Aries144

Something's not right here. The purpose of the Standard ARM and HARM were to provide anti radiation missiles that continued homing on the stored location of a radar emitter if it stopped emitting. HARM used to do that in DCS, now it doesn't.

I'm seeing this as well.

I understand the disappointment. I believe the issue here is that there was an expectation that ED only allows aircraft that were actually deployed by a military force, and that expectation has led to disappointment with ED's acceptance of a prototype aircraft. Considering this was apparently the only way for Deka to get any version of the J-8II in game, and it was a real small production aircraft that very well could have gone on to large scale production (much like a favorite aircraft of mine that suffered the exact same fate, the Northrup F-20), I'm personally fine with it. I hope it leads to the inclusion of more interesting low production number aircraft. Remember, just because a module is made doesn't mean a mission maker can't exclude it from his mission. I think it will be an interesting module, just like the Ka-50 and the Su-25T, and I hope the OP can find his way to a point of view that allows him to be more satisfied with the situation.

It is indeed outstanding and very enjoyable. I hope more affordable and convenient options for FFB joysticks come to market so more people can appreciate just how great this is. I'll add that the WW2 aircraft and the L39 are also excellent with FFB.

Ah ha! I didn't know that. That makes a lot of sense. Thanks for the correction. Thank you for taking the time to reply! I'd love to see all those in-game eventually, as it offers some really interesting options for simulating earlier scenarios in the 70's. I love the 60s, 70s, and 80s for the massive variety in aircraft and armament in use through those periods. It might be my version of the "WW2 boomer" thing as I get older, as these were the aircraft and weapons I always heard about from adults and TV when I was growing up. Thank you for your work.

Thank you, I appreciate your taking the time to respond. Just to offer a quick note, I think you'll find the AIM-9J is an Air Force only variant of the Sidewinder. The US Navy used the B, D, H, G, and then the "unified" sidewinders along with the Air Force from the L onwards. Might you have meant the AIM-9H? That brings up an interesting bit of trivia: did the Navy ever use the P model? I know the Air Force bought several thousand of them to use for "low value targets," but I'm not sure if the Navy did or perhaps just used leftover Hs for a similar purpose or maybe simply converted totally to all aspect and never looked looked back.

Your rude reply is uncalled for. I'm glad you have hours every day to peruse forums like this one, I don't. The last time I checked in, the variant being talked about was a mid 70's variant, based on the version sold to Iran. It's perfectly reasonable to assume that an aircraft introduced in 1974 would be capable of launching AIM-9D, G, and H. The D was the most advanced heat seeker in Navy service until the introduction of the G in 1970 and the H was only introduced in 72. If you have specific knowledge that all earlier weapons were replaced in service by the latest available to date, perhaps consider posting that instead of wasting the time of every person who reads this thread with your haughty and ill informing response.

AIM-9D, AIM-9H, AIM-9G, and AIM-7E? These were all in inventory in 1974 when the F-14 entered service and I assume all were able to be launched by the F-14? I'm anxious to see the 60s/early 70s missiles implemented into the game to start some Vietnam War era servers.

I'm also interested. I love the F-14's implementation of FFB with my MSFF2.

Same here. Changed password, still can't log in.

Yeah, I think this is the area I'd like to see Jester's next bit of development time go. If I'm in the back seat and I see a datalink contact at 30 miles at 1000ft, I'm going to get my radar slewed down to check him out, especially if the datalink contact says he's hostile. Right now, Jester doesn't seem to react to datalink contacts at all. They're for human reference only. Knowing that, for now I just need to treat Jester like a noobie back seater and micro manage him a bit more. Thank you all very much for your input. It saved me a lot of time experimenting!

So, essentially, the player or a human can see the datalink contact, but Jester can't. Is that correct? The player must talk jester's radar onto a datalink contact via the menu commands?

The biggest issue I have when flying the F-14, since its release, is with Jester and his frequent inability to TWS hook or hard lock targets inside about 20-30 miles, when I can plainly see them on datalink on the TID repeater in the front seat. This leaves a huge engagement gap until I can lock and engage targets myself with VSL or PAL. Obviously, against targets with fox 1 or fox 3 missiles, this is very frustrating. The most recent occurrence was trying to engage two J11s that took off about 30 miles from me. I was at 25,000. I turned to engage, could see them clearly on the TID repeater, but Jester wouldn't hook them with Phoenix selected and also wouldn't lock them. "Unable." "Uh, I can't do that." I held them on the nose until inside PAL range and Jester refused to either TWS or hard lock when STT was selected from the com menu. Am I the first person to notice this? Is there a Jester mechanic I'm not understanding?

It seems to me from the evidence presented and the tenor of communication that the Heatblur team truly is committed to accurate simulation. Thank you for your passion, your patience, and your commitment to excellence, all in the face of much hard work. It is truly appreciated by every person who finds it.

It's really cool to see this. I'm pleased Heatblur has taken this aircraft on. Considering how much I still enjoy the F-14, I'm really looking forward to experiencing their work on the F-4E.