Patch Nov 18th - F-14A release - Feedback Thread

[captain_dalan]

I would like to mention power and fuel flow. One of the first things I noticed with the F-14A is that I need to re-learn my baseline fuel flow settings and that they change opposite to what I expected. My baseline starting-point FF for the overhead break with the F-14B is 4000 lb/h for 350 kts with the wings swept aft. But in the F-14A a fuel flow of 4000 lb/h yields 550 kts in the overhead at the same weight. I have also the impression that the F-14A cruises extremely well with fuel flows down to 1500 lb/h and in the groove you are almost down to idle, especially with DLC disengaged.

 

Is the is characteristic of the TF30 that is to be expected or is there something off?

 

The TF-30's were supposedly very good for loitering, probably a result of them being medium bypass turbofans.

 

Was playing Refected's Final Countdown mission and admiring the early Jolly Rogers livery and noticed the wingman maintaining same speed had his nozzles wide open while mine were almost closed (about 350 knots at 22k or so), with no burners lit.

 

The AI doesn't follow the same rues as the player aircraft (for good or for bad). This extends for both the laws of physics and aircraft systems.

[r4y30n]

I would like to mention power and fuel flow. One of the first things I noticed with the F-14A is that I need to re-learn my baseline fuel flow settings and that they change opposite to what I expected. My baseline starting-point FF for the overhead break with the F-14B is 4000 lb/h for 350 kts with the wings swept aft. But in the F-14A a fuel flow of 4000 lb/h yields 550 kts in the overhead at the same weight. I have also the impression that the F-14A cruises extremely well with fuel flows down to 1500 lb/h and in the groove you are almost down to idle, especially with DLC disengaged.

 

Is the is characteristic of the TF30 that is to be expected or is there something off?

 

I've heard arguments both ways in comparing fuel flow of the TF30 to the F110. In RADM Gilchrist's book "Tomcat! The Grumman F-14 Story" he mentions that he was shocked how low the fuel flow was on his first cross country trip in an A. Later, when discussing the B, he said fleet reports were that the B saved a lot of fuel when launching by staying out of burner but fuel flow was a little higher than the TF30 in cruise so over the course of a mission there wasn't really much improvement. Other sources claim significantly better mileage out of the F110, so who knows... I can say that the lower SFC of the F110 is likely correct and also misleading since the engine makes so much more thrust.

[Flash_111]

Made my own thread about this, but I'll put the feedback here as well for visibility's sake:

 

3 little things about the F-14A I noticed that may be worth looking into:

 

First- based on reference materials, if the jet is on a dry paved surface, the brakes should be able to hold the jet in place with both engines in zone 2 afterburner (See NATOPS 7.4.7.3 Shore Procedures - Afterburner Takeoff). Seems like the brakes currently begin to give out around 90 percent RPM. I have tried with Anti-Skid on and off. Even in the B model it seemed like the brakes would give out early at around 85 percent RPM (B pubs say to perform engine checks during static runup at 90).

 

Second- AB lightoff is staggered. This is an issue that was present in the B as well- AB very rarely, if ever, lights off and stages simultaneously. The result is a very jarring yaw moment in the direction of the delayed engine. I have never flown the aircraft myself, but the large amount of footage I have watched suggests that AB lightoff is effectively simultaneous between engines (both the GE and PW). This is not a control issue on my end- I have observed the behavior on both split and single throttle setups. I'd be happy to defer to SME input on this issue as it's not a major problem. If it's accurate behavior, maybe it (and brake behavior during run-up) would be a good candidate for a special options menu toggle.

 

Third- There seems to be some kind of engine or drag issue in the M 1.1-1.2 range making the transonic to supersonic transition in level flight extremely difficult, even in a clean jet. If a dive is utilized to exceed ~M1.3, the aircraft can be leveled off and will continue to accelerate (to comical speeds, depending on your altitude). Again, no first hand knowledge here- but I assume that a 4th gen interceptor should be able to attain supersonic speeds in level flight- especially in low drag or empty store configurations. As before, I'd be happy to defer to SME guidance on this.

[Whiskey11]

A couple of my observations.

 

1.) Overall, LOVING my Sundowners F-14A with the Pilot LANTIRN mod and moving dirt. Also loving the added challenge of dogfighting in the F-14A. It certainly does NOT retain energy or GAIN energy like the F-14B does, but it seems to do fine when you unload it going down hill. Overall, enjoyable! Looking to mess around with it more.

 

2.) Visually, I think you guys have done a beautiful job on both the -B and -A. My biggest gripe with the -A is the FS9 level of detail when looking straight down the engines from behind. I know you've said you don't intend on doing much modelling here, but having a flat 2D texture on the back makes taking pictures in anything but AB a no-go on the -A. I didn't pay much attention to see if there was any more detail in the -B... I thought there was.

 

3.) The Mach 1.0-1.2 wall is annoying and I can't wait for your fix! :) The biggest issue here is I have the dreaded "you've reached Mach 1.1, enjoy your sudden engine explosion" bug. The first time it happened I was able to land the bird at Sochi... the second time, not so lucky. I haven't yeeted my fanblades through the engine nacelles any other way though, so that's good! The TF30 myths remind me of the flat spin myth. Very difficult to get a TF30 to explode and just as difficult to unintentionally enter a flat spin in the tomcat.

 

4.) I haven't had any issues with weapon deployments per se, but what I DID have an issue with is related to Jester and the radar.

 

Specifically, I was at about 10k feet climbing to a pair of SU-27's at 27k feet and about 60nmi ahead. At 40nmi, we were co-altitude and Jester was still blind. We were closing on each other at extremely high speed. At 15nmi, I boresight launched both my AIM-54C's and they both tracked one of them. I COULD NOT PLM, VSL LO, VSL Hi, or PAL the second SU-27 AT ALL. The radar was entirely AWOL and Jester equally useless. I had just taken off from the Super Carrier after an uneventful sortie and had rearmed/refueled. I also couldn't deploy flares for some reason until after I fired the first AIM-54. I don't have a track handy sadly and I haven't been able to replicate it since.

 

5.) I've noticed the YAW string and the side slip indicator/turn coordination ball don't match up all the time. Example: I've made a turn, say a left hand turn, and see the "need" to input right rudder on the coordinator while turning left (which is counter intuitive) and then looking at the YAW string which is say yeah you are good or needing more LEFT rudder, gets confusing for someone like me with no actual flight experience. I guess what I'm saying is the YAW string matches what I think the aircraft actually needs from an intuitive standpoint whereas the turn coordination ball will occasionally show the need for OPPOSITE rudder (right rudder in a left turn). FWIW, I've observed this behavior in other more "manual" aircraft like the MiG-21Bis and the F-5E, so I'm guessing it's real behavior... it just feels odd to see that from a device intended to help coordinate turns.

[Skysurfer]

I second that the transsonic drag issue is probably the most annoying one with this release and should be hotfixed ASAP. Really putting me off from flying the cat if I'm gonna be honest. Especially after so much praise and comments from the SME's and devs.

[Blinde]

I second that the transsonic drag issue is probably the most annoying one with this release and should be hotfixed ASAP. Really putting me off from flying the cat if I'm gonna be honest. Especially after so much praise and comments from the SME's and devs.

It's one those things that really makes you wonder how those issues are let through at the first place. No one noticed at testing that there are serious issues with the performance? :dunno:

[Skysurfer]

It's one those things that really makes you wonder how those issues are let through at the first place. No one noticed at testing that there are serious issues with the performance? :dunno:

 

Because ED and apparently HB like to push new code up until the last moment. So much for the week of testing a release build...

 

Feels like a massive step back in FM considering the last build was performing pretty much according to all the available perf. charts.

[IronMike]

It's one those things that really makes you wonder how those issues are let through at the first place. No one noticed at testing that there are serious issues with the performance? :dunno:

 

Nope, no one noticed it. That's nothing unusual. We don't test only before releases btw, we develop and test around the clock and on the fly if you like. The ED patches are rather counterproductive for us in that sense, because we make sometimes 2 to 3 different builds a day. Look at how long that changelog is. Add to all of that all the standard items that need testing. Then, when we do our test fly ins, we focus on stuff that requires multiple testers. Then, when ppl test stalls, they pull Gs and fly slow, and so on and so forth. It is very easy to overlook something, unless you could afford paid testers who work full time, which ofc no one can.

 

This is btw the point where I'd like to thank our testers for their continued and restless efforts to help improve the product - on a voluntary basis. Without them, a lot more would be wrong... And we cannot thank them enough. In addition, I would like to extend my thanks also to all ED testers. All of you, who work for free, to make DCS better: you are true simming-heroes in my book. Thank you - we shall never forget what you have done for all of us.

 

For us the best would be to release a patch whenever stuff is ready, if necessary twice a day or three times a week or not all until something is finished and so on. Like it is practice throughout most of the gaming industry. Then you can have also a more focused testing approach, without everyone scrambling to test "everything" within the last couple days, which of course is never possible. But DCS, in that it has to accommodate synced versions, etc between many developers, needs a bit of a different approach. Because it forces always at least 2 parties to patch, and sometimes everyone involved, etc... So we end up with patches spread out further and changelogs that can become very large and make it easy for items to be overlooked.

 

And ofc, when performance was being tested, it was fine. A change in transsonic drag, that should not have affected the rest of the performance, in the end did. We don't know stuff like that in advance. But nothing warranted at the time to retest performance, as it had been ticked off as accurate and did not get changed anymore. Then we had to find out that it did change, much to our disappointment as yours.

 

Murphy's law or so... Sometimes things just dont go as planned, despite your very best efforts.

Edited November 21, 2020 by IronMike

[Turkey_Baster]

I also want to chime in regarding the flight behavior of the F14A flight model vs the B, especially at low power settings in subsonic flight. When doing the landing pattern with my lead (live person, not AI). I can't for the life of me stay in formation, particularly when descending when my lead is at idle and so am I. I always surge ahead, he can even push up the throttle to 3000 PPH Fuel flow and I still pass him repeatedly. (Both aircraft have the same fuel state and stores/wing sweep auto etc..) I will speed brake, start slowing down but once I retract it, I will start to shoot past him again. Even if I am in a lower throttle setting. 'In the B its silky smooth.

 

Its also much harder to keep in position while in formation at any speed. I'm used to the nose in the B dropping and raising when moving the throttle. The A doesn't seem to do this. I also find it really likes to coast and won't react as suddenly to the power settings as the B does. This is especially apparent like another member mentioned when doing the overheard break at the boat. It does not want to slow down without engaging the speed brake. I tried a SHB at 600 KIAS and by the time I was in the groove, I wasn't anywhere close to On Speed. With the B its perfect. I'm not an aeronautical engineer but with the engines at idle shouldn't both airframes slow down at a similar rate when banking at 60 Degrees and pulling back on the stick?

 

I look forward to the continued refinement of the Heatblur F14, I just wanted to add what I have been experiencing. I can't thank both Heatblur and the SME's enough for creating something that is truly special. I have had 30+ people try your product out in VR in my Simpit and everybody was astounded at what you guys have created. Both my Brothers and I fly online together and we only fly the F14.

 

Thanks for giving us something we didn't know we needed in our lives.

 

Justin

[IronMike]

I also want to chime in regarding the flight behavior of the F14A flight model vs the B, especially at low power settings in subsonic flight. When doing the landing pattern with my lead (live person, not AI). I can't for the life of me stay in formation, particularly when descending when my lead is at idle and so am I. I always surge ahead, he can even push up the throttle to 3000 PPH Fuel flow and I still pass him repeatedly. (Both aircraft have the same fuel state and stores/wing sweep auto etc..) I will speed brake, start slowing down but once I retract it, I will start to shoot past him again. Even if I am in a lower throttle setting. 'In the B its silky smooth.

 

Its also much harder to keep in position while in formation at any speed. I'm used to the nose in the B dropping and raising when moving the throttle. The A doesn't seem to do this. I also find it really likes to coast and won't react as suddenly to the power settings as the B does. This is especially apparent like another member mentioned when doing the overheard break at the boat. It does not want to slow down without engaging the speed brake. I tried a SHB at 600 KIAS and by the time I was in the groove, I wasn't anywhere close to On Speed. With the B its perfect. I'm not an aeronautical engineer but with the engines at idle shouldn't both airframes slow down at a similar rate when banking at 60 Degrees and pulling back on the stick?

 

I look forward to the continued refinement of the Heatblur F14, I just wanted to add what I have been experiencing. I can't thank both Heatblur and the SME's enough for creating something that is truly special. I have had 30+ people try your product out in VR in my Simpit and everybody was astounded at what you guys have created. Both my Brothers and I fly online together and we only fly the F14.

 

Thanks for giving us something we didn't know we needed in our lives.

 

Justin

 

The A is lighter than the B, the engines spool slower... it doesn't strike me as odd or wrong what you report. It just require a bit more ahead thinking when in formation, or for example needs more Gs in a SHB, etc..

[Turkey_Baster]

The A is lighter than the B, the engines spool slower... it doesn't strike me as odd or wrong what you report. It just require a bit more ahead thinking when in formation, or for example needs more Gs in a SHB, etc..

 

Mike,

 

Surely 2 identically configured F14A’s should fly at roughly the same speed with minor throttle corrections to maintain a formation rather than the wingman always needing to hit the speed brake to keep from surging ahead when both are at idle?

 

The B does this without issue. The A doesn’t, in my experience. Anyone else having issues keeping the A in formation with another Human controlled A?

[IronMike]

 

Mike,

 

Surely 2 identically configured F14A’s should fly at roughly the same speed with minor throttle corrections to maintain a formation rather than the wingman always needing to hit the speed brake to keep from surging ahead when both are at idle?

 

The B does this without issue. The A doesn’t, in my experience. Anyone else having issues keeping the A in formation with another Human controlled A?

 

If they are identical, and you cannot keep up with your lead, or keep overshooting the lead, then that's not the aircraft, but the lead not giving you enough throttle advantage either below his high or above his low setting. The lead flying at full idle with a wingman in a descent is a mistake also in the B. Even if the B seems to hold you better in place if you hit idle at the same time - the F110s just respond so much quicker that you're getting lucky not to overshoot. But full idle with a wingman is poor leading - in any aircraft. Double that in an aircraft with slow responding engines and that is known to decelerate rather slowly. It would be a mistake flying level, let alone in a descent.

Edited November 21, 2020 by IronMike

[mattag08]

HB, something has to be done with the missiles/radar. We are going on a year and a half without any solid resolution to these issues. The F-14 is a fleet defender/interceptor made to engage in air-to-air combat first and foremost. It's not enough to simply keep pawning off this problem on ED. There clearly needs to be increased dialogue between you and them about your module if ED truly is the only source of a solution. It's not acceptable that the F-14 has been incomplete or bugged in air-to-air for its entire release life. While I've historically been your biggest supporter, I'm going to have to stop recommending people purchase the F-14 until it is in an actually finished state. I've heard "the next patch will fix 'X' or the next patch will add 'Y'" since March of 2019 and it has never turned out to be accurate in a year and a half.

[Turkey_Baster]

If they are identical, and you cannot keep up with your lead, or keep overshooting the lead, then that's not the aircraft, but the lead not giving you enough throttle advantage either below his high or above his low setting. The lead flying at full idle with a wingman in a descent is a mistake also in the B. Even if the B seems to hold you better in place if you hit idle at the same time - the F110s just respond so much quicker that you're getting lucky not to overshoot. But full idle with a wingman is poor leading - in any aircraft. Double that in an aircraft with slow responding engines and that is known to decelerate rather slowly. It would be a mistake flying level, let alone in a descent.

 

I’ll tell my lead IronMike says he sucks at formation flying :)

 

Seriously though, thanks for the info.

[IronMike]

 

I’ll tell my lead IronMike says he sucks at formation flying :)

 

Seriously though, thanks for the info.

 

Haha, maybe rather tell him I suggested to make sure he doesnt forget about throttle advantage, especially for lagging enginges. Say, in a rather encouraging manner... :-D

[Harlikwin]

Whats the Aim7 issue? Ive been flying the 14A pvp and IIRC i have gotten a few aim7 hits. I did notice the MH lofts, not sure if thats right.

 

Also not sure how much of a bug it it is, but i got up to like 30k m1.x and then just for fun kicked it full right rudder to see what would happen. Well it was exciting and it departed, i did a cool flat spin, sadly jester did make it. I did see fire out of the left iirc engine, after i recoverd it the weird thing was even fully throttled down there didnt feel like there was no asymetric thrust or yaw. I manged to land it just fine with no real issues from yaw. IDK maybe thats right ask your sme but it seemed wrong to me.

 

oh fire extinguishers didnt work.

[draconus]

Whats the Aim7 issue? Ive been flying the 14A pvp and IIRC i have gotten a few aim7 hits. I did notice the MH lofts, not sure if thats right.

 

Sparrows problems are in PD-STT afaik. My P-STT shots were fine too. And apparently HB got info that MH should loft for the Tomcat too.

[MBot]

Anyone else having issues keeping the A in formation with another Human controlled A?

 

I had the opportunity to lead a flight yesterday and during our descend towards the carrier, we noticed that it is very difficult to slow the F-14A down. Despite me reducing throttle to idle eventually, the plane kept on accelerating and increasing thrust/fuel flow while doing so. We ended up descending at mach 0.9 with the engines each burning 3000 lb/h despite me being in full idle. In fact, moving the throttle in the rear quarter of movement had no impact on fuel flow whatsoever. Of course under these circumstances it was impossible for my wingman to stay in formation.

[Jackjack171]

So, I've noticed that when I trap in the -B, the wire holds me in place until I throttle back. In the -A, the arresting gear spits me out and I have to hit the brakes. Has anyone else seen this?

[MBot]

So, I've noticed that when I trap in the -B, the wire holds me in place until I throttle back. In the -A, the arresting gear spits me out and I have to hit the brakes. Has anyone else seen this?

 

Yes, I get the same. The plane comes to a stop and then immediately rolls forward.

[Nealius]

Seconded. I have to slam the brakes to keep from rolling too far forward.

[Eagle7907]

Transversely compared to the B, if using SC when taxiing over the shuttle for cat launch in the A takes less power.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Harlikwin]

any fixes in the hotfix, I know the patch notes don't always tell the true tale.

[Jackjack171]

Ok. I thought it was me! Hope there's a fix soon. Patiently waiting!

[Rmnsvn]

any fixes in the hotfix, I know the patch notes don't always tell the true tale.

 

Just tried, wouldn't say so. The B still feels like a fat cow in the turns at low speeds.