TomCatMucDe Posted July 27, 2018 Share Posted July 27, 2018 Actually thats not quite true. The only "semi firm" release window that we had was end of 2017, and Heatblur apologized and explained why they missed it. They did say it is gonna be released in 2015, then 2016, and then... 2017 if there are no deaths. we are in the second half of 2018 and so far no firm date and not even pre purchase... So yeah, there is a big record of missing deadlines and huge delays. You can argue that people arent shouldnt be complain about delays, but you cant deny the delays starting from 2015. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cobra847 Posted July 27, 2018 Author Share Posted July 27, 2018 They did say it is gonna be released in 2015, then 2016, and then... 2017 if there are no deaths. we are in the second half of 2018 and so far no firm date and not even pre purchase... So yeah, there is a big record of missing deadlines and huge delays. You can argue that people arent shouldnt be complain about delays, but you cant deny the delays starting from 2015. I won't shy away from acknowledging delays - but I don't think we've ever set a firm release date in 2015 or 2016. That said; hopes and plans change during the development of a product, and the F-14 was announced very early in the process. (Unlike e.g. the Viggen). The price for open and transparent development is "delays" - which are technically not delays, just the normal course of software development. Nicholas Dackard Founder & Lead Artist Heatblur Simulations https://www.facebook.com/heatblur/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alicatt Posted July 27, 2018 Share Posted July 27, 2018 I won't shy away from acknowledging delays - but I don't think we've ever set a firm release date in 2015 or 2016. That said; hopes and plans change during the development of a product, and the F-14 was announced very early in the process. (Unlike e.g. the Viggen). The price for open and transparent development is "delays" - which are technically not delays, just the normal course of software development. Very true and thank you for keeping us informed :thumbup: Sons of Dogs, Come Eat Flesh Clan Cameron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadoga Posted July 28, 2018 Share Posted July 28, 2018 Speaking of open and transparent development: what's the current estimate?:P;) I'm sure you're close enough to give it in months now. And if you say: "aiming for end of September" and then have to delay it twice and bring it out just before X-mas: well, that's "just the normal course of software development"... I think you can start hyping us big time on a daily basis - we can take it, even with more delays. Most here are already happy campers that the medium and hardcore realism mil-flightsim genre didn't die 10 years ago with fading LOMAC & F4AF... F@#k it: your're gonna give us the most iconic of them all! - I even bought FleetDefender on Steam last week to cherish the good old times until you release whenever you're ready. Speaking only for myself: you can't preview-feed me enough, I don't care if that additional workload causes one or two weeks release delay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uri_ba Posted July 29, 2018 Share Posted July 29, 2018 Speaking of open and transparent development: what's the current estimate?:P;) I'm sure you're close enough to give it in months now. And if you say: "aiming for end of September" and then have to delay it twice and bring it out just before X-mas: well, that's "just the normal course of software development"... I think you can start hyping us big time on a daily basis - we can take it, even with more delays. Most here are already happy campers that the medium and hardcore realism mil-flightsim genre didn't die 10 years ago with fading LOMAC & F4AF... F@#k it: your're gonna give us the most iconic of them all! - I even bought FleetDefender on Steam last week to cherish the good old times until you release whenever you're ready. Speaking only for myself: you can't preview-feed me enough, I don't care if that additional workload causes one or two weeks release delay. Relax man, It'll get here when it gets here. So far they had not taken a dime from anyone, so they can delay their Hart content. Yes it's disappointing to wait so long, but we will get it. All I have to hope that because they had put so much effort into JetsterAI and the forrestal class.. the next on the list would be the A-6E Creator of Hound ELINT script My pit building blog Few DIY projects on Github: DIY Cougar throttle Standalone USB controller | DIY FCC3 Standalone USB Controller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaceFuel85 Posted July 30, 2018 Share Posted July 30, 2018 I won't shy away from acknowledging delays - but I don't think we've ever set a firm release date in 2015 or 2016. That said; hopes and plans change during the development of a product, and the F-14 was announced very early in the process. (Unlike e.g. the Viggen). The price for open and transparent development is "delays" - which are technically not delays, just the normal course of software development. Don't worry about the fit throwers Cobra..you're good. I think everyone who is paying attention knows the wait will be worth it and our patience, and cash, will be returned multifold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turkeydriver Posted July 30, 2018 Share Posted July 30, 2018 Just like the F-14 B and F-14D took 19 and 23 years to make it to the fleet in their perfected form- your product should arrive until tis ready for some work....otherwise we'll be stuck with an F-14A with early TF-30s that try to kills us and not enough to put in all the airframes. We will use the time to learn the weird F-18C module and the lovely Viggen. THe Viggen is a beaut! VF-2 Bounty Hunters https://www.csg-1.com/ DCS F-14 Pilot/RIO Discord: https://discord.gg/6bbthxk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaze1 Posted December 11, 2018 Share Posted December 11, 2018 Early ALR-67A(V) for the A-6E I used to work on those while I was in the Navy.. 77-97.. started on ALR 45/50, ALQ-126A the went to ALR-45F, then ALR-67, ALQ-126B... also ALE-29/39/41.... Ive been retired for 21 years, and still work on F/A-18 Avioncs systems at Lemoore Naval Air Station. Here is some good information on the ALR-67 suite. http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY1999/pdf/navy/99alr67.pdf Hi BeoWolf Correct me if I'm wrong. The ALR-45F was a digital version that did away with the strobes and Incorporated alphanumeric symbols? Also are you familiar with the early ALR-67A(V) as installed on the A-6E? I ask because there's a version with a different set of warning lights on the right side of the gunsight. This version appeared to have 'HARM' like features, given the warning/indicator lights in question included 'SP PBK' (Self-Protection Pull BacK) for example. I'm wondering if it was an early WCSI version that never made it to fleet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beamscanner Posted December 13, 2018 Share Posted December 13, 2018 ^ also can you confirm the type of audio the ALR-45/50 provided? 1. Raw PRF audio (Amplitude modulation using the emitters PRF) 2. Synthetic audio (fake audio generated by the RWR, usually only a few different tones) 3. A combination of Raw and synthetic audio (Low PRF/MPRF raw audio, HPRF/CW Synthetic audio) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaze1 Posted December 13, 2018 Share Posted December 13, 2018 AN/ALR-45 & AN/ALR-50 Audio Tones. ^ also can you confirm the type of audio the ALR-45/50 provided? 1. Raw PRF audio (Amplitude modulation using the emitters PRF) 2. Synthetic audio (fake audio generated by the RWR, usually only a few different tones) 3. A combination of Raw and synthetic audio (Low PRF/MPRF raw audio, HPRF/CW Synthetic audio) The AN/ALR-45 generates artificial tones that closely represent the PRF and scan of the threat radar. Track While Scan radars thus produce a chirped tone and other radars a continuous tone with a frequency related to the PRF. The AN/ALR-50 generates two tones. One for MA (Missile Alert) the other for ML (Missile Launch). MA produces a slow warbling tone at 450Hz and 550Hz, alternating at a rate of 1.8Hz. ML operates at a faster rate of 7.3Hz. Hope that helps. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThorHammer Posted December 14, 2018 Share Posted December 14, 2018 If this F-14 ever sees the light of day, I will be surprised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turkeydriver Posted December 16, 2018 Share Posted December 16, 2018 If this F-14 ever sees the light of day, I will be surprised. apparently you love surprises..... VF-2 Bounty Hunters https://www.csg-1.com/ DCS F-14 Pilot/RIO Discord: https://discord.gg/6bbthxk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dino Might Posted December 16, 2018 Share Posted December 16, 2018 If this F-14 ever sees the light of day, I will be surprised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaze1 Posted February 4, 2019 Share Posted February 4, 2019 Do all F-14Bs feature the IP-1276/ALR-67 azimuth indicator or will the only threat indication for some aircraft be presented via the PMDIG? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naquaii Posted February 4, 2019 Share Posted February 4, 2019 Do all F-14Bs feature the IP-1276/ALR-67 azimuth indicator or will the only threat indication for some aircraft be presented via the PMDIG? We're currently not modelling an F-14 with the PMDIG. Our -B will have the standalone ALR-67 indicator in both cockpits while our -A will use the integrated ALR-45 which displays the ecm stuff on the mdi (ecmd) in the RIO pit and the HSD in the front pit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaze1 Posted February 4, 2019 Share Posted February 4, 2019 We're currently not modelling an F-14 with the PMDIG. Our -B will have the standalone ALR-67 indicator in both cockpits while our -A will use the integrated ALR-45 which displays the ecm stuff on the mdi (ecmd) in the RIO pit and the HSD in the front pit. Thanks Naquaii. The reason I asked is because in some videos of your F-14B, the azimuth indicator isn't present. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strikeeagle345 Posted February 4, 2019 Share Posted February 4, 2019 Thanks Naquaii. The reason I asked is because in some videos of your F-14B, the azimuth indicator isn't present. I believe those videos were using the A pit as the B pit was still WIP. Strike USLANTCOM.com i7-9700K OC 5GHz| MSI MPG Z390 GAMING PRO CARBON | 32GB DDR4 3200 | GTX 3090 | Samsung SSD | HP Reverb G2 | VIRPIL Alpha | VIRPIL Blackhawk | HOTAS Warthog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naquaii Posted February 4, 2019 Share Posted February 4, 2019 I believe those videos were using the A pit as the B pit was still WIP. Correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaze1 Posted February 4, 2019 Share Posted February 4, 2019 A ha.:thumbup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beamscanner Posted September 8, 2021 Share Posted September 8, 2021 (edited) 6 hours ago, BeoWolf_57 said: AN/ALR 45/50 made a warble sound (kind of like a english police siren) when it detected a Fire Control signal scanning your plane, (Missile Activity) the warble became faster when it went from "Missile Activity" to "Missile Launch" . For the old Sams when they launched they were being sent in the general direction of the locked target. When the booster fell off it exposed an antenna, the ground based fire control antenna starts sending guidance pulses to the missile, the 45/50 saw these pulses start to move and knew the missile was in the air, so the warble became much faster, and it sounded more like an alarm clock speed warble. The F-14 did not carry the 45/50 or the ALQ-126A it carried the older RHAW and the ALQ-100. Only the A-7, A-6 and even the EA-6B carried the 45/50, and ALQ-126A. On this page the audio samples of "Radar Uplink" is Missile Activity warble and the "Missile Approach" is the "Missile Launch" faster warble. The real sounds were a bit deeper in tone, these are thin weak. https://www.openflightschool.de/mod/book/view.php?id=806&chapterid=895 On all of the cruises I made there were never any F-14D's onboard, so I can't attest to any of the DECM/RHAW equipment they might have carried. I mainly worked on the stuff in the attack aircraft. I don't really know what your asking in your questions above. 1. Who's PRF?, the RADAR emitter?............ the Fire Control RADAR has a Carrier Frequency, if you don't know it you can't deceive or jam it. A Pulse Repetition Frequency of the transmitted pulses and a Pulse Width of said pulse. Each Fire Control Radar is different, so each one has what we called a "Finger Print" no two were alike (different SAM, Airborne Missile, AAA) Each RHAW system has a "Threat Library" of these "finger prints" on the a memory cards PROM. The 45/50 were hard wired (ROM's), the 45F, and 67 had a programmable PROM to update their library. 2. With everything I touched in 20 years in the USN there were only two audio ques you had trouble on the horizon. Missile Activity and Missile Launch, along with corresponding flashing lights in buttons you could push to silence it. 3. the link I posted above are exactly the sounds the 45/50 made. Remember this is Defensive Electronic Countermeasures, Pilot intervention is not needed, it's only designed to get you into and out of the target area using the DECM suite, Chaff, Flares and Jammers AN/ALE-29, 39 and 41. the ALQ is a Deception Repeater, which means it LIES to the FC RADAR on a pulse for pulse rate. It's auto matic and will go from RX to Repeat if taken out of standby. Designed to come on at a certain Power Level of RX signal and programmed to go back to RX at a different power level (stays on longer while you make one pass and haul ass). Here is a link to the OLD Crows association, where you can find literature on Electronic Warfare Modeling and use. https://www.crows.org/page/recommendedbooks Cheers Hoss yes.. we all know that PRFs are specific to the emitting radar. I have already found my information. The 45 provided PRF audio via PDWs (pulse descriptor words).. ie each radar sounds unique, and you can hear the enemy radar change modes, scan volume, etc.. All navy RWRs after that point moved to synthetic tones. "Threat Warning For Tactical Aircraft" by Robert Simmen explains much of the development history of RWRs. Edited September 8, 2021 by Beamscanner 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_Hoss Posted September 9, 2021 Share Posted September 9, 2021 (edited) LOL, well okay then, I guess you know way more about it than anyone else. So humbling, thanks! The newer RHAW receivers didn't emit a tone for Missile Activity/Missile Launch like the 45/50, there's was for a specific type of threat, nothing to do with PRF, it had to do with the platform, Air to Air missile, Air to Air gun, Ground SAM, Ground AAA/AA along with the associated symbology. The tones are for "PRIORITY" OF THE THREAT. remember the Threat library?. RADAR's fingerprint?.. It classifies them by severity of it's threat to the aircraft. Ground Search RADAR, Airborne Search Radar, Low Pri. Airborne Fire Control RADAR, Surface Fire Control RADAR higher priority. There comes a point where you just get tired of explaining things. This is just a game, so what does it matter how you model something, it's not going to function like the real world model anyway. If it were horseshoes, it would'nt be close enough to count anyway. Yeah, I know, 20 more points from the admins.. LOL DILLIGAFF.............. Fair Winds and Following Seas Edited September 9, 2021 by BeoWolf_57 Sempre Fortis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BreaKKer Posted September 9, 2021 Share Posted September 9, 2021 It’s been 2 years… why did this have to get rebumped for this 1 BreaKKer CAG and Commanding Officer of: Carrier Air Wing Five // VF-154 Black Knights Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
draconus Posted September 9, 2021 Share Posted September 9, 2021 10 hours ago, BeoWolf_57 said: This is just a game, so what does it matter how you model something... Quite a statement for a study sim forum. I'll only say it matters a lot to many and is The Reason for the DCS existence. 4 Win10 i7-10700KF 32GB RTX3060 Rift S T16000M TWCS TFRP FC3 F-14A/B F-15E CA SC NTTR PG Syria Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaze1 Posted September 9, 2021 Share Posted September 9, 2021 8 hours ago, BreaKKer said: It’s been 2 years… why did this have to get rebumped for this I must admit that I'm glad it was re-bumped, because it's an interesting topic. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beamscanner Posted September 11, 2021 Share Posted September 11, 2021 On 9/8/2021 at 5:02 PM, BeoWolf_57 said: There comes a point where you just get tired of explaining things. This is just a game, so what does it matter how you model something, it's not going to function like the real world model anyway. If it were horseshoes, it would'nt be close enough to count anyway. Yeah, I know, 20 more points from the admins.. LOL DILLIGAFF.............. Fair Winds and Following Seas Dude, no one asked about how synthetic tones work in the ALR-67. We've known about those tones for years. "DILLIGAFF?" Yes, it appears so. Don't assume that people on this forum are not in the know about EW, ELINT and Radar Theory. Be it professionally.. or not. Approachable, Creditable, humble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts