Feedback Thread F-14 Tomcat - Update 10th March 2023

[IronMike]

1 minute ago, Kula66 said:

I never said it was ... just giving you my feedback as a long standing, and probable future customer

I know, and I appreciate it, but that still does not change the fact that we do not get to decide how the jet really was. It's part of the Tomcat, and these things make the Tomcat and set it apart from other jets, too. Some will like it, some won't, that's just how it is. And because we know you guys, and value your preferences, we try to give you as many options as we can, and when we can. You mentioned the pilot body. The day it arrived, you were able to turn it off... etc. Some things take longer, because it takes more effort or would be premature to offer such an option. You will get it, that's what matters most I think, even if I personally think it should not be optional, but my personal perferences come in a very distant second to yours.

[Jayhawk1971]

I think this whole thing probably needs some time to sink in for many people. I think most grew up with the notion of US military aircraft being these high-techy, pristine, clean affairs with lots of shiny, blinking lights and cool displays (thanks in part to US military glossy PR material enforcing this belief). When in reality, the harsh conditions on a Carrier on deployment, with spare parts being a rare commodity, those Tomcats resembled more Han and Chewy patching up the Millennium Falcon.  

Give it time, people will get used to it once the realism of it all sinks in. In my opinion.

[Wingmate]

2 minutes ago, Despayre said:

Does that option only work in single player?

Yes, my understanding is it only works for aircraft set to player rather than client in the mission editor. Same with the triggered failures.

[Frosty2124]

Just now, Jayhawk1971 said:

I think this whole thing probably needs some time to sink in for many people. I think most grew up with the notion of US military aircraft being these high-techy, pristine, clean affairs with lots of shiny, blinking lights and cool displays (thanks in part to US military glossy PR material enforcing this belief). When in reality, the harsh conditions on a Carrier on deployment, with spare parts being a rare commodity, those Tomcats resembled more Han and Chewy patching up the Millennium Falcon.  

Give it time, people will get used to it once the realism of it all sinks in. In my opinion.

it's not just old stuff, the amount of stuff I've seen inop or speed taped on typhoon will blow your mind

[IronMike]

12 minutes ago, Rifter said:

What I would like to know on the topic of the new forge elements: Were falling off buttons a thing from the very beginning when the Tomcats went into service or did that start to happen when the jets started to age and got rattled apart more and more?

My wife is great fan of the Top Gun movie. When I once showed her the DCS Tomcat cockpit in VR, she said it would look like a scrap heap and said it would totally destroy the whole Top Gun legacy and she refused to believe Tom Cruise sat in such a cockpit. She was especially disgusted by the ‘shabby textile stuff' strapped over the instrument panels and said ‘I don’t want to know whats living underneath of it’.

And now when ever I fly the Tomcat and my wife is around she asks ‘Are you flying with that scrap heap again?’.

 

Very quickly into its service, indeed, and the weathered cockpit as is would have looked like that a couple weeks in, on the boat. This has been confirmed numerous times by maintainers, by Dave "BIO" Baranek, pilot SMEs and others who worked on and in the jet.

You can hear it from the man himself in this video on the timestamp (20:30). BIO btw was a real Top Gun instructor, and was also part of the Top Gun movie.
 

 

[Despayre]

13 minutes ago, Rifter said:

 

And now when ever I fly the Tomcat and my wife is around she asks ‘Are you flying with that scrap heap again?’.

 

This implies that there are times when you fly something else. 

Why would you do that?

[Jayhawk1971]

vor 9 Minuten schrieb Frosty2124:

it's not just old stuff, the amount of stuff I've seen inop or speed taped on typhoon will blow your mind

I believe it. I can easily imagine 6 to 12 months of heavy duty can render even the most techy tech tech stuff into a bucket of improvised patch jobs. Especially considering meager defense budgets (even after the recent "surge" in defense spending).  

I'm really curious how much leeway ground crews get with regards to fixing/ modifying their jets (apart from obvious safety regulations, of course).

Edited March 12, 2023 by Jayhawk1971

[Frosty2124]

4 minutes ago, Jayhawk1971 said:

I believe it. I can easily imagine 6 to 12 months of heavy duty can render even the most techy tech tech stuff into a bucket of improvised patch jobs. Especially considering meager defense budgets (even after the recent "surge" in defense spending).  

I'm really curious how much leeway ground crews get with regards to fixing/ modifying their jets (apart from obvious safety regulations, of course).

 

so from my experience, anything above safety only dictates where the jets are allocated for example, the display jet is likely going to be a <profanity>box, and the sqns will focus on keeping the reliable aircraft mission ready, we had a load of hangar queens across the fleet and they were used as rob jets to facilitate the rest of the fleet.

there were an number of jets where you could reliably tell what was going to be wrong with them, DASS, SMS, FLIR, etc, and they got reputations.

[Despayre]

22 minutes ago, IronMike said:

You mentioned the pilot body. The day it arrived, you were able to turn it off... 

Speaking of which, any idea when it will be off by default again (when button is selected) in MP?

[IronMike]

5 minutes ago, Despayre said:

Speaking of which, any idea when it will be off by default again (when button is selected) in MP?

We're a bit baffled atm why our fix did not work, and it is pretty high on our list to fix it, apologies that it still isn't. Something just doesn't want to play along, and we are trying to find out what. Hopefully in the next patch, fingers crossed.

[Rifter]

19 minutes ago, Despayre said:

This implies that there are times when you fly something else. 

Why would you do that?

When I’m not flying the Tomcat I’m flying the Yak with this livery.
I like well worn stuff…

[Top Jockey]

21 minutes ago, IronMike said:

The decision of what we model, or not, is not up to whether you like it or not. We could just as easily decide not to make it selectable. It's a bonus courtesy that we do so, in light of a bigger picture at the end of FORGE, and we will not waste time on stop-gap measures in the meantime, just because you disapprove of something, which simply was as is depicted. Same goes for the weathered cockpit, etc. This is how it was, and, sorry if you disapprove, but you will have to live with it.

I heard you the first time, you do not like it, and some others don't either. But again, the Tomcat's history and its accurate depiction is not part of a personal wishlist of any of us and does not care about our personal preferences. You may dislike it, you may tell us so repeatedly, but that does not change that it in fact was like that in the jet and that we decided to depict it as such. Thank you for your kind understanding.

...

 

Hello again @IronMike,

I've already shared my 2 cents today regarding the ACM panel wires, metal plates, etc, but I believe this issue does have its share of importance :

 

- i would say Kula66 doesn't necessarily 'disapprove' those "dynamic cockpit patches" ; it is instead a matter of personal preference ;

- preference on an aspect that for many of us is of paramount importance: the F-14 Tomcat's own image, looks ... and obviously this also includes its cockpit architectural style ;

- and for those of us who highly appreciate the many specific and particular details of the F-14 cockpit ... patch wires and metal plates do not exactly favour the 'visual experience', 'eye candy', etc, we highly praise.

( Nothing wrong with them / the feature in itself, it's just that some of us would prefer the option for them not being there all the time. )

 

I fully understand the merits of realism in a flight sim, but it doesn't invalidate some key aspects :

- it is also realistic that the quick repair patches weren't there 100 % of the time of the Tomcat's life ;

- fans who buy modules, don't always buy them merely because of the realism factor ;

- many times they buy them, because they also find a given airframe (and its systems) visually appealing, its combat capabilities, etc.

 

Hence the importance of, like you already mentioned, when 'FORGE' is complete to have an option to not have the cockpit repair patches.

Best regards!

[Wingmate]

Sometimes I wonder if I should be allowed to use photoshop, I had to make the visual pun after reading eye candy. If anyone is wanting to view the new FORGE option in model viewer the argument is 4001. Now if you will excuse me I need to go get some skittles...

[Scotia]

I like the FORGE elements, and plan to keep them random when it's fully released.  Great job, Heatblur!

[grant977]

The scotch tape kills me every time.

[Lionheartwolf]

Well Im glad I came here to check out the patch notes, I haven't played for a few days and I spent the better part of this morning thinking my Tomcat was trying to gaslight me. At first I thought I was in the F-14A and I just forgot what that cockpit looked like.

Can't wait until we have more control over that.

[79Au]

1. I don't like these silly wires at all. I think it ruins the look of the product I purchased years ago.

2. If realism is so important, why don't we get more liveries with more numbers? (more than 4 per squadron) I see a bit of a double standard here. The problem with the numbers remains unadressed since release. Takes a couple seconds to duplicate, increment number, save. That's just lazy.

[Despayre]

33 minutes ago, 79Au said:

1. I don't like these silly wires at all. I think it ruins the look of the product I purchased years ago.

2. If realism is so important, why don't we get more liveries with more numbers? (more than 4 per squadron) I see a bit of a double standard here. The problem with the numbers remains unadressed since release. Takes a couple seconds to duplicate, increment number, save. That's just lazy.

So you don't like the added realism... but you want more added realism?

[lunaticfringe]

18 minutes ago, 79Au said:

1. I don't like these silly wires at all. I think it ruins the look of the product I purchased years ago.

The dynamic cockpit offered by Forge is a promised feature for the product you purchased years ago. Many have been waiting for this, and most are amused and having a good time with it.  The option to turn it off will be made available.  

 

18 minutes ago, 79Au said:

2. If realism is so important, why don't we get more liveries with more numbers? (more than 4 per squadron) I see a bit of a double standard here. The problem with the numbers remains unadressed since release. Takes a couple seconds to duplicate, increment number, save. That's just lazy.

Because for starters, not every livery has the depth of available documentation for more line aircraft with the associated names for canopy rails, maintainers underneath, and various minor adjustments across the airframe- which would set the rivet counter set off given their lack of realism.  These factors exist in a three way fight with the font, kerning, and angle adjustments across the fleet that do not easily permit the institution of dynamic modex. 

And then there's this sort:  
 

 

It's interesting, the number of factors being held in a constant state of tension, all among people who claim to want "realism", but not necessarily deal with the costs of such.  Some days you fly the jet that needs a panel replaced but the COD can't bring one out.  Most days you fly the jet that doesn't have your name on it.  Sometimes realism needs to be countered with the lack of specific visual information, and others it needs to wait for an outsider to make a skin and purchase a new hard drive to carry the load. 

[Kula66]

Given how distracting the green mirror adjusting symbol is, perhaps it may be an idea to limit it to just a small portion of the mirrors rather than the entire area? Also, they appear doubled up in VR.

Many thanks

[Alpiinoo]

FORGE is extremely realistic. I hope more varieties come. Thanks!

[Frosty2124]

57 minutes ago, 79Au said:

1. I don't like these silly wires at all. I think it ruins the look of the product I purchased years ago.

2. If realism is so important, why don't we get more liveries with more numbers? (more than 4 per squadron) I see a bit of a double standard here. The problem with the numbers remains unadressed since release. Takes a couple seconds to duplicate, increment number, save. That's just lazy.

 

 

Maintenance issues and temporary fixes are arguably the meat and potatoes of realism. if we were going further, realistically you'd be rolling a dice every time you started the jet as to whether or not you'd have a 100% capable aircraft, even then you could brick the radar on launch, or have a system go INOP in flight.

as to your points:

1) its random what fix will be mounted if anything, I'm sure that if its that disheartening for you, a well worded letter to HB might result in a refund if you surrender the product although, you are receiving the product you purchased.

2) liveries are the bulk of the file size, as people have already previously said it'd be somewhat prohibitive to include every livery ever. that said if you have the storage the files page on the website will have a multitude of liveries for you to download.

[Despayre]

41 minutes ago, Kula66 said:

Given how distracting the green mirror adjusting symbol is, perhaps it may be an idea to limit it to just a small portion of the mirrors rather than the entire area? Also, they appear doubled up in VR.

Many thanks

I don't have this issue in MT or ST. For me, the adjusting symbols only appear when I move my cursor over the mirrors... but I'm also pancake.

[Callsign JoNay]

1 hour ago, 79Au said:

2. If realism is so important, why don't we get more liveries with more numbers?

The liveries folder is already pretty bloated. 

[draconus]

So far found these problems in F-14 MT: TCS symbols only, LANTIRN symbols/data only, uncommanded VR zoom in cockpit during Gs.