Heatblur Development Update - Thunder & Cat

How were they doing this? I'm extremely curious.

Blind calls, Vector Logic, and contracts for grid responsibility.

VL, when cut down, could give a set of Tomcat CAPs vectors with all of two values relative to a specific point (normally the boat, or a position relative to the ship's direction of travel): a heading relative to in two digits, and a letter, which signified range, often delineating 50 nautical miles of range. So if the jamming degraded call came in as "09 E", the CAPs knew the target of interest was on a heading of 90 degrees at 250 miles from the ship (or the point delineated as the MEU).

At that point, it was the responsibility for the group covering that particular region of the threat sector to determine and prosecute the contact. Contracts between crews would determine which jet in the flight looked high or low, and once found, the target was dealt with accordingly.

Navy pilots didn't have trouble with bearings; they simply preferred to receive blind calls rather than handholding- because they knew their job at the killing end better than the guy 200 miles away gazing in the looking glass. And it tended to be more efficient because the radials expanded outward from what they were defending- not what they were attacking. Prosecution responsibility between multiple groups becomes more difficult to ascertain as the slices get closer together- which they do when you're looking at bullseye rather than out from it, thus the need for more positive control. F-14 crews trained to work with minimal oversight in the grid because comms denial was the expected level of opposition.

Can't wait for the Iceman AI orbit option!

 

Also can be great a option "fly to WP#" or something like that :)

 

and.... my dreamed option "refuel the plane" So I can sit back there and watch the show (yes, lazy)

 

:pilotfly:

You're hilarious, but I appreciate your verve! :lol:

This is very interesting. From this I'm reading between the lines that Tomcat's were very self sufficient in fleet defence role. But it doesnt hint at other uses. Blind calls, Vectors and responsibility is automated, assuming no agency control required. It is also quite foreign to current AIC practices.

It also does add to the history that they weren't good at integration. They didn't need it, right? We consider the case of blue water ops, the carrier is the centre of the world, the distances are huge, everything comes out from the carrier. The Tomcats are on the edge of the E2C radar looking out.

From the point of the DCS World and how it's "played" we have huge differences;

• Mixed USAF and Navy aircraft with built in Bulleseye/BRAA
  
• Decades apart in process, purpose, practice and procedure
  
• Shores being close and distances being close
  
• Land featuring in the maps with land objectives
  
• Bullseyes that exist, rather than references to Father
  
• Integrated systems with players acting out controllers governing multiple aircraft types on their own.
  

None of the original use-cases assume requirement for control.

Our DCS community players are playing a completely different sim in the most part, trying to crowbar in that different use case, into combined arms operations. I'm not talking about individual players on something like Blue Flag, but a group of studied folks looking at NATOPS and trying to work out the limitations of how the Tomcat "fits", with an F-18, an A-10C, a Mirage, etc.

This is why they search for solutions on integration. It's not like this is an unfamiliar problem in real life either. GW1? It's a human desire.

So, I bet, Navgrid isn't interesting for a) players modelling self sufficient ops (b) Multiplayer without any integrated controller agencies or © the original Tomcat pilots? Maybe.

But for Multiplayers wanting to fly with Tomcat's using NATO current standards of air control, broadcast, tactical and tight control, you can bet, these folks are wanting to try to work through basic problems, given the tools available to them.

And that is why these additional tools are interesting and potentially really useful. Not because it's just an obscure, under-used real life tool, but because that obscure tool fits with the needs of a completely different use case.

Of course, those people not requiring it, will always call it out as not interesting to them. That's OK, but just mind, I haven't asked anyone to play the sim any differently ;)

Blind calls, Vector Logic, and contracts for grid responsibility.

 

VL, when cut down, could give a set of Tomcat CAPs vectors with all of two values relative to a specific point (normally the boat, or a position relative to the ship's direction of travel): a heading relative to in two digits, and a letter, which signified range, often delineating 50 nautical miles of range. So if the jamming degraded call came in as "09 E", the CAPs knew the target of interest was on a heading of 90 degrees at 250 miles from the ship (or the point delineated as the MEU).

 

At that point, it was the responsibility for the group covering that particular region of the threat sector to determine and prosecute the contact. Contracts between crews would determine which jet in the flight looked high or low, and once found, the target was dealt with accordingly.

 

Navy pilots didn't have trouble with bearings; they simply preferred to receive blind calls rather than handholding- because they knew their job at the killing end better than the guy 200 miles away gazing in the looking glass. And it tended to be more efficient because the radials expanded outward from what they were defending- not what they were attacking. Prosecution responsibility between multiple groups becomes more difficult to ascertain as the slices get closer together- which they do when you're looking at bullseye rather than out from it, thus the need for more positive control. F-14 crews trained to work with minimal oversight in the grid because comms denial was the expected level of opposition.

I'm not saying it isn't interesting, because it's something I've waited for myself since joining in test last year to run such operations properly. What I am saying is that if you want to simulate the realities of integration with involvement of the roles the Tomcat flew, you're going to be doing conversion in one direction or the other when the bag of ish hits the fan. And to be honest, if your pair is paying attention to where a ship reference is, and you know where bullseye is relative to that reference, if NAVGRID is configured ship relative, its simple to derive the target relative to the bullseye call.

You should be able to do it with a waypoint known to you that is *not* sitting on bullseye now- its the same aspect calculation you should be making in your head so you have the picture separate of a target.

Know what keeps force planners up at night these days? Loss of datalink. The kids are losing these skills because of sensory overload. They're getting more information than ever before, but not necessarily learning how these things are derived. The last three generations had to learn these skills cold before going to war, and that's the era that DCS is ultimately modeling best with the majority of its modules- the 90s-00s bridge to where we are now. So get comfortable and experience it.

Sorry if it sounded like it, i was referring to another post earlier, not yours with the "interesting" part. :)

Reference waypoints. I found it amazing, that, if you hook a waypoint it gives you the magnetic bearing "MBR". As soon as you hook a contact, though, you get your relative bearing!! It's a deliberate design philosophy and tricky to work around. Of course we have the benefit of time travel and how the F-18 developed and the different philosophy's but we still fly both airplane types together and it makes keeping up with the F-18 super hard.

That's what keeps me up, integration, not so much DL which can confuse and lag and sometimes gets switched off.

I'm not saying it isn't interesting, because it's something I've waited for myself since joining in test last year to run such operations properly. What I am saying is that if you want to simulate the realities of integration with involvement of the roles the Tomcat flew, you're going to be doing conversion in one direction or the other when the bag of ish hits the fan. And to be honest, if your pair is paying attention to where a ship reference is, and you know where bullseye is relative to that reference, if NAVGRID is configured ship relative, its simple to derive the target relative to the bullseye call.

 

You should be able to do it with a waypoint known to you that is *not* sitting on bullseye now- its the same aspect calculation you should be making in your head so you have the picture separate of a target.

 

Know what keeps force planners up at night these days? Loss of datalink. The kids are losing these skills because of sensory overload. They're getting more information than ever before, but not necessarily learning how these things are derived. The last three generations had to learn these skills cold before going to war, and that's the era that DCS is ultimately modeling best with the majority of its modules- the 90s-00s bridge to where we are now. So get comfortable and experience it.

 

VL, when cut down, could give a set of Tomcat CAPs vectors with all of two values relative to a specific point (normally the boat, or a position relative to the ship's direction of travel): a heading relative to in two digits, and a letter, which signified range, often delineating 50 nautical miles of range. So if the jamming degraded call came in as "09 E", the CAPs knew the target of interest was on a heading of 90 degrees at 250 miles from the ship (or the point delineated as the MEU).

Thanks for this tidbit! The NATOPS mentions navigation grid sector voice codes, but doesn't explain how they're formed. I had guessed (correctly it turns out) that it was 2 digit relative bearing and range/50 from A, based on the few image examples, but it's great to have further confirmation of this. These sector voice codes are also displayed next to hooked targets when nav grid is enabled (alternating with altitude every 2 seconds).

Thanks for the detailed post! I'll take this into consideration and bump up the priority. I haven't heard any passionate pleas for this feature prior to yours :), I've heard of more people that want the AVIA page for instance (which is also a lot easier to add). Maybe there will still be time for it this year, but no promises. One option might be to implement it initially without the TID cursor offset, this will make it much easier I think. This will allow the relative position readouts (w.r.t. YY/bullseye) to function, just not allow the "map" to be "panned" essentially.

Amazing, thank you!

Thanks a lot for looking into it, highly appreciated!

Is increasing the external lighting brightness going to be included in this Q4 update?

Thanks!

Is increasing the external lighting brightness going to be included in this Q4 update?

 

Thanks!

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

This, yes please. Having to crane my neck and zoom in on the top of the vertical stab to hopefully see the beacon is killing me

 

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

I laughed at this way more than I should have :lol:

I laughed at this way more than I should have

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

Just and FYI, increasing brightness of external lights is on the list.

At least F14 has external lights (looking at you Viper). :D

Cobra, IronMike, and Heatblur team:

Thank you, again! I would have said that earlier; I just caught the thread about what's to come.

Y'all have my appreciation!

Greetings from Israel,

HEATBLUR team, Thank you for all the hard work on these modules. I own the F-14B, A plane that never had been in IAF and you caused me to admire that plane. Since it released i'm working hard to study and researched it. Thank you for this wonderful bird.

Shmulik

Wasn't it planned to release at least an update to the cat this week?

I believe they deferred to next week as it's going to be a big update on the Cat. I know I saw a reply from Cobra on Reddit with this week's first OB patch. Then Razbam crammed a bunch in on a second OB patch the next day, and IIRC Friday ED was gunning for a stable release maybe?

Really looking forward to what the next update will bring to the Tomcat!

Are additions/improvements to the over wing vapor in the works? It seems right now that over wing vapor exists in only high AOA/slow flight conditions. In reality, I have seen numerous air shows and videos that show the Tomcat producing over wing vapor in a variety of other situations, such as high speed/high G flight.

Really looking forward to what the next update will bring to the Tomcat!

Agreed:thumbup:

Hey, I want to know will jester be able to enable track hold, cycle the missile modes, and toggle the zero doppler filter?

Thank you Heatblur, your F-14 bring me so much fun : )

Hey, I want to know will jester be able to enable track hold, cycle the missile modes, and toggle the zero doppler filter?

we'll decide these kind of things after we have TWS-Auto working.

Heatblur Development Update - Thunder & Cat

Any further news about Mr. TWS Auto?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Any further news about Mr. TWS Auto?

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

It's having a bit of a complicated affair with Mrs. Development, but I think if we give them a bit of privacy, it will be a match made in heaven. In other words: two weeks. :D