 hours, and the program goal is to reach at least 750 hours MTBMA."

 

https://www.aviationtoday.com/2003/11/01/new-hud-for-the-tomcat/

[Greekbull]

Instead of the D(don't get me wrong would love to see it but as stated throughout it doesn't look like it will be possible with current classification issues) I would love to see a fully evolved B model with the Sparrowhawk HUD and PTIDS in the back.

[draconus]

Instead of the D(don't get me wrong would love to see it but as stated throughout it doesn't look like it will be possible with current classification issues) I would love to see a fully evolved B model with the Sparrowhawk HUD and PTIDS in the back.

 

No way, for the same reasons.

https://forums.eagle.ru/forum/english/licensed-third-party-projects/heatblur-simulations/7135407-the-legit-discussion-for-the-d-model-tomcat?p=7148154#post7148154

[CheckGear]

 

You do realize that no Air Wing flew with mixed bag tomcat squadrons? F-14D's didn't serve in an Air Wing with -A's or -B's. There were only 4 Fleet F-14D squadrons and one of those reverted back to the F-14B. And what would flying alongside an F-14D really accomplish besides more request for it?

 

You do realize I never said such a thing? Find me where I said that - you can't, because I didn't. All I said was, you can fly alongside an F-14D, most likely in an F/A-18C, since those two planes certainly flew alongside one another.

 

As far as accurate liveries, that's not happening any time soon. A -B with -D markings doesn't make it so. And getting accurate air wings together with what we have now is a no-go. I mean, we have an E-2D AI but that platform was not online when the Tomcat was. So there's that! We also need an AI Prowler and SH-3H Sea Kings. The S-3 AI could use an overhaul as well.

 

I never said we should use D- markings with B- airframes. Where are you getting this from? And I realize it's not easy to make hyper-accurate air wings based on what's currently available, but we can get close to it. That's what DCS is all about - get close to real-life as possible.

 

The AI A-6 serves purpose as a tanker and compliments that era along with the Forrestal class. As far as AI F-14's, I think its pretty much covered.

 

The A-6 served into the late-'90s, so it's not just a period piece.

 

I'm starting wonder what's up with all the chub for the F-14D! Historians may look back on this and think some people had a freaky thing going on with it! I love the Tomcat to but wow!

 

All I did was offer a compromise. You can be part of the solution or a part of the problem. Take your pick.

 

[Jackjack171]

 

You do realize I never said such a thing? Find me where I said that - you can't, because I didn't. All I said was, you can fly alongside an F-14D, most likely in an F/A-18C, since those two planes certainly flew alongside one another.

 

 

 

I never said we should use D- markings with B- airframes. Where are you getting this from? And I realize it's not easy to make hyper-accurate air wings based on what's currently available, but we can get close to it. That's what DCS is all about - get close to real-life as possible.

 

 

 

The A-6 served into the late-'90s, so it's not just a period piece.

 

 

 

All I did was offer a compromise. You can be part of the solution or a part of the problem. Take your pick.

 

Don't get all bent out of shape! I only added and subtracted or at the very least, set you on a different thinking path. I also never stated that you said anything (notice the ? mark)! If that is a source of discomfort for you, I apologize. Btw, this isn't war! Your "part of the solution/problem comment was well, let me just say, it's not that serious! There is no problem. But yours wasn't a solution either! You even managed to ignore the humor in my post! My last quoted line by you was born out of all the conversations (ad nauseum) about the F-14D and not necessarily aimed at you!

 

C'mon bro! I'll admit, I'm a bit blunt. But seriously, for conversations sake, don't assume anything is an attack on you because it's not. I love this stuff just like you do. We are both just contributors to the conversation is all!

 

 

[CheckGear]

 

Don't get all bent out of shape! I only added and subtracted or at the very least, set you on a different thinking path. I also never stated that you said anything (notice the ? mark)! If that is a source of discomfort for you, I apologize. Btw, this isn't war! Your "part of the solution/problem comment was well, let me just say, it's not that serious! There is no problem. But yours wasn't a solution either! You even managed to ignore the humor in my post! My last quoted line by you was born out of all the conversations (ad nauseum) about the F-14D and not necessarily aimed at you!

 

C'mon bro! I'll admit, I'm a bit blunt. But seriously, for conversations sake, don't assume anything is an attack on you because it's not. I love this stuff just like you do. We are both just contributors to the conversation is all!

 

 

YOU need to quit getting all bent out of shape. Don't start throwing shade and getting snarky and be surprised when the same comes your way. And now that everything you said got refuted, you're just trying to save face now.

[Jackjack171]

 

YOU need to quit getting all bent out of shape. Don't start throwing shade and getting snarky and be surprised when the same comes your way. And now that everything you said got refuted, you're just trying to save face now.

 

 

Nothing I said got refuted. You should really look the word up BEFORE you use it mate. The problem at hand is that you didn't like what I said and it somehow got under your skin. That's what we call in the Navy a "you" problem!

 

Take it however you want to take it bro! I even told you that I wasn't attacking you. I guess you managed to miss that part too along with the humor. Should I put it in bold caps for you? Try this on for size. Your F-14D compromise idea was about as ill-informed and as useless as ever.

 

Save face? That's how you took it? I don't need to! Lol I tried being the bigger man (notice the apology) but since it seems that you are VERY SENSITIVE, I'll leave you be.

 

If you want to have a grown man conversation, I'm here for you bro!:thumbup:​

[Buzzles]

 

YOU need to quit getting all bent out of shape. Don't start throwing shade and getting snarky and be surprised when the same comes your way. And now that everything you said got refuted, you're just trying to save face now.

 

 

Nothing I said got refuted. You should really look the word up BEFORE you use it mate. The problem at hand is that you didn't like what I said and it somehow got under your skin. That's what we call in the Navy a "you" problem!

 

Take it however you want to take it bro! I even told you that I wasn't attacking you. I guess you managed to miss that part too along with the humor. Should I put it in bold caps for you? Try this on for size. Your F-14D compromise idea was about as ill-informed and as useless as ever.

 

Save face? That's how you took it? I don't need to! Lol I tried being the bigger man (notice the apology) but since it seems that you are VERY SENSITIVE, I'll leave you be.

 

If you want to have a grown man conversation, I'm here for you bro!:thumbup:​

He's clearly got under your skin, not that you've got under his, judging from the tone of your reply.

[CheckGear]

 

 

Nothing I said got refuted. You should really look the word up BEFORE you use it mate. The problem at hand is that you didn't like what I said and it somehow got under your skin. That's what we call in the Navy a "you" problem!

 

Take it however you want to take it bro! I even told you that I wasn't attacking you. I guess you managed to miss that part too along with the humor. Should I put it in bold caps for you? Try this on for size. Your F-14D compromise idea was about as ill-informed and as useless as ever.

 

Save face? That's how you took it? I don't need to! Lol I tried being the bigger man (notice the apology) but since it seems that you are VERY SENSITIVE, I'll leave you be.

 

If you want to have a grown man conversation, I'm here for you bro!:thumbup:​

 

Your reply had no basis in anything I actually said. I pointed that out, that sounds like a refutation.

 

Go have your "grown man" conversation somewhere else, preferably where people tell you exactly what you want to hear.

[Jackjack171]

 

YOU need to quit getting all bent out of shape. Don't start throwing shade and getting snarky and be surprised when the same comes your way. And now that everything you said got refuted, you're just trying to save face now.

 

 

Nothing I said got refuted. You should really look the word up BEFORE you use it mate. The problem at hand is that you didn't like what I said and it somehow got under your skin. That's what we call in the Navy a "you" problem!

 

Take it however you want to take it bro! I even told you that I wasn't attacking you. I guess you managed to miss that part too along with the humor. Should I put it in bold caps for you? Try this on for size. Your F-14D compromise idea was about as ill-informed and as useless as ever.

 

Save face? That's how you took it? I don't need to! Lol I tried being the bigger man (notice the apology) but since it seems that you are VERY SENSITIVE, I'll leave you be.

 

If you want to have a grown man conversation, I'm here for you bro!:thumbup:​

Yeah if you say so!

[Jackjack171]

 

Your reply had no basis in anything I actually said. I pointed that out, that sounds like a refutation.

 

Go have your "grown man" conversation somewhere else, preferably where people tell you exactly what you want to hear.

 

Well that was a real manly comment. I almost expected that given the fact that I gave you an apology to which you were really not owed and totally ignored. My contribution to de-escalation failed! Like I said, I'm here for you. We can go in any direction that makes you feel better! You are one of those that hates to be challenged. It's cool! Just don't be so sensitive about it. Don't post in forums if you don't like what others have to say.

 

And anyone can deny some stuff, that doesn't make it right! There's also that lovely part about proof IRT refuting anything!

 

The thing is, what I said was valid IRT the F-14. I didn't make it up! Your idea of AI F-14D's was/is a pipe dream that, while noble, had no direction other than to serve up more request for it. There's a difference mate!

 

Take it light, but take it!

 

 

 

[Jagohu]

It would be nice to have the F-14D at least as an AI aircraft with all the stores it could carry. It would be one small step ahead and probably it'd need no systems modeling.

[Northstar98]

It would be nice to have the F-14D at least as an AI aircraft with all the stores it could carry. It would be one small step ahead and probably it'd need no systems modeling.

 

What's the real difference in payload? GBU-38 & -31?

 

The only other thing I'll say is that Heatblur still have 2 AI aircraft to finish, and while the shots of the A-6E (TRAM (?)) look fantastic I don't think we've heard about the Draken in ages.

[Jagohu]

 

What's the real difference in payload? GBU-38 & -31?

 

The only other thing I'll say is that Heatblur still have 2 AI aircraft to finish, and while the shots of the A-6E (TRAM (?)) look fantastic I don't think we've heard about the Draken in ages.

 

Yep + TARPS, IRST as far as I know. Of course the A-6, EA-6B would be very welcome too :)

[TLTeo]

TARPS was a thing since the 80s, it's not a -D model only feature. In terms of payload yes, the only difference is carrying JDAM.

[RustBelt]

 

What's the real difference in payload? GBU-38 & -31?

 

The only other thing I'll say is that Heatblur still have 2 AI aircraft to finish, and while the shots of the A-6E (TRAM (?)) look fantastic I don't think we've heard about the Draken in ages.

 

And the damn Forrestal carrier that's now easily a year late.

[KL0083]

Just wanna to say, may not be at the near future, but still looking forward to see one day when this can be at our control !

 

=    ω=. 

[Slant]

On 11/24/2020 at 9:36 AM, RustBelt said:

 

No the B got an upgraded hud called the Sparrow Hawk, the D was a diffrent HUD I believe.

 

the -D NATOPS shows the Sparrowhawk HUD in its illustrations. Or at least it looks like it might be. *shrug*

Edited December 10, 2020 by Slant

[Quid]

On 12/10/2020 at 9:19 AM, Slant said:

 

the -D NATOPS shows the Sparrowhawk HUD in its illustrations. Or at least it looks like it might be. *shrug*

 

No, that's the Kaiser AN/AVG-12.  Only the B had the SparrowHawk.  I think there's confusion because both are modern HUDs in F-14s, but the B's is actually even newer with a wider field of view than the D's.

[Slant]

On 12/11/2020 at 6:10 PM, Quid said:

No, that's the Kaiser AN/AVG-12.  Only the B had the SparrowHawk.  I think there's confusion because both are modern HUDs in F-14s, but the B's is actually even newer with a wider field of view than the D's.

 

Out of curiousity, could you provide me with a sample hud pic for each? I'm very confused about this topic.