Difference between A GR 135 Early and Late?

[Southernbear]

On 5/11/2021 at 4:09 AM, Naquaii said:

 

There was a later upgrade that replaced the old mechanical gyro with a new ring laser gyro called EGI and a CDNU that interfaced it and the old navigational system, that also added a GPS.

So like, hypothetically, if someone would be able to get some of the documents using an FOI, would you see Heatblur act on them in the coming years? speficially something like NAVAIR 01−F14AAD−1A which has most of the extra stuff you'd need aside from the IRST since parts of it is used in the Leigon Pod and F-35 IRST and such expect it to be redacted. 

[LanceCriminal86]

22 minutes ago, Southernbear said:

So like, hypothetically, if someone would be able to get some of the documents using an FOI, would you see Heatblur act on them in the coming years? speficially something like NAVAIR 01−F14AAD−1A which has most of the extra stuff you'd need aside from the IRST since parts of it is used in the Leigon Pod and F-35 IRST and such expect it to be redacted. 

 

Unfortunately I have a feeling the answer is that either the documents themselves can't be found, or the Navy is keeping a close hold and not even wanting to do redacted versions of them.

 

It would be nice to somehow request just the PTID's info from the various manuals and training courses but again, docs either shredded or locked away. You also have to consider where the info goes after the FOIA, they may have concerns about any of the info, even if declassified, being put into a sim owned by a non-US entity.

[Southernbear]

Well the document has been found in the archive and is currently being evaluated with exact instructions to remove or redact information AN/AAS−42 Infrared Search and Track System. That being the last remaining bit of tech that isn't actually declassified because it became the legion pod. Its just when NAVAIR 01−F14AAD−1 was released that stuff was secret so they created the A document. 

[Naquaii]

What's needed really is the 1A for the later F-14B(U). Would be nice if someone could get a hold of it but I suspect that a lot of the information regarding the AIM-54C will remain classified as well.

 

Availability of the data is one thing however, implementation of it another. I can't really speak for Heatblur in this regard but what were talking about here, i.e. an F-14B(U) with the Sparrowhawk HUD, CDNU, EGI and PTID etc would still be a lot of work so not a given even if we would like to do it.

[Rinz1er]

7 hours ago, Southernbear said:

Well the document has been found in the archive and is currently being evaluated with exact instructions to remove or redact information AN/AAS−42 Infrared Search and Track System. That being the last remaining bit of tech that isn't actually declassified because it became the legion pod. Its just when NAVAIR 01−F14AAD−1 was released that stuff was secret so they created the A document. 

Curious, where is the document?

Edit: oh you said above through an FOI request

Edited May 12, 2021 by Rinz1er

[WolfHound009]

is there any chance that u guys will maybe implement the F-14A IRST from like 1974 as like a visual option ? 

[AH_Solid_Snake]

 

8 hours ago, Southernbear said:

Well the document has been found in the archive and is currently being evaluated with exact instructions to remove or redact information AN/AAS−42 Infrared Search and Track System. That being the last remaining bit of tech that isn't actually declassified because it became the legion pod. Its just when NAVAIR 01−F14AAD−1 was released that stuff was secret so they created the A document. 

Once that document has been made available with any required redactions is it free to distribute? Can you share with the rest of us?

[uhntissbaby111]

On 5/11/2021 at 12:11 AM, Victory205 said:

BTW, because of the limitations of a desktop sim, controllers, refresh rates, etc, all of the DCS modules are probably a little more challenging than they should be to accomplish various tasks.

 

The F14 currently has some quirks in the landing configuration (it’s also too forgiving in some ways). It takes an enormous amount of time to tune the variables, especially in performance. 

 

The entire team is working hard to get it right. Be patient, you can still learn a lot about flying the module as it sits today.

 

Just curious, what are the quirks and ways it’s too forgiving currently? 

[LanceCriminal86]

3 hours ago, WolfHound009 said:

is there any chance that u guys will maybe implement the F-14A IRST from like 1974 as like a visual option ? 

 

I wouldn't hold your breath. Just trying to figure out how to have more than one TCS pod option has already proven a hurdle, and there's already a low chance of us even getting the slightly older Block 95 for the US. I don't think there's any chance of a Block 75 showing up in any form due to having to totally rework even more of the jet.

[WolfHound009]

 
I wouldn't hold your breath. Just trying to figure out how to have more than one TCS pod option has already proven a hurdle, and there's already a low chance of us even getting the slightly older Block 95 for the US. I don't think there's any chance of a Block 75 showing up in any form due to having to totally rework even more of the jet.

Ya fair enough, I guess I could pass the TCS off for the IRST visually cause they do look similar


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[draconus]

On 5/11/2021 at 7:11 AM, Victory205 said:

BTW, because of the limitations of a desktop sim, controllers, refresh rates, etc, all of the DCS modules are probably a little more challenging than they should be to accomplish various tasks.

Did you have a chance to take a ride in VR? What's your opinion on the experience vs reality at least with regards to view perception?

[Victory205]

No VR experience. I have a rig that will run it, just don’t want to add complexity to the mix right now. One part of the focus is on stability interaction in all three axis, as well as thrust response and effects right now.

 

The HUD works far better than it should, it’s way too good. I’ll set up a go fundme where you can bribe me to stop lobbying to make it worse.

 

I’d like to see DCS put an IFOLS setup on land in each map for field FCLPs. It would help you get a feel for the aircraft with some depth perception before heading over water where there is a dearth of references.

Edited May 14, 2021 by Victory205

[uhntissbaby111]

23 minutes ago, Victory205 said:

The HUD works far better than it should, it’s way too good. I’ll set up a go fundme where you can bribe me to stop lobbying to make it worse.

Keep lobbying! Let’s get it as accurate as possible. If the HUD was worse in real life, then so be it. I took your advice and do my Case 1’s with the HUD off. Now if I try having it on I find that it does nothing but distract me 

[WolfHound009]

No VR experience. I have a rig that will run it, just don’t want to add complexity to the mix right now. One part of the focus is on stability interaction in all three axis, as well as thrust response and effects right now.
 
The HUD works far better than it should, it’s way too good. I’ll set up a go fundme where you can bribe me to stop lobbying to make it worse.
 
I’d really like to see DCS put an IFOLS setup on land in each map for field FCLPs. It would help you get a feel for the aircraft with some depth perception before heading over water where there is a dearth of references.

Out of curiosity, what would happen if the IFOLS happened to break or malfunction while the carrier was at sea ? Was there a backup?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Nexus-6]

On 5/10/2021 at 5:13 PM, Victory205 said:

Are you boys pilots or Trainspotters™? 

 

Load up the sim and go kill something. Your victim won’t care if you had the correct bumps on your fuselage while he’s drifting down in his chute.

Got a healthy laugh when I read this.  Mostly because of my own ignorance.  Heatblur could have gotten nearly everything wrong with their external modeling and I wouldn't have had a clue.  Sure, I can tell the difference between an early run of F-14As and the later ones because of that fairing under the nose and how it changed over time.  But the minutiae of things like gun vents and correct blister placement? Not a chance.

[draconus]

3 hours ago, WolfHound009 said:

Out of curiosity, what would happen if the IFOLS happened to break or malfunction while the carrier was at sea ? Was there a backup?

ACLS, ICLS, voice/radio assisted landings...

[Spiceman]

I can sort of understand why HB wouldn’t want to add the real world pointing/bore sight errors that were ever-present in the hud image... the community at large just wouldn’t appreciate it and constantly complain. But what would be really cool would be to see the bleeding image effects under G that were ever-present. 

[draconus]

What about flight path marker and E bracket being too reliable?

[Victory205]

10 hours ago, WolfHound009 said:

Out of curiosity, what would happen if the IFOLS happened to break or malfunction while the carrier was at sea ? Was there a backup?
 

 

Yes, it’s called “MOVLAS”. A manually controlled system that mimics the lens. It mounts in front of the mirror and is controlled by the LSO. Smaller and more difficult to see. It is used when the ship’s motion is out of the stabilization limits. We liked it because if you followed the LSO’s inputs, you’d get an OK pass. The onus was on paddles.

 

11 hours ago, uhntissbaby111 said:

Keep lobbying! Let’s get it as accurate as possible. If the HUD was worse in real life, then so be it. I took your advice and do my Case 1’s with the HUD off. Now if I try having it on I find that it does nothing but distract me 

 

With a typical shipboard alignment, the landing mode of the HUD jittered and jumped and was useless. The E bracket, the FPM and the VSI were useless for landing. I sort of see leaving the HUD a bit more useful as an offset to the difficulties of flying a desktop sim where the ship, landing area and lens is more difficult to see, seat of the pants is missing, etc. I must be getting genial in my old age…

 

Don’t know what you mean about the “Bleeding Image Effects…”

 

9 hours ago, Nexus-6 said:

Got a healthy laugh when I read this.  Mostly because of my own ignorance.  Heatblur could have gotten nearly everything wrong with their external modeling and I wouldn't have had a clue.  Sure, I can tell the difference between an early run of F-14As and the later ones because of that fairing under the nose and how it changed over time.  But the minutiae of things like gun vents and correct blister placement? Not a chance.

 

There are things that are inaccurate that can’t be addressed because of DCS limits that you all haven’t noticed and probably never will. It’s humorous to see all of the drama about the train spotting™ Items, while the Spotters simultaneously are oblivious to obvious items because there is no way for them to know it’s there.

 

So why not just enjoy what we do have, since the overall experience is pretty damned amazing?

[Bremspropeller]

14 hours ago, Victory205 said:

I’d like to see DCS put an IFOLS setup on land in each map for field FCLPs. It would help you get a feel for the aircraft with some depth perception before heading over water where there is a dearth of references.

 

That really is a great idea!

 

They could make it a mobile unit, like the mobile TACAN.

Or they coul make it a checkbox for each airfield to activate the overlay for checked runways.

[Spiceman]

On 5/14/2021 at 10:22 AM, Victory205 said:

Don’t know what you mean about the “Bleeding Image Effects…”

One of the more common VDI gripes we’d get in IWT was for distorted hud symbology in the form of burrs that would appear at the end of lines, where the electron gun was late in blanking as it moved to the next symbol. I’m guessing from your response it might not have been as common as I remember. 

[ustio]

On 5/10/2021 at 10:36 PM, Naquaii said:

As for the LANTIRN with the fishbowl we always knew it was an experimental thing that did not see extended fleet usage but we are quite sure that's how it was tested at first even if it was later decided that it wasn't really good enough to display it and thus later relegated to PTID birds. So a loophole? Not necessarily, but the decision was between not including LANTIRN or including it in a version that did exist, if only very briefly.

 

 

 

 

sorry to bring old topic but this makes me curious. Can the Lantirn without PTID and CDNU update slave to a waypoint from the INS when you press QWEP +\- IRL or is it just one of those compromise that you have to make because you cant make the PTID

Edited September 5, 2021 by ustio

[Naquaii]

11 minutes ago, ustio said:

 

sorry to bring old topic but this makes me curious. Can the Lantirn with pout PTID and CDNU update slave to a waypoint from the INS when you press QWEP +\- IRL or is it just one of those compromise that you have to make because you cant make the PTID

 

As far as we know it was able to load the waypoints from the WCS.