Jump to content

Sideburns

Members
  • Posts

    254
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Sideburns

  1. Still appears to be an issue, re-arm on ground doesn't replace empty centre line tank. Must remove and replace to get a fresh, full centre line tank.
  2. The AWACs is not an all seeing eye, it has a finite range and can be notched or an opponent can use terrain to mask. Also bear in mind it takes time for a radar contact to become a track and then to be transferred by DL, it may be the case the track is being lost before it can be conveyed by DL but is being relayed by voice radio to you. In these situations I try to keep a mental map of intermittent radar & DL contacts and tracks as well as voice comms on contacts. Should it be better then it is, perhaps, it is representative of the real life difficulties of maintaining a radar track and picture, probably.
  3. The manual at is quite useful on this http://heatblur.se/F-14Manual/general.html#pulse-doppler-mode "As the computer routine calculating these tracks need a set track refresh time of 2 seconds this limits available azimuth scan area and bar settings to either 20° 4 bars or 40° 2 bars. When entering TWS the computer automatically selects the ±20° 4 bar scan disregarding the RIO set scan volumes unless those are set to ±40° 2 bars in which case that is used instead." If you are in TWS and have anything but 40/2bar set, it will be in 20/4bar.
  4. It would be nice to see, atm the Aim54 can lose 400-700 knots in the correction turn and a lesser amount in go active. The transitions are very jerky.
  5. It is quite gratifying assisting with bug hunting for HB as you are very attentive to issues. Thank you for looking into it. You can bet your last $national_currency that I will be checking this on patch release
  6. When the Phoenix no RWR warning issue was apparent it was taken seriously by HB and most server owners. In the latter case many missions removed the Phoenix until it could be fixed. Unfortunately given ED's monthly update cycle this did take some time to arrive, during which time most F14's were relegated to fox1/fox2 situation with sparrows and sidewinders. It was a fun time to explore these missiles for many. I also generally find the F14 community one of the most honest w.r.t not exploiting bugs, reporting bugs and striving for accuracy. As well as finding HB one of the most respectful module developers when responding to legitimate and illegitimate bug and issues in their modules, as you may note by their responses to you on this topic. While DCS is not perfect, it is highly enjoyable in multiplayer because of the general accuracy, strengths and weaknesses of each module. If you don't enjoy multiplayer fine, but stating it is not a multiplayer game/simulator when many enjoy DCS this way just serves to make you look foolish, as does your focus on pay to win. As per Naquaii's response, what do you hope to achieve here? Would you like some tuition on how to beat the F14 in MP?
  7. So holding M1.1 in a slow climb, zone 5 AB, from 32kft to 37kft will result in TIT overtemp and twin engine fire fairly reliably for me, issues becoming evident around 34/35kft as the TIT rises rapidly. Speed has to be M.1.10-M1.12 Sometimes happens with compressor stall warnings, sometimes not. In tests I did this with an unloaded / naked F14a, but I imagine as per prior comments having a loadout may more easily hold the plane at the "magic" M1.10-M1.12 speed as you pass through 34/35kft. Edit: Caucasus map, default weather / pressure conditions. Suspect the variation in this issue might be down to "engine condition variation" between spawns.
  8. A quick test of this issue over lunch break indicates to me it may be linked to the ramp scheduling under certain conditions. On a flight to angels 30-35k, going supersonic there were no unsolicited compressor stalls this time but stowing one engine's ramp created issues starting at M1.1, a very similar speed to where most are having issues. I will keep testing tonight to see if I can get a unsolicited compressor stall and observe for ramp issues / activity. Edit: To be clear, prior to M1.1 the ramps don't seem to move much (full open / stow doesn't cause an issue), inlet ramp activity appears to start at M1.0+ in a minor inlet ramp adjustment and begins to be significant at about M1.1. Perhaps the inlet ramps are not opening enough?
  9. I was having multiple compressor stall events trying to get through M1.1 last night and I did think it could be a inlet/ramps issues, also read an article last night saying that ramp issues were not uncommon but I thought it would be incredible, perhaps too incredible, for HB to model this. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/9599/a-tomcat-pilots-early-struggles-to-tame-the-mighty-f-14 "The F-14 had ramps in each engine intake that were hydraulically driven down at high mach numbers to reduce the area of the intake. It turned out that the left ramp intake had incorrectly deployed as we were on our takeoff roll, causing the left engine to enter into a compressor stall and lose thrust. Sucking a ramp down was not a common occurrence with the F-14, and with over 1100 hours in the Tomcat, it only happened to me one time…on my first takeoff roll!" I didn't feel like playing around with ramp switches last night (MP with RIO, didn't want to self destruct) but will give it a try tonight.
  10. I've also had this issue a few times tonight, around mach 1.0-1.15, 30,000-35,000ft. Worse in level flight (as stated earlier a dive through this speed region seems to get through the dangerpoint before it is an issue. If I was to guess the problem speed range it would be M1.05-M1.13). At some point the engine can enter a dangerous state with fuel flow and temperature for both engines oscillating rapidly. Stall light flash. Sometimes if you are quick enough and throttle to idle it avoids the dual engine fire, temperatures settle and stall lights go out. Sometimes you get two stall light flashes and it is over. Edit: To be clear fairly sure I can reproduce this if you want a track or video.
  11. Have you have seen the DCS source code or otherwise know the inner workings of DCS to make such a statement?
  12. I guess a quick fix would just be to at least universally disable ECM for now until this can be resolved. Not ideal but would at least mean the bug is removed. Edit: I guess mission makers could create a fault for the ECM on jets, but this would be quite labour intensive and could then be resolved with a repair.
  13. Where to start with this, unsure if troll or serious.... "It's fine for single player but the range difference is kind of bad for multiplayer because it's hell to balance a mission around that range difference" This is a flight simulator not Warthunder, while some servers may try to balance the sides each aircraft is intended to be an accurate simulation of the real life aircraft. For what it is worth the Phoenix despite it's range does need to be supported by a valid TWS track, which are easy to lose, to have a good chance of hitting otherwise it is likely to miss. It is also a large missile and loses energy quickly at low altitudes. It is not a silver bullet but when used correctly under the right conditions it's capabilities are awesome and should be respected. A fast and high AMRAAM launcher can be a credible threat to the F14 with Phoenix. "Various past and current issues described" Module is in early access and as stated the DCS core is in a constant state of flux, it has been difficult for HB to get things perfectly right when the foundations are changing without notice. Also the F14 is not the only module to have weapons or damage model issues, most modules have had these issues at some point. To HB's credit they are typically fairly rapid with fixes. "I also don't like that clown in the back auto-doing everything (auto chaff, auto flares, auto radar)" If you are complaining about Jester, while Jester is an amazing achievement he is not perfect and a real human RIO is better. It can be tricky to guide him in the middle of a fight for actions a human RIO would do automatically. The biggest complaint you can realistically make against Jester atm is that he calls out missile launces from far away (both enemy and friendly missile launches I believe!) In time these issues will hopefully be fixed. If you are complaining about having two crew members in the F14 this was a deliberate design choice based on Vietnam combat experience and lack of systems automation to enable a suitable workload for one pilot/crew member. You might as well complain to the US Navy and 1960s radar technology for this.
  14. Man, I'm glad I'm not the only one. My refuelling checklist includes setting Jester to STFU. Otherwise its like a tommy gun of star wars jokes.
  15. Improved finding, locking and IFF of targets I think, but no hard analysis or numbers. Just my opinion after a few solo MP sorties.
  16. I'd rather the F14 was modelled accurately and the issues of lag and rubberbanding are dealt with separately. If I play a server and it has these issues I tend to just leave anyway (For the F14 or other modules) as it is not fun to play against UFOs. These issues do seem better in the latest patch.
  17. Yeah, I've never done that to a human RIO, we usually have a good comms including clearly demarcating who has control of the radar / radar handover around 15nm from target.
  18. I have commented elsewhere but I think I had this bug and using either PLM / PAL or VSL can knock things back in order as a work around to get Jester transitioning again.
  19. In TWS modes the AWG-9 radar is maintaining a track file for each target, and depending on the classification of the targets by the RIO (hostile, friendly, unknown, don't attack, next target) orders the targets around automatically. TWS-Manual means the RIO controls the pointing of the radar whereas TWS-Auto means the AWG-9 controls it's own direction. You can use ctrl+enter to check which mode the radar is in (as well as your own control inputs). Hence it is not locking the targets persay but maintaining a rough position of them updated at a regular interval (2s I believe for the AWG-9, hence why it only works with two scan patterns). These track files are then used to guide the Aim54 to a rough position and tell it to engage its own active radar to search. There is no lock diamond or hud indication other than the "T" steering pointer in TWS-A to give a rough direction where you should be pointing. As you fire each missile the firing order will be replaced by a TTI (time to impact) estimate and the next target, previously target 2, now becomes target 1 in the firing order. The AWG-9 will also automatically change to TWS-A to try and best maintain TWS track of targets fired upon. Note also it can be a bit tense ripple firing all 6 at once as each Phoenix usually takes 3s to get off the rail from pressing fire. So around if a little over 18s for the whole lot.
  20. Yeah, probably not realistic and I basically use it to work around Jester. Not needed so much with a human RIO. A quick tap of PLM resets things.
  21. I use the PLM, pilot lock mode, to "reset" the radar. It is bound to my HOTAS. It is quite handy to reset TWS-A when it looks in the wrong direction pre-TWS launch when you are flying with Jester.
  22. Getting below your targets can really help the awg-9 gather and hold it's tracks, it also seems to work better over sea and over land look down is not its strongest game.
  23. I was about to comment on player latency / connection quality as a contributing factor to this perceived issue, I suspect other modules with high fidelity radar modelling also suffer to some extent from player rubber banding / warping around. It would be handy if ED could introduce "connection quality" tools for server operators to allow warning and kicking of clients that drop many packets or have poor latency.
  24. I also noticed this, I think I used a PLM to break out of this situation and return back to normal P-STT / PD-STT selection.
  25. I tend to just use the manoeuvre flaps (DLC back/forward) for carrier take off rather than the full flaps, and full MIL power on the F14b only. The F14a does need AB though I try to cut it as soon as possible to conserve fuel. Edit the new update does improve non-AB TF30 / F14a performance, I still like to run a bit of AB after clearing the cat to keep it safe though.
×
×
  • Create New...