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

[Lt_Jaeger]

Hmm, my 74 VW Beetle did not had power steering, A/C, electronics and all kind of shoot, my new car has all this. What now, ask Volkswagen to redesign the Beetle?

 

All good and well to ask for stuff to be add to the F-14 and hoping for long standing bugs be fixed, but getting all cranky on the devs to not immediately jumping on adding all these wishes, I don't know. 

I, for example, could not care less for the hot refueling thingy, since I either just do a short hop on an instant mission, or, more likely, do a full mission with my group and be happy to shut down the jet after a 3h mission. 

Where would one a hot refuel except for CQ with changing crews in the middle of it (yes, I would be out and care less)? 

 

So all this has to be put in perspective. 

The most important item for me for example, is the still not completely dimmable AOA indexer (besides a lot of other lighting stuff - which by the way ED screws over most of the time) , which drives me furious. Not sure it's even somewhere in this list. 

What do I need to do? Yell at the devs because it works in the F-4 

 

Sometimes one can only shake his head. 

Edited March 6 by Lt_Jaeger

[JupiterJoe]

Deep breath. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8...9......10.

[draconus]

17 minutes ago, Lt_Jaeger said:

What do I need to do? Yell at the devs because it works in the F-4

That's the point with F-14. It was great times while it lasted. We got development, maintenance and even some wishes done (wished by users or HB themselves) until F-4 became a thing. No wonder users get frustrated like I or @JupiterJoe. They just didn't push you enough yet.

22 minutes ago, Lt_Jaeger said:

Hmm, my 74 VW Beetle did not had power steering, A/C, electronics and all kind of shoot, my new car has all this. What now, ask Volkswagen to redesign the Beetle?

But the Tomcat did use the ladder and huffer cart for the startup too. Also VW did redesign the Beetle in 90s. So why only for F-4, again?

[scommander2]

- [ADDED]With hot refueling procedure and right engine has to be shut down and the ground crew operation and comms - "unable to comply" with right engine running {https://forum.dcs.world/topic/349953-f-14-ab-feature-follow-up-wish-list-and-beyond/page/11/#findComment-5613297 https://forum.dcs.world/topic/349953-f-14-ab-feature-follow-up-wish-list-and-beyond/page/11/#findComment-5613707}

added into the wish list section.

[JupiterJoe]

One out of three ain't bad.  I'm on a roll 

Edited March 6 by JupiterJoe

[scommander2]

Trying to read/understand the wish list item 2 and 3, where we are so far? 

About the item 3, is it for the ME case?

Thanks.

Edited March 6 by scommander2

[Frosty2124]

8 hours ago, JupiterJoe said:

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.

thank you so much for the kind feedback, i take pride in supporting people on the forums to not do something that puts any party in an uncomfortable position 

Edited March 6 by Frosty2124

[Endline]

5 hours ago, draconus said:

Also VW did redesign the Beetle in 90s. So why only for F-4, again?

You are comparing apples to oranges. Heatblur is a small firm that undertakes relatively big projects. The F-4 was designed with the component system from the ground up and it spent years under development. Doing it for the Tomcat would require an almost complete rework of the entire module which would again take years when they already have the A-6, the Eurofighter and who knows what else in the works.

Not saying that I wouldn't want more features for the Tomcat and faster squashing of bugs, but I get why it's taking so long.

[JupiterJoe]

1 hour ago, scommander2 said:

Trying to read/understand the wish list item 2 and 3, where we are so far? 

About the item 3, is it for the ME case?

Thanks.

Item two I give up on.  According to my detractors the penalty received in the Speed & Angels for over-stressing the air-frame is meaningless, even though that campaign was created with the assistance of an actual F-14 pilot trainer.

Item three is a no-go because apparently the F-14 isn't worth that level of fidelity and who cares about trap weights anyway?   Furthermore I should be happy with what we've got because the F-4 is far more popular dontchaknow, even though it lacks the versatility to do both carrier ops and shore based duty. 

Edited March 6 by JupiterJoe

[draconus]

5 hours ago, scommander2 said:

About the item 3, is it for the ME case?

Yes. The pylons' weights are taken into account internally in the FM but differences are not shown in ME when we remove pylons.

3 hours ago, Endline said:

Doing it for the Tomcat would require an almost complete rework of the entire module...

Are we still talking about that huffer cart?

[scommander2]

28 minutes ago, draconus said:

Yes. The pylons' weights are taken into account internally in the FM but differences are not shown in ME when we remove pylons.

Thanks!!

- [ADDED]Weight added for weapons rails in the ME case {https://forum.dcs.world/topic/349953-f-14-ab-feature-follow-up-wish-list-and-beyond/page/12/#findComment-5613957}

Added in the wish list section.

[JupiterJoe]

@Zabuzard Anybody?

So, we're saying the actual weight of the F-14A at this point is roughly 39086?

That's the 42086 shown below, minus the weight of the weapon rails and fuel pylons (which is what roughly, 3000 lbs)?  Just trying to find a semi-accurate baseline.  It's necessary in order to stand any chance of calculating a fuel ladder for example.

Edited Friday at 03:55 PM by JupiterJoe

[Dragon1-1]

On 3/6/2025 at 5:13 PM, JupiterJoe said:

Item two I give up on.  According to my detractors the penalty received in the Speed & Angels for over-stressing the air-frame is meaningless, even though that campaign was created with the assistance of an actual F-14 pilot trainer.

The penalty is not meaningless, if you pull more than you're supposed to in the RAG, you'll get dinged for it. S&A is a RAG campaign, at least until the point that you deploy, at which point suddenly nobody cares about you over-Ging the jet. Real F-14 pilots said it was indeed like that: they teach you to fly the plane within its published limits, but if you have to trap heavy, or pull more Gs in order not to die, then you do that. Nobody would give you too much grief if you pulled a little hard in regular operations.

That said, if you make a habit of pushing the airframe beyond its design limits, you'll end up shortening its operational life. It won't show during one mission unless it was already on its last legs, but if you keep abusing your jet regularly, it's going to drag down readiness rate (because the jets will be spending more time in maintenance), and you're going to get a talk from the CAG. An old airframe in early 2000s will have lower safety margins than a new one in the 80s, but even the former will have some. It would be considered unsafe to fly otherwise.

[scommander2]

some sort of penalty for over-stressing the airframe and for landing over-weight

So, the above wording is okay for entering our wish list section or any suggestion?  Thanks.

[Top Jockey]

On 3/6/2025 at 4:48 AM, 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!

 

+ 1 one here.

It's one of the reasons why I haven't been buying modules for a good while.

This sim is getting too much resource intensive, and therefore highly expen$ive which eventually will cause me moving away.

 

Plus it only adds to the confusion of something that should be gameplay fluid.

(I'm also still waiting for the option to remove the duct tape / wire / metal plate from the ACM panel.)

[scommander2]

Yes, we have these two points in our list , thanks for mentioning them.

[JupiterJoe]

12 hours ago, scommander2 said:

some sort of penalty for over-stressing the airframe and for landing over-weight

So, the above wording is okay for entering our wish list section or any suggestion?  Thanks.

'Over-stressing the airframe and/or landing overweight may require a repair period.', is all we're looking for. 

Just read through the list again.  It's a fantastic snagging list and I think a very reasonable request to get our beloved F-14 closer to a finished state.  Great work compiling it @scommander2 

Edited Tuesday at 07:44 AM by JupiterJoe

[draconus]

8 minutes ago, JupiterJoe said:

Over-stressing the airframe and/or landing overweight may require a repair period.

Required for what?

[JupiterJoe]

15 minutes ago, draconus said:

Required for what?

I don't understand the question.  When you damage the plane it has to be repaired, no?    I think badly over-stressing the airframe and/or landing overweight should be included in that.  It's a simple way of adding a time-penalty (currently 170secs) to the player.  Obviously you could just respawn, but that's cheating   It's this or no consequence at all.  Which would you prefer?

There is a Logbook, with a rudimentary points system.  I'd like to see points deducted, or perhaps even a demotion for sending your aircraft to the scrapyard early, but it's clear I'd be asking too much.

Edited Tuesday at 08:04 AM by JupiterJoe

[draconus]

13 minutes ago, JupiterJoe said:

I don't understand the question.  When you damage the plane it has to be repaired, no?    I think badly over-stressing the airframe and/or landing overweight should be included in that.  It's a simple way of adding a time-penalty to the player.  Obviously you could just respawn, but that's cheating   It's this or no consequence at all.  Which would you prefer?

As said earlier we already do have consequences of aiframe/INS overstressing or hard landing. What do you ask for? I can't launch again because I have the needle stopped at 9 on the G-meter? I can't be connected to the cat because I trapped too heavy? It doesn't work like that.

Respawn actually can simulate walking to another jet. 3 min repair is just pure fantasy.

[JupiterJoe]

58 minutes ago, draconus said:

As said earlier we already do have consequences of aiframe/INS overstressing or hard landing. What do you ask for? I can't launch again because I have the needle stopped at 9 on the G-meter? I can't be connected to the cat because I trapped too heavy? It doesn't work like that.

Respawn actually can simulate walking to another jet. 3 min repair is just pure fantasy.

I concur. 

@scommander2 Please remove my suggestion from the list.  @draconus is right, it was a stupid idea.  I'd be happy if we get even half the stuff on the current list.  I won't add any more.  I apologise for wasting people's time and generally acting a fool on this thread.

Edited Tuesday at 09:04 AM by JupiterJoe

[scommander2]

3 hours ago, JupiterJoe said:

@scommander2 Please remove my suggestion from the list.  @draconus is right, it was a stupid idea.  I'd be happy if we get even half the stuff on the current list.  I won't add any more.  I apologise for wasting people's time and generally acting a fool on this thread.

No problem at all.

[Dragon1-1]

3 hours ago, JupiterJoe said:

There is a Logbook, with a rudimentary points system.  I'd like to see points deducted, or perhaps even a demotion for sending your aircraft to the scrapyard early, but it's clear I'd be asking too much.

Yeah, because that wouldn't happen IRL, either. Demotion is something you get for a far more serious violations than prematurely wearing out Tomcat airframes (albeit doing that too much could affect your promotion chances). 

When Dynamic Campaign comes, you could this become a consideration, because aircraft would then have realistic downtimes, and an overstressed jet would probably have a longer one due to maintenance having to check for more things like whether the wing box is still good.