F-14 A/B feature follow-up, wish list and beyond

[scommander2]

23 hours ago, scommander2 said:

It is a good question, and I am wondering that it is a general case...

I am able to confirm that it is an issue about the color filter for HUD with my own test mission.  

How I test with the following issue:

[To Fix] At dawn/dusk it's possible to have the red HUD filter in place when spawning into a mission, even though the lever isn't pulled.

1. set time about 20:45

2. spawn F-14 with hot and the color is shown red for HUD

3. eject, eject, eject

4. hit escape key, then click briefing

5. get inside another F-14 with the normal color (daytime) HUD (sometimes it goes with red and depends on the timing when I click "briefing") 

PS: I have searched the options for plane in ME, I find nothing for HUD (I am not a ME expert).

Edited February 27 by scommander2

[scommander2]

- [ADDED]F-14A wing sweep override L/D mismatch {https://forum.dcs.world/topic/360189-f-14a-wing-sweep-override-ld-mismatch/}

Hi @captain_dalan, the above entry has been added into our list and thanks for the input  

[captain_dalan]

1 hour ago, scommander2 said:

- [ADDED]F-14A wing sweep override L/D mismatch {https://forum.dcs.world/topic/360189-f-14a-wing-sweep-override-ld-mismatch/}

Hi @captain_dalan, the above entry has been added into our list and thanks for the input  

Thanks!

[JupiterJoe]

[Wish List] 

• I would like it so you cannot refuel the aircraft with the right engine running.
• I would like some sort of penalty for over-stressing the airframe and for landing over-weight.
• Weight added for weapons rails.

Thank you.

Edited March 5 by JupiterJoe

[draconus]

51 minutes ago, JupiterJoe said:

I would like it so you cannot refuel the aircraft with the right engine running.

You mean almost all 99% cases where both engines are running during AAR? What's the reason?

52 minutes ago, JupiterJoe said:

I would like some sort of penalty for over-stressing the airframe and for landing over-weight.

Overstressing can break the wings or make them more prone to it in the next high G excursion. Overweight trap can break the gear or hook. What other penalties you want?

54 minutes ago, JupiterJoe said:

Weight added for weapons rails.

Isn't it already modeled?

[scommander2]

I would like to wait a bit for if we have no more update for these three wish lists  

[Jayhawk1971]

Just a reminder that in order to assign mouse buttons (for example, I use a button on my mouse to toggle pilot body on/off, my HOTAS has no more free buttons) I have to go to mods/aircraft/input folders and rename "mouse" every time when there's a DCS update. 

Could that be fixed? Bindable mouse buttons work with the F-4.

Edited March 5 by Jayhawk1971

[JupiterJoe]

6 hours ago, draconus said:

You mean almost all 99% cases where both engines are running during AAR? What's the reason?

Overstressing can break the wings or make them more prone to it in the next high G excursion. Overweight trap can break the gear or hook. What other penalties you want?

Isn't it already modeled?

1) During AAR you switch to left-engine air source, to avoid ingestion of fuel/fumes into the cockpit.  When refuelling on the ground I believe it is procedure to have the right engine shut down to avoid similar, plus the danger of the refuelling crew standing immediately in front of a running engine intake.

2) During Reflected Simulations Speed & Angels Campaign you fail the task if you overstress the jet.  I would like some penalty in general.  Perhaps you have to do a repair if you overstress the airframe and/or land overweight - in effect a time penalty.  I want some sort of inconvenience if you screw up.  Perhaps a demotion if you do it twice/thrice in a row.  Currently the hook breaks if you land too fast, but it doesn't matter if you're well overweight, as long as you land 'on-speed' it won't break.  Yes it's possible to collapse the gear, but that's if you land way too hard, again not because you're over 54,000 lbs.

3) No, it isn't already modelled.  The weapons rails have no weight.

You're wrong three times in row there @draconus, I think you're losing your edge 

Edited March 5 by JupiterJoe

[scommander2]

1 hour ago, Jayhawk1971 said:

Just a reminder that in order to assign mouse buttons (for example, I use a button on my mouse to toggle pilot body on/off, my HOTAS has no more free buttons) I have to go to mods/aircraft/input folders and rename "mouse" every time when there's a DCS update. 

Could that be fixed? Bindable mouse buttons work with the F-4.

Added the following item into the "TODO" section:

- [ADDED]Provide the same amount of the mouse button bindable options in F-4E for F-14 {https://forum.dcs.world/topic/349953-f-14-ab-feature-follow-up-wish-list-and-beyond/page/11/#findComment-5613460}  

Hope it covers more mouse button bindable options not just one for today and asks more for tomorrow.

[draconus]

1 hour ago, JupiterJoe said:

You're wrong three times in row there @draconus, I think you're losing your edge 

I just asked questions because I'm not convinced or feel the reasons behind your wishes

[JupiterJoe]

13 hours ago, draconus said:

I just asked questions because I'm not convinced or feel the reasons behind your wishes

What are you still not convinced about?

Point 1: is a real life procedure. Just as you cannot currently repair the aircraft in-game with the engines running, I want it so you cannot refuel the F-14 with the starboard engine running.

Point 2: Overweight landings and over-stressing the airframe both have consequences IRL. I guess that's why Reflected included them in his campaign.  I am simply asking for a repair period as a consequence for doing either/or.  Getting a demotion/points deducted for repeat offending is just a bit of added gameplay fun.

Point 3:  The weapon rail weights are not in the loadout menu.

Edited March 6 by JupiterJoe

[Wingmate]

The NATOPS does want right throttle shut off for hot refueling.

Overstressing the airframe certainly has consequences in game, great way to break your INS, overweight landings probably do as well though keep in mind that there is a margin of error built in to the max landing weight you are not going break the aircraft if you are a little over it. Demotions and losing points could be a thing maybe but the ED logbook is buggy enough as it is (or last I checked it was) and I think most people ignore it for that reason.

The devs have stated that rail weights are modelled but due to the way they are implemented don't show up in the mission editor or loadout screen. I'm not sure if it was here or on discord (probably both) that they stated that and searching on mobile is a pain so you will have to trust me or do your own search for that.

 

And I am not trying to rain on anyone's parade here, but I'm not sure why you use this thread rather than making a bug report if you believe something is wrong. Based on Heatblurs comments in this thread that would be a much more effective way of getting their attention? 

Lastly trying to be sure of facts is not standing in the way of progress...

[Zabuzard]

The NATOPS does want right throttle shut off for hot refueling.

Overstressing the airframe certainly has consequences in game, great way to break your INS, overweight landings probably do as well though keep in mind that there is a margin of error built in to the max landing weight you are not going break the aircraft if you are a little over it. Demotions and losing points could be a thing maybe but the ED logbook is buggy enough as it is (or last I checked it was) and I think most people ignore it for that reason.
The devs have stated that rail weights are modelled but due to the way they are implemented don't show up in the mission editor or loadout screen. I'm not sure if it was here or on discord (probably both) that they stated that and searching on mobile is a pain so you will have to trust me or do your own search for that.
 
And I am not trying to rain on anyone's parade here, but I'm not sure why you use this thread rather than making a bug report if you believe something is wrong. Based on Heatblurs comments in this thread that would be a much more effective way of getting their attention? 
Lastly trying to be sure of facts is not standing in the way of progress...

Rail weights are modelled but included in the default aircraft weight. While the "no pylon"-selection in the loadout menu has negative weight to subtract it again. For multiple reasons this is the preferred way of doing it.

Overstressing the aircraft has consequences in multiple ways, not all of them are easy to notice or directly visible. But ultimately for a super granular, dynamic and aircraft spanning feature you need the component system with wear/tear simulation that our Phantom and future modules have - probably too late for the Tomcat.

[scommander2]

5 minutes ago, Zabuzard said:

Overstressing the aircraft has consequences in multiple ways, not all of them are easy to notice or directly visible. But ultimately for a super granular, dynamic and aircraft spanning feature you need the component system with wear/tear simulation that our Phantom and future modules have - probably too late for the Tomcat.

@Zabuzard, thanks for comment and it helps.

However.... can we think about something in F-14B(U) for making up in the future?  

Thanks.

[JupiterJoe]

On 3/5/2025 at 8:48 PM, Zabuzard said:

probably too late for the Tomcat.

That says it all.

On 3/5/2025 at 8:48 PM, Zabuzard said:

Rail weights are modelled but included in the default aircraft weight. While the "no pylon"-selection in the loadout menu has negative weight to subtract it again. For multiple reasons this is the preferred way of doing it.

What a load of rubbish.

Edited Tuesday at 07:02 AM by JupiterJoe

[JupiterJoe]

2 hours ago, Wingmate said:

I'm not sure why you use this thread rather than making a bug report if you believe something is wrong. Based on Heatblurs comments in this thread that would be a much more effective way of getting their attention? 

Bug reports for the F-14 get little to no response from Devs on here, or Discord these days.  Whilst we're on the subject, having bug reports in two different locations is a stupid idea.

This forum is a mess and a completely inefficient way of tracking anything.

This Wish List/To Do List/Fix List is long and getting longer.  Sure sounds like it's going to stay that way. 

Edited March 5 by JupiterJoe

[Zabuzard]

1 hour ago, scommander2 said:

However.... can we think about something in F-14B(U) for making up in the future?  

During the work for the -A we made the Tomcat compatible with our component system. It could be reasonable to add a few wear/tear properties here and there. But ultimately it would probably be way too expensive to be reasonable to execute on a big scale. Like, we are talking about multiple months, possibly years, of pure porting-work just to get the Tomcat to the "Phantom Standard".

But yes, having such stuff in mind for anything new, such as the -A or -B(U) is generally a reasonable thought.

[scommander2]

2 minutes ago, Zabuzard said:

But yes, having such stuff in mind for anything new, such as the -A or -B(U) is generally a reasonable thought.

Thank you...

[Zabuzard]

21 minutes ago, JupiterJoe said:

What a load of rubbish.

Not sure why you are so negative. This is exactly the reason why people would not want to interact and rather prefer to stay in private channels. My advice is to think this attitude through to ensure your actions actually lead to the goal you pursue - which I am going to assume is having a nicer experience with the Tomcat.

Edited March 5 by Zabuzard

[JupiterJoe]

42 minutes ago, Zabuzard said:

Not sure why you are so negative. This is exactly the reason why people would not want to interact and rather prefer to stay in private channels. My advice is to think this attitude through to ensure your actions actually lead to the goal you pursue - which I am going to assume is having a nicer experience with the Tomcat.

Go ahead and total up how much HB content for the F-14 there's been in the last 12 months and then take a look at the list at the beginning of this thread.

...I put three reasonable requests on a wish list and a Dev suddenly appears out of the blue and starts giving me crap.  Meanwhile there's months old bug reports on here and Discord that have not seen a response from HB.

Edited March 5 by JupiterJoe

[Frosty2124]

one could reasonably infer that maybe you are conveying a similar attitude of negativity. coming out swinging tends not to help. if you aren't enjoying the interactions you are having, the sign out button exists for a reason

[scommander2]

Okay, switch back to the matters of F-14 but nothing else.  Shall we?

 

[PhantomHans]

6 hours ago, Zabuzard said:

Like, we are talking about multiple months, possibly years, of pure porting-work just to get the Tomcat to the "Phantom Standard".

Please don't do this to the Tomcat, at least without an option to totally disable it.

I suspect that system is why the F-4E runs like total crap on my PC, it's just too old to power it!

[JupiterJoe]

7 hours ago, Frosty2124 said:

Pretty sure thats a ToS violation there, posting links to manuals is an ED no no i believe.

Thanks for being so positive and helpful.  Poor guy's just trying to do us all a favour and compile of list of stuff that needs fixing on our beloved module.

[draconus]

13 hours ago, JupiterJoe said:

What are you still not convinced about?

Point 1 is a real life procedure. Just as you cannot currently repair the aircraft in-game with the engines running, I want it so you cannot refuel the F-14 with the starboard engine running.

Point 2 is a fact.  Overweight landings and over-stressing the airframe both have consequences IRL. I guess that's why Reflected included them in his campaign.  I am simply asking for a repair period as a consequence for doing either/or.  Getting a demotion/points deducted for repeat offending is just a bit of added gameplay fun.

Point 3 is also a fact.  The weapon rail weights are not modelled in the loadout menu.

1. Fair enough. Both A and B have a hot refueling procedure and right engine has to be shut down. This should be reflected in the ground crew operation and comms - "unable to comply" with right engine running.

2. As said overstressing and overweight is modeled. Can it be more detailed? Yes but hardly needed. What you ask for is rather in mission creator hands. Repair in DCS is already unrealistic process.

3. So it is modeled (in the FM). What the wish should be - make it show up in the ME.

3 hours ago, PhantomHans said:

Please don't do this to the Tomcat, at least without an option to totally disable it.

I suspect that system is why the F-4E runs like total crap on my PC, it's just too old to power it!

What kind of PC is that? You can't stop the DCS progress and development just because of that. At some point you'll be forced to upgrade anyway.