Feedback Thread - Tomcat Patch 27-11-2025

[IronMike]

Dear all, 

our apologies for being rather quiet despite the recent patches, but this year continues to be very busy for us. With the last patch we introduced the F-14 early-A. This variant lets you experience the early days of the F-14A-135-GR, with the Pratt & Whitney TF30-P-414A engines, the AN/ALR-45/50 radar warning receiver with strobe-style display and a plethora of bigger and minor changes both in the pilot and RIO cockpit.

For one, and most importantly, the dedicated RWR screens are not present, and are now accessible via the ECM page on the HSD in the pilot pit and via the ECM page on the ECMD display in the RIO pit. This poses additional challenges and decision making for the pilot, as he will have to select between the NAV display, the TID repeater and the ECM display depending on the situation. Crew coordination becomes even more important, as only the RIO will be able to monitor both the TID or DDD and the ECM page simultaneously. Because of that, in more complex tactical situations it might be beneficial to rely on the RIO’s input. Alternatively a quick glance while switching between the modes will be necessary to build the best possible situational awareness (consider preparing appropriate bindings for the HSD MODE switch). For the pilot also the Tacan and volume panel changes on the left console. Moreover, the vertical velocity indicator and the oxygen indicator are moved to different spots and more RWR-related lamps are installed in the RIO pit. Continuing in the backseat, the lights on the front panel got adjusted, and of course, the biggest change is the ECM panel on the right console. For an indepth look into what exactly changes, we recommend to take a look at the updated manual. As already mentioned above, good RIOs will coordinate with their pilots what they need to monitor besides the radar, and will call out the threats to keep the pilot informed, as the luxury to monitor both TID and RWR are not available anymore in the front seat. 

With this patch we focused mainly on polishing the early A and in particular the ALR-45/50 and additional bug fixes, as well as adding a first small set of new instant action missions for the Cold War map, with more planned to follow also for the other maps like Iraq and Afghanistan. We hope you got to enjoy the early A in the meantime and that you enjoy the fixes from this patch, as we continue to work down the list of remaining features for the F-14. 

We would also like to apologize for yet another delay for the A-6 AI.We ran into an issue with the refueling basket placement, which we are currently solving together with Eagle Dynamics. We thus decided to postpone the release, as the alternative would have been to release it without the refueling capability first. The A-6 will be the first AI aircraft that won't be an exclusive tanker, or rather refueling will only be a small part of its role, hence we decided to take the safe route and implement everything fully from the get go, as the implementation will also set a precedent for the flyable module later on. We also decided to touch up on some textures before release, as we found some last issues we were not yet fully happy with. 

We hope you can forgive us this delay and hope that this patch will in general bring you enough improvements to enjoy and play with.

As always we would kindly like to ask for your feedback and thank you for your continued patience and support! 

Your Heatblur Team 

 

 

DCS: F-14 Tomcat by Heatblur Simulations

• ALR-45/50: Adjusted strobe length formula
• ALR-45/50: Fixed reversed RIO volume knobs animations
• ALR-45/50: Fixed correlation being too precise
• ALR-45/50: Made MA/ML detection independent of band switches
• ALR-45/50: Updated database
• ALR-45/50: Added SA-11 track radar to database
• ALR-45/50: Fixed RIO lamps
• ALR-45/50: Fixed SA-6 lamp (RIO cockpit)
• ALR-45/50: Added SA-8 recognition
• ALR-45/50: Adjusted SAM strobe blinking frequency
• ALR-45/50 and AN/ALQ-100/12: Fixed and improved signal detection threshold
• AN/ALQ-100/126: Fixed audio logic for unknown radars
• ALR-45/50: Adjusted strobe length calculation for low power signals
• Added A-6 to ALR-67 library
• Made the TID magnetic info for Early A same as for Late A and B
• Added tanker comms keybinds for ARC-182 (fixes radio pre-contact)
• Fixed AI keeping wings swept on catapult (thank you, ED!)
• Fixed uncontrolled AI sweeping out wings when switching to controlled (thank you, ED!)
• Fixed uncontrolled AI spawning with wings over-over swept (remains issue with early-A)
• Added flaps and slats failures
• Updated chinese localisation
• Missions: New: Added several instant action missions for the Cold War map

Edited Thursday at 10:08 PM by IronMike

[JupiterJoe]

Thanks HB, the ALR-45/50 and tanker comms work great.

 

Edited Friday at 09:42 AM by JupiterJoe

[Ramius007]

Any particular reasons, why early F-14 have all weapons from 90's availble?

[Joch1955]

Well in game, the timeline is a bit simplified, but the “early” F14 soldiered on until the late 90s when around 60 or so of the best condition AC were upgraded ( i.e. the “late” version) and my understanding is that there were “ early” versions in service as late as 2001 when most of the A’s started to be retired.

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

26 minutes ago, Ramius007 said:

Any particular reasons, why early F-14 have all weapons from 90's availble?

The naming convention is a bit unfortunate, as the “F-14A-135GR Early” should be seen as the standard F-14A, while the “F-14A-135GR” we already had is actually a “F-14A-135GR Late”. This has been explained by HB before

I'm with you however in hoping that we’ll get earlier versions of AIM-9 and AIM-7 at some point.

[draconus]

16 hours ago, IronMike said:

We would also like to apologize for yet another delay for the A-6 AI.We ran into an issue with the refueling basket placement, which we are currently solving together with Eagle Dynamics. We thus decided to postpone the release, as the alternative would have been to release it without the refueling capability first. The A-6 will be the first AI aircraft that won't be an exclusive tanker, or rather refueling will only be a small part of its role, hence we decided to take the safe route and implement everything fully from the get go, as the implementation will also set a precedent for the flyable module later on. We also decided to touch up on some textures before release, as we found some last issues we were not yet fully happy with.

You thought you can release it bug free? You have no idea - just wait for user reports after release

You could've release it already and just add the note to the changelog: KA-6 version not yet fully implemented, known bugs: refueling basket and some textures. This is how ED and others do it. Personally... I can wait.

Now that we have "earlier" A what about that PG campaign?

Are you still working with ED on this tough "TCS/LANTIRN blank in VR" issue?

[Ramius007]

10 minutes ago, Raven (Elysian Angel) said:

The naming convention is a bit unfortunate, as the “F-14A-135GR Early” should be seen as the standard F-14A, while the “F-14A-135GR” we already had is actually a “F-14A-135GR Late”. This has been explained by HB before

I'm with you however in hoping that we’ll get earlier versions of AIM-9 and AIM-7 at some point.

I m just asking about any Tomcat pre Bombcat upgrade, and such Tomcat shouldnt have aim-7p at least, that was not used during Gulf War, and have all PGM removed, in short something more fitting for 80's (real ones)

[draconus]

2 hours ago, Ramius007 said:

I m just asking about any Tomcat pre Bombcat upgrade, and such Tomcat shouldnt have aim-7p at least, that was not used during Gulf War, and have all PGM removed, in short something more fitting for 80's (real ones)

They could hang, release and shoot them so they stay available for earlier versions.

[JupiterJoe]

In multi-player I am unable to get the Early A to play ball with SRS, on either radio.  They keybinds for ARC-159 & 182 are the same as in the other variants and they work fine.  So, what's up?

Edited Friday at 05:28 PM by JupiterJoe

[LanceCriminal86]

7 hours ago, Ramius007 said:

I m just asking about any Tomcat pre Bombcat upgrade, and such Tomcat shouldnt have aim-7p at least, that was not used during Gulf War, and have all PGM removed, in short something more fitting for 80's (real ones)

That's easily remedied by the mission makers/server admins to restrict loadouts. The jets didn't get significant changes through the 90s until LANTIRN was integrated, and even then they basically were the same but with the pod added. The jet they have added is extremely accurate for any of the later block F-14As from about 1983 through 1998 when ALR-67/DFCS upgrades started to happen.

[RustBelt]

10 hours ago, Ramius007 said:

Any particular reasons, why early F-14 have all weapons from 90's availble?

Because you're supposed to limit that stuff in the mission editor if you care. 

[Ramius007]

9 hours ago, RustBelt said:

Because you're supposed to limit that stuff in the mission editor if you care. 

With this attidue, why not add AMRAAMS to Tomcat, you can also limit this in editor? Where is the line? It's really str8forward, in 1991 Tomcat wasnt multirole fighter, as key sensors and weapons that were part of being multirole were not integrated. Amraam is maybe extreame example, but lets say Aim-9J, out of service, but why not add?

Edited yesterday at 09:15 AM by Ramius007

[Ramius007]

To sound less offensive, I just add, that HB is doing great job giving us diffrent Tomcat versions, but using editor option for anything is just poor man tool to increase module fidelity, that should be done HB way, providing 3 diffrent modules, so I just not get why not takie adventage of this. There are practical DCS considerations for doing this, not just sticking to historical accuracy, like PVE server that offer time specific older setups, so they can pick 1 version without having to modify werehousing and Tomcat loadouts, PvP servers-this one is obvious, but similar, another reason are tools like Liberation and Retribution, where adding 1 specific version of module, cuts time for making realistic scenario. 1 more thing about std for x plane being wired for, but not used y, We have my beloved HB Viggen with fictional swedish AGM-65B, if we go this line, we should add to Viggen US Mav A and B, along all Sidewinders versions that were wired for swedish aim-9l and 9J pylons. It's not good hill to defend and die. Sorry for sounding offensive, I wasnt mean to

[captain_dalan]

Loved the Early 135GR since it dropped it. Didn't get to fly it nearly as much as the other variants, but already there seem to be some interesting quirks about it, like the afterburners flaming out in unfortunate moments! 
Is there are comprehensive list of differences between the Early and Late 135GR, aside from the visuals? Like engine performance, avionics and flight characteristics? 

Great job with this one, it's been a long time, but well worth the wait! 

[IronMike]

6 hours ago, Ramius007 said:

With this attidue, why not add AMRAAMS to Tomcat, you can also limit this in editor? Where is the line? It's really str8forward, in 1991 Tomcat wasnt multirole fighter, as key sensors and weapons that were part of being multirole were not integrated. Amraam is maybe extreame example, but lets say Aim-9J, out of service, but why not add?

Maybe to explain our side of things, and where we draw that line - but a few things to consider first: Tomcats were often patchwork aircraft, you would find elements from most variants in later versions and vice versa and as mentioned above, early models remained in service very long, with or without various upgrades that could differ from aicraft to aicraft. 

That out of the way, the reason why you can fit a late model aim7 but not an amraam, is that we go by what was readily available in the fleet and could be equipped at any given moment. A great example are the zuni rockets. No Tomcat pilot I ever spoke to ever fired a single zuni rocket during their time, but: the fleet could equip and deploy them at any given moment. So, if it was readily available at any moment during the span of its service life, in the fleet, we offer it (provided it exists in DCS). If it wasn't, we don't. 

The Amraam was indeed fired from Tomcats, but it neede extra fitting and hacking if you like, and as such was not readily availble for aircraft in the fleet. 

The rest is up to the mission makers. If you make an early 80s mission, restrict late aim7s, and good is. Or not. This is an option we leave to players and do not force on them. If someone wants to play what if scenarios that is ok. That is not up to us to decide or to restrict. And finally, you as the player, can always decide regardless of mission settings to just not take what breaks your immersion (provided it isnt an instant action, etc airstart yada mission). 

But not allowing them, would actually be the unrealistic thing to do, because, it did carry them at the end of its service life. 

Hope that makes sense. 

Edited yesterday at 03:56 PM by IronMike

[Ramius007]

Lets agree to disagree. Mentioning Amraams was hyperbole ofc, I know Tomcats were not wired for them, but You are overestimating avg. DCS player ability to recognize what year was X Aim-7 variant, for majority of playerbase, multirole Tomcat is 80's bird you portrey it as such, for majority of playerbase GPS navigation was std in 90's military aircraft, and both helmet and link 16 was std on every NATO Viper and Hornet in 2005, It's what is obvious if you read this forum. I understand that Tomcats varied plane to plane, even late in service life, but some combos are still VERY unlikely, like aim-9p from 1993 on early F-14A. It's just my personall opinion, that you are doing Tomcat not good promoting it into 90's and 2000's, becouse it's either outclassed, or you have to buff AIM-54 beyond realistic level to compete, instead of crafting CW niche with new variants. ED is helping with this btw, but restricting redfor missiles to early 2000's at best.

[RustBelt]

7 hours ago, Ramius007 said:

With this attidue, why not add AMRAAMS to Tomcat, you can also limit this in editor? Where is the line? It's really str8forward, in 1991 Tomcat wasnt multirole fighter, as key sensors and weapons that were part of being multirole were not integrated. Amraam is maybe extreame example, but lets say Aim-9J, out of service, but why not add?

Because they do what they want as the developer, and you do what you want as the player.

Make your own rules. It's a toy!

3 hours ago, captain_dalan said:

Loved the Early 135GR since it dropped it. Didn't get to fly it nearly as much as the other variants, but already there seem to be some interesting quirks about it, like the afterburners flaming out in unfortunate moments! 
Is there are comprehensive list of differences between the Early and Late 135GR, aside from the visuals? Like engine performance, avionics and flight characteristics? 

Great job with this one, it's been a long time, but well worth the wait! 

I'm mostly happy with the F110 powered B. But I'm glad people like it. 

I'd be more happy if long standing bugs with the B (the plane I specifically bought) were dealt with, but yea.....A...ok

[RustBelt]

50 minutes ago, Ramius007 said:

Lets agree to disagree. Mentioning Amraams was hyperbole ofc, I know Tomcats were not wired for them, but You are overestimating avg. DCS player ability to recognize what year was X Aim-7 variant, for majority of playerbase, multirole Tomcat is 80's bird you portrey it as such, for majority of playerbase GPS navigation was std in 90's military aircraft, and both helmet and link 16 was std on every NATO Viper and Hornet in 2005, It's what is obvious if you read this forum. I understand that Tomcats varied plane to plane, even late in service life, but some combos are still VERY unlikely, like aim-9p from 1993 on early F-14A. It's just my personall opinion, that you are doing Tomcat not good promoting it into 90's and 2000's, becouse it's either outclassed, or you have to buff AIM-54 beyond realistic level to compete, instead of crafting CW niche with new variants. ED is helping with this btw, but restricting redfor missiles to early 2000's at best.

Sounds like you have a problem with a bad corner of the player base, not Heatblur's choices.

[IronMike]

3 hours ago, Ramius007 said:

Lets agree to disagree. Mentioning Amraams was hyperbole ofc, I know Tomcats were not wired for them, but You are overestimating avg. DCS player ability to recognize what year was X Aim-7 variant, for majority of playerbase, multirole Tomcat is 80's bird you portrey it as such, for majority of playerbase GPS navigation was std in 90's military aircraft, and both helmet and link 16 was std on every NATO Viper and Hornet in 2005, It's what is obvious if you read this forum. I understand that Tomcats varied plane to plane, even late in service life, but some combos are still VERY unlikely, like aim-9p from 1993 on early F-14A. It's just my personall opinion, that you are doing Tomcat not good promoting it into 90's and 2000's, becouse it's either outclassed, or you have to buff AIM-54 beyond realistic level to compete, instead of crafting CW niche with new variants. ED is helping with this btw, but restricting redfor missiles to early 2000's at best.

I appreciate your opinion, but that does not change that it is wrong. Envoking "majority of playerbase" also just doesn't work, sorry. If anyone has a good grasp what the majority of our playerbase wants, it is us, and I wouldnt dare to make such claims. Besides I can almost guarantee you that the majority wants all weapons from across the entire lifespan of the aircraft. 

The F-14A spans multiple decades and these weapons are and will continue to be represented. I also have to kindly say that we completely disagree with your entire approach. Making something forcefully niche, when it isn't or wasn't - just no. The choice is the player's to pick what they want as era appropriate, when they date their missions to a specific era. I could not think of anything going more against the whole essence and beauty of any Tomcat variant, and especially the -A, to stay this adaptable over such a long time, than just restricting it to 80s only for the sake of a single player's wishes. 

I am sorry if I sound a bit harsh here, I just want to make it clear that the discussion is a bit fruitless, because there are no circumstances under which we would even remotely consider changing that. Thank you for your kind understanding. 

Edited yesterday at 07:34 PM by IronMike

[Zabuzard]

Gonna chime in and say that the argument that the average player might not know which weapon is right for which time is valid but can also be approached differently.

For example by providing time ranges or an overview table in the manual or similar. Like, offering improved documentation and teaching/guidance materials.

So if that is a problem, maybe we can go that route instead

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

31 minutes ago, Zabuzard said:

the argument that the average player might not know which weapon is right for which time is valid

It is: how many times do you for example see people flying F-16s with AIM-120Cs on the wingtips and AIM-9Ps under the wings (because P is higher up the alphabet than M so it must be better, right? ).

 

33 minutes ago, Zabuzard said:

improved documentation

Good idea!

[Ramius007]

Do HB have plans to release Tomcat variant that wasnt multirole, similar or exactly the same as iranian one, with 2nd generation of aim-9 and aim-7e?

13 hours ago, IronMike said:

Making something forcefully niche, when it isn't or wasn't - just no. The choice is the player's to pick what they want as era appropriate, when they date their missions to a specific era. I could not think of anything going more against the whole essence and beauty of any Tomcat variant, and especially the -A, to stay this adaptable over such a long time, than just restricting it to 80s only for the sake of a single player's wishes. 
 

Then You are going to sacrafice realism, to deliver multirole Tomcat in 80's, that didnt exist IRL, in a combat flight simulator, unless player is knowladgeble enaugh to do it himself

[draconus]

1 hour ago, Ramius007 said:

Then You are going to sacrafice realism, to deliver multirole Tomcat in 80's, that didnt exist IRL, in a combat flight simulator, unless player is knowladgeble enaugh to do it himself

That's the point of the simulation to simulate any scenario you want, any place, any time. Mission realism is in the hands of mission maker. Don't mistake aircraft capabilities with history.

[Ramius007]

1 hour ago, draconus said:

That's the point of the simulation to simulate any scenario you want, any place, any time. Mission realism is in the hands of mission maker. Don't mistake aircraft capabilities with history.

I agree, and now ask devs to stick to this idea, and allow ALL weapons on all platforms they are simulating, that were wired for those weapons, at least allow those weapons as editor option. It's fair and realistic, and part of simulation, right?

[79Au]

It's better to have a gun and need it, than not having a gun and not need it.