F-14D possibly?

[PhantomHans]

3 hours ago, Werlin12 said:

Heatblur has stated that they're planning something like that. 
The avoinics could probably be a massive draw as well. Not sure about this, but somewhere in the back of my mind I think the B(U) got at least some of the new tech the D had? If that is so they will be easier to fly.
 

 

I don't find the B difficult to fly at all, even the A model isn't bad as long as I'm not in a 1v1 gun fight with a MiG-29...But if the B/U had the new MFDs from the D that would be great to have.

[irq11]

19 hours ago, LanceCriminal86 said:

The B Upgrade got JDAM first and took it to combat in 2002 with VF-11

I didn't know, thank you for your clarification

Edited June 1, 2024 by irq11

[F-2]

thesis on the development of APG-71, some interesting stuff. The citations though at the end are interesting. Maybe some of those are worth requesting?

https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/cf4f2367-a4d9-45cb-828d-ce70f4b3ab7b/content

Edited June 2, 2024 by F-2

[captain_dalan]

On 5/31/2024 at 3:08 PM, Horns said:

... While learning BFM it would be great to be able to check if I'm actually max-performing in a turn while staying near corner without having to lower my eyes - although I do concede that one ultimately has to learn not to 'stare through the HUD' to be able to BFM properly, as pointed out in a previous post...

 

BFM is many things, to many people, but looking through a HUD ain't one of those things. There's even a derogatory term related to the practice. Even just on the topic of max-performing, you ain't doing it by flying at a fixed airspeed or g-number, so a more cluttered HUD won't help with that either. Even if that HUD provided you with the bleed rates and degrees per second of turning rate, unless you absolutely memorize ALL the EM charts for all the altitudes and all the loadouts, as well as you extrapolate all the values in between those charts, AND you are capable of keeping track all those numbers .... then maybe...... just maybe, you can pull it off. It's much easier to listen to the plane though. If you really need at the very least some orientational numbers of airspeed and altitude, then IMO, a much better solution would be to have options to configure Jester to call them out more often, especially when they are changing. 

[Horns]

4 hours ago, captain_dalan said:

BFM is many things, to many people, but looking through a HUD ain't one of those things. There's even a derogatory term related to the practice. Even just on the topic of max-performing, you ain't doing it by flying at a fixed airspeed or g-number, so a more cluttered HUD won't help with that either. Even if that HUD provided you with the bleed rates and degrees per second of turning rate, unless you absolutely memorize ALL the EM charts for all the altitudes and all the loadouts, as well as you extrapolate all the values in between those charts, AND you are capable of keeping track all those numbers .... then maybe...... just maybe, you can pull it off. It's much easier to listen to the plane though. If you really need at the very least some orientational numbers of airspeed and altitude, then IMO, a much better solution would be to have options to configure Jester to call them out more often, especially when they are changing. 

Learning EM charts for one loadout, at 10kft and 25kft and inferring based on those in between really isn’t that onerous. Personally, listening for Jester’s calls whenever he makes them wouldn’t have the same utility as being able to check G and mach number on the HUD when I check altitude. Checking airspeed, mach and load factor are easier for me now that I fly in VR, but checking different parts of the dash for each item of data during BFM often caused me to lose perspective when I flew on flat screen, I suspect that’s the case for others on flatscreen now. 

Beyond BFM, it would be nice to have the same information on the HUD as the-D and every American fighter since.

Edit: For BFM I was talking about training, where you specifically go up with one particular loadout and you might do some runs with an emphasis on hitting numbers rather than winning the fight. I should have made that clearer.

Edited June 3, 2024 by Horns
Clarification

[captain_dalan]

7 hours ago, Horns said:

Learning EM charts for one loadout, at 10kft and 25kft and inferring based on those in between really isn’t that onerous. Personally, listening for Jester’s calls whenever he makes them wouldn’t have the same utility as being able to check G and mach number on the HUD when I check altitude. Checking airspeed, mach and load factor are easier for me now that I fly in VR, but checking different parts of the dash for each item of data during BFM often caused me to lose perspective when I flew on flat screen, I suspect that’s the case for others on flatscreen now. 

Beyond BFM, it would be nice to have the same information on the HUD as the-D and every American fighter since.

Edit: For BFM I was talking about training, where you specifically go up with one particular loadout and you might do some runs with an emphasis on hitting numbers rather than winning the fight. I should have made that clearer.

 

Good luck! 

[RustBelt]

On 5/31/2024 at 6:13 PM, PhantomHans said:

Sooooooo.....

 

How about an F-14B/Upgrade module with the HUD then?

I would gladly open my wallet and pay for that since it was outside the original model scope.  Sell it as an add-on requiring F-14A/B or a stand alone.

Get them legal copies of the documents and SME’s who can “officially” advise about it. They aren’t holding it off because they like making people squirm. 
 

btw if you have a NAVAIR-F14AAP-1A (or even -F14AAA-1A) how bout a little sugar for the rest of us?

Edited June 3, 2024 by RustBelt

[ShuRugal]

On 6/2/2024 at 9:07 PM, captain_dalan said:

BFM is many things, to many people, but looking through a HUD ain't one of those things.

unless, of course, you're doing digital flight simulation where you can't feel the Gs, don't get any control feel in the stick and pedals, and have no peripheral vision to use to monitor the dashboard gauges.

At the end of the day, BFM is about energy management, and you can't manage your energy if you don't know what it is.  Even the highest fidelity VR setup doesn't give you the tools you need to have the level of awareness a pilot relies on to perform BFM in real life.  Some concessions have to be made to how you approach the mission simply due to the fact that the simulation doesn't give you the same tools you get from the real thing.

[draconus]

5 hours ago, ShuRugal said:

don't get any control feel in the stick and pedals

Most of us can feel the springs. Are you using a cyclic?

[captain_dalan]

8 hours ago, ShuRugal said:

unless, of course, you're doing digital flight simulation where you can't feel the Gs, don't get any control feel in the stick and pedals, and have no peripheral vision to use to monitor the dashboard gauges.

At the end of the day, BFM is about energy management, and you can't manage your energy if you don't know what it is.  Even the highest fidelity VR setup doesn't give you the tools you need to have the level of awareness a pilot relies on to perform BFM in real life.  Some concessions have to be made to how you approach the mission simply due to the fact that the simulation doesn't give you the same tools you get from the real thing.

Woe be on those that bought and fly warbirds...... and let us spend a quiet minute in morn over all the poor souls that bought the F-4.....

Seriously though, the hood people at HB did so much to convey what the aircraft is doing, and that's even without the Jester callouts, one needs but listen and observe what's going around in the cockpit. As for HUD BFM, all the energy in the world ain't gonna save you if you can't offset a turn circle, and good luck doing that by looking through the HUD. 

[Werlin12]

On 6/1/2024 at 4:05 AM, PhantomHans said:

 

I don't find the B difficult to fly at all, even the A model isn't bad as long as I'm not in a 1v1 gun fight with a MiG-29...But if the B/U had the new MFDs from the D that would be great to have.

It isn't but it does have a reputation.
Having said that, there is a huge difference between flying the 14 around the boat and the 18. 

[PhantomHans]

7 hours ago, Werlin12 said:

Having said that, there is a huge difference between flying the 14 around the boat and the 18. 

I find the 18 much harder to land, actually. 

[Spurts]

Same

 

[RustBelt]

On 6/5/2024 at 5:21 PM, draconus said:

Most of us can feel the springs. Are you using a cyclic?

Don't be disgusting Non FFB user.

Edited June 11, 2024 by RustBelt

[Flogger23m]

On 2/27/2024 at 1:03 AM, Dannyvandelft said:

I asked the devs if certain features of the Phantom would come to the Tomcat, and long story short, the Tomcat model doesn't allow for it. It's a completely different process. And since the new Tomcat model would be a seperate module for full price, I expect HB themselves would want nothing less than a plane simulation equally as impressive as the Phantom. The Phantom is the new standard in DCS, and I expect they themselves would want nothing less than that for the next gen Tomcat.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
 

 

What does the F-4 module have that the F-14 or F-16 modules don't?

[draconus]

4 minutes ago, Flogger23m said:

What does the F-4 module have that the F-14 or F-16 modules don't?

From the videos I've seen:

- more detailed ground crew (Crew Chief) interaction and equipment visible during starting aircraft

- more detailed Jester interaction, clickable menu, more independent radar work by Jester

- many cockpit parts shake independently

- cockpit parts are linked to the in game manual, ability to have Internet browser accessed in game (I don't miss this one at all)

[Flogger23m]

Personally I would like to see the F-14D. The modernized HUD would be well worth it.

[eatthis]

On 6/26/2024 at 9:57 PM, Flogger23m said:

Personally I would like to see the F-14D. The modernized HUD would be well worth it.

thats a can of worms lol