What is the state of the FM as of today?

So from my perspective, the best workaround would to add some kind of audio cues, like the airframe squicking when under high g i.e. to the different states the plane is in? Or maybe bring back the rattle? What do you guys think?

I would leave it to SMEs. Please, no additional fictional sounds. There are already high G airframe-under-stress sounds but you're close to blackout when this happens anyway.

To my knowledge we never removed the rattle as such. AOA buffet has been displaced slightly so that it now sets in at a slightly higher AOA, which ofc has rattle connected to it. Maybe that is putting you off? But we did not change any of the sounds in the past couple months.

To my knowledge we never removed the rattle as such. AOA buffet has been displaced slightly so that it now sets in at a slightly higher AOA, which ofc has rattle connected to it. Maybe that is putting you off? But we did not change any of the sounds in the past couple months.

Some report indicate that maximum AOA for the F-14 is 74 to 77 degree. but it can't touch the AOA in DCS.

I would leave it to SMEs. Please, no additional fictional sounds. There are already high G airframe-under-stress sounds but you're close to blackout when this happens anyway.

The high g situations are no issue. Plenty of feedback there, both in shape of g-lock and aircraft screeching. It is the lack of such feedback during zero air speed and alpha induced stalls that bothers me. How would you solve the issue (in a limited budget case)?

... AOA buffet has been displaced slightly so that it now sets in at a slightly higher AOA, which ofc has rattle connected to it. Maybe that is putting you off? But we did not change any of the sounds in the past couple months.

Yes, that is exactly it! :thumbup: Could the rattle be amp-ed just slightly at lower AoA?

Some report indicate that maximum AOA for the F-14 is 74 to 77 degree. but it can't touch the AOA in DCS.

That's transitional alpha, you need to be in a post stall regime to experience that (your wings stalled, but your body still producing some lift). :thumbup:

While not as easily accessed/controllable as the Hornet, the Big Fighter has phenomenal high-alpha control and excellent low-speed/post stall pointability, continues to amaze me.

DISCO

Yes, that is exactly it! :thumbup: Could the rattle be amp-ed just slightly at lower AoA?

And go against SMEs advice....?

The airframe shaking & aural feedback is much better now IMHO.

Before it was to early & felt misleading. The plane started to shake like crazy at 15 AoA during Case I/III. Now it starts just before the edge of high & excessive AoA.

The high g situations are no issue. Plenty of feedback there, both in shape of g-lock and aircraft screeching. It is the lack of such feedback during zero air speed and alpha induced stalls that bothers me. How would you solve the issue (in a limited budget case)?

 

 

 

Yes, that is exactly it! :thumbup: Could the rattle be amp-ed just slightly at lower AoA?

 

 

That's transitional alpha, you need to be in a post stall regime to experience that (your wings stalled, but your body still producing some lift). :thumbup:

My recommendation sir...buy a jetseat and you will feel more of what it is you are looking for.

It is the lack of such feedback during zero air speed and alpha induced stalls that bothers me. How would you solve the issue (in a limited budget case)?

Afaik there's plenty of visual and instrument cues in this regimes if it's not already rattling all over the place.

Im not sure what the problem is, im pulling AOA based on the gauge and the G meter. I can imagine this is a problem for those not using VR, but its certainly not if you have one on. The G gauge and the AOA gauge are 2 of the most easily readable even in VR.

Its got easier to manoeuvre IMHO. Or maybe I just got better. last night I did a beauful loop, found a hapless Su27 stuggling with maintaining speed in a climb, and I sawed his wing off with the 20mm. Thats with the cues as they are. Im not mocking those who use the cues, other than to say, I cant see you really need them unless you are really are doing something the Tomcat doesnt like, and most times you really shouldnt be at that end of the envelope.

Just my view FWIW. Though I agree, a feedback seat WOULD probably prove useful. has anyone got any examples you can recommend on Amazon?

Im not sure what the problem is, im pulling AOA based on the gauge and the G meter. I can imagine this is a problem for those not using VR, but its certainly not if you have one on. The G gauge and the AOA gauge are 2 of the most easily readable even in VR.

If you ever dogfight you would know that most of the time you look in different direction than your front panel. And when you do look up front you don't need to look at AoA or G gauges anymore. btw: I always struggle to find the G meter, that's how often I use it :)

Try something harder than AI Su-27 and try to stay around the corner speed looking at the enemy all the time.

If you ever dogfight you would know that most of the time you look in different direction than your front panel. And when you do look up front you don't need to look at AoA or G gauges anymore. btw: I always struggle to find the G meter, that's how often I use it :)

 

Try something harder than AI Su-27 and try to stay around the corner speed looking at the enemy all the time.

Yeah the G meter is not situated very well, which is another one of the reasons why I'd love the Sparrowhawk HUD :)

That said the AoA strip & Mach meter is your best friend when dogfighting in the F-14, pull 17 units AoA to lose speed, 15-16 units to maintain it, and don't drop below 0.5 Mach, then you're good.

If you ever dogfight you would know that most of the time you look in different direction than your front panel. And when you do look up front you don't need to look at AoA or G gauges anymore. btw: I always struggle to find the G meter, that's how often I use it :)

 

Try something harder than AI Su-27 and try to stay around the corner speed looking at the enemy all the time.

I spend a lot of time on the dogfight server on multiplayer. This wasnt an AI Su27, this was a real player, who proceeded to beat me in a couple of other engagements. The glory of that turn and burn still remains however.

I would be the first to admit its not ideally situated, but both are big gauges you know. The G gauge in particular you dont even really need to read the number to see where the gauge is pointing. The speed gauge is even harder to miss.

Yeah the G meter is not situated very well, which is another one of the reasons why I'd love the Sparrowhawk HUD :)

 

That said the AoA strip & Mach meter is your best friend when dogfighting in the F-14, pull 17 units AoA to lose speed, 15-16 units to maintain it, and don't drop below 0.5 Mach, then you're good.

Yeah, thats pretty much my stance on it. In fact, if you dont alter the axis of the joystick, you can figure out what kind of aoa you are going to have from stick deflection at a certain speed. I practiced going around in a 15AOA turn at about 350 knots, just so I could know what kind of stick deflection it was. Probably more difficult in a modified stick where the base is on the floor I imagine, but real pilots develop muscle memory too.

I always thought the vibration was too severe. I couldn't imagine why it would be shaking THAT much if the airframe was working as advertised. I would imagine its only substantial drag and disturbed airflow that would cause it.

And go against SMEs advice....?

The airframe shaking & aural feedback is much better now IMHO.

Before it was to early & felt misleading. The plane started to shake like crazy at 15 AoA during Case I/III. Now it starts just before the edge of high & excessive AoA.

Switch flipping audio, button clicking audio, afterburner detent audio, heck even afterburner blowing audio are all over pronounced. They are louder then the ICS mate. Do you think it was really so in the real jet? But i don't mind, in fact, IMO the module is better for all of that. It is the only jet in DCS that i own that doesn't feel "sterile". So why not amp the rattling sound as well?

My recommendation sir...buy a jetseat and you will feel more of what it is you are looking for.

I can imagine this is a problem for those not using VR, but its certainly not if you have one on. The G gauge and the AOA gauge are 2 of the most easily readable even in VR.

Well guys, my birthday was less then a month ago, but i'm still accepting gifts ;)

Afaik there's plenty of visual and instrument cues in this regimes if it's not already rattling all over the place.

If you like i can make a video about it, but right now it is possible to find your self 0 airspeed nose high without intent and without a hint from the jet you are bleeding energy. It kinda depends on your loadout, but it can happen. It's not impossible to fly mind you, a 3-4 more hours in it and the hands will get used to it, but the joy of it is gone. The feedback is gone. She responds to your commands, but doesn't react to them. Not a native English speaker, so i don't know if i'm putting it into words right.

Im not sure what the problem is, im pulling AOA based on the gauge and the G meter....

....I would be the first to admit its not ideally situated, but both are big gauges you know. The G gauge in particular you dont even really need to read the number to see where the gauge is pointing. The speed gauge is even harder to miss.

Yeah the G meter is not situated very well, which is another one of the reasons why I'd love the Sparrowhawk HUD :)

 

That said the AoA strip & Mach meter is your best friend when dogfighting in the F-14, pull 17 units AoA to lose speed, 15-16 units to maintain it, and don't drop below 0.5 Mach, then you're good.

Mates, TBH hones you must be fighting in very weird way...... :huh:

Or as Draconus said it even better:

If you ever dogfight you would know that most of the time you look in different direction than your front panel. And when you do look up front you don't need to look at AoA or G gauges anymore. btw: I always struggle to find the G meter, that's how often I use it :)

So from my perspective, the best workaround would to add some kind of audio cues, like the airframe squicking when under high g i.e. to the different states the plane is in? Or maybe bring back the rattle? What do you guys think?

Yes, that is exactly it! Could the rattle be amp-ed just slightly at lower AoA?

So why not amp the rattling sound as well?

Dude, you've got to decide! 1:st you wanted to "add audio cues" & was proven wrong, then "amp just slightly at lower AoA", wrong again! & now it's "amp the rattling sound"???

Yes a bit higher rattling sound is ok, but the rest is up to SMEs. Let the SMEs do their job!

Switch flipping audio, button clicking audio, afterburner detent audio, heck even afterburner blowing audio are all over pronounced.

Yes they are, so I'd rather fight to remove them, not add more fiction.

If you like i can make a video about it, but right now it is possible to find your self 0 airspeed nose high without intent and without a hint from the jet you are bleeding energy.

Mates, TBH hones you must be fighting in very weird way...... :huh:

How do you mean? I always look up & down in order to check AoA & Speed at certain times during a fight. It's crucial if you want to maximize your turning performance.

How do you mean? I always look up & down in order to check AoA & Speed at certain times during a fight. It's crucial if you want to maximize your turning performance.

Yeah, I do that from time to time, but most of the time I have "loose the sigth - lose the fight" in the back of my head, so prefer to restrain from rechecks :thumbup:

Yeah, I do that from time to time, but most of the time I have "loose the sigth - lose the fight" in the back of my head, so prefer to restrain from rechecks :thumbup:

For sure there are times where you gotta just keep the bogey in sight, but I've usually stabilized my turn before that, and the rest is down to muscle memory and small periodic checks.

Personally I feel I've gotten pretty good at telling when to stop pulling just by judging aircraft behavior and how heavy the buffet is, esp. after the recent patch where the heavy buffet starts later, making it easier for you to know when you're close to the limit.

Dude, you've got to decide! 1:st you wanted to "add audio cues" & was proven wrong, then "amp just slightly at lower AoA", wrong again! & now it's "amp the rattling sound"???

I think our cortex's for neural connections in very different ways.

Yes a bit higher rattling sound is ok, but the rest is up to SMEs. Let the SMEs do their job!

But that is exactly what i'm saying. Sound representation is a design choice, not an SME thing.

Yes they are, so I'd rather fight to remove them, not add more fiction.

Ah then we are on VERY different pages and i don't think we'll ever agree on this one. You see, i don't see it as fiction. I see it as a ....."supplement" a "crutch" an aid to compensate for what we lack as sim drivers/pilots. There was a comment in which one of our colleagues mentions how he makes his turn by remembering how much still deflection is required at a given air speed to perform a certain turn. It's like when driving (i chose driving just because i assume most of us here are registered drivers) remembering how many degrees to rotate your steering wheel in order to get into a curve at say 35mp/h. In reality you never do that. You adjust your wheel input based on "feel" and "feedback" from both the car and the road conditions. We don't get that in sims unless we have FFB hardware. I currently don't, nor can i afford it anytime soon. The find the audio cues to be a relatively cheep supplement for the above.

How do you mean? I always look up & down in order to check AoA & Speed at certain times during a fight. It's crucial if you want to maximize your turning performance.

That is exactly what i mean. You are driving through the HUD, aren't you? It kinda makes sense why you'd want the Sparrowhawk. There's nothing wrong with it really, it's just a preferred style of simming. There are two broad categories of us (sim flyers), people that drive the cockpit and people that drive the plane. Neither is right or wrong. We just do thing differently. HUD drivers are a sub category of the cockpit drivers. I'm in the second group. That is why we have such different opinions. :thumbup::pilotfly:

Your arguments are all over the place. You always rebuttal with quotes to specific statements rather than the context of any one person's reply.

I'll return the favor by saying, no you do not make a turn by tactile feel when driving. You make it by visual feedback. Power-steering took the raw feedback loop out of the equation a long time ago, and if you adjust your turn based on feel you are on the very edge of loosing dynamic friction, so unless you drift for a living I highly doubt your argument is relevant. Additionally you cannot compare a 2 dimensional force environment with a 3 dimensional one. Your brain has evolved to function in the former, not the latter. And besides that, most brake and gas pedals are just electronic controllers anyway. The "feedback" you get is from a spring.

The bottom line of your whole argument across the forum is that you are expecting a SOFTWARE developer to solve a HARDWARE problem. Any suggestion about hardware solutions that anyone posts is immediately dismissed because you can't afford it. You want to FEEL the plane, yet no Flight Simulator on this planet will replicate the G-Forces in the flight envelope you are referring to. Not even a multi-million dollar Level D one. Why are you expecting it from a game you paid $79 for?

So what exactly are you looking for? Pick what you want, state it and stick with it, but understand at some point the answer is NO. Stop arguing for the sake of arguing. You are not going to convince anyone here that your opinions are superior because you believe no else is able to grasp your thought process.

The F-14’s artificial feel system is literally just a spring that can move with the trim actuator and a bob weight that increases stick force with positive G. I will also be bringing back the aerodynamic buffet a little closer to the original after some further SME feedback/testing by Victory205. This will happen when I get back to the States end of next week so don’t expect it in the next patch.

Your arguments are all over the place. You always rebuttal with quotes to specific statements rather than the context of any one person's reply.

That's because i only disagree with parts of the statements, not the entirety of them.

I'll return the favor by saying, no you do not make a turn by tactile feel when driving. You make it by visual feedback. Power-steering took the raw feedback loop out of the equation a long time ago, and if you adjust your turn based on feel you are on the very edge of loosing dynamic friction, so unless you drift for a living I highly doubt your argument is relevant.

I am yet to drive a power steered vehicle (another courtesy of living in a 3rd world country i guess)

Additionally you cannot compare a 2 dimensional force environment with a 3 dimensional one. Your brain has evolved to function in the former, not the latter.

Strongly disagreed on this one. Genetics are not at stake here, conditioning and acquired reflexes on the other hand, are.

The bottom line of your whole argument across the forum is that you are expecting a SOFTWARE developer to solve a HARDWARE problem. Any suggestion about hardware solutions that anyone posts is immediately dismissed because you can't afford it. You want to FEEL the plane, yet no Flight Simulator on this planet will replicate the G-Forces in the flight envelope you are referring to. Not even a multi-million dollar Level D one. Why are you expecting it from a game you paid $79 for?

Because the developer has already done so with a number of features. Before i flew this module i wasn't even aware that such a thing could be implemented in a functional way, and yet HB did it. It's what (for me) blew away all the other modules in DCS the most.

So what exactly are you looking for? Pick what you want, state it and stick with it, but understand at some point the answer is NO. Stop arguing for the sake of arguing. You are not going to convince anyone here that your opinions are superior because you believe no else is able to grasp your thought process.

I already have. And the people my arguments were mostly aimed at, understood them and responded. The rest was indeed arguing for the sake of arguing, but is kinda what makes these forums great. Exchange of opinions and tastes/preferences. :thumbup:

The F-14’s artificial feel system is literally just a spring that can move with the trim actuator and a bob weight that increases stick force with positive G. I will also be bringing back the aerodynamic buffet a little closer to the original after some further SME feedback/testing by Victory205. This will happen when I get back to the States end of next week so don’t expect it in the next patch.

Thanks for the response mate, looking forward to it! :thumbup::pilotfly:

That is exactly what i mean. You are driving through the HUD, aren't you? It kinda makes sense why you'd want the Sparrowhawk. There's nothing wrong with it really, it's just a preferred style of simming. There are two broad categories of us (sim flyers), people that drive the cockpit and people that drive the plane. Neither is right or wrong. We just do thing differently. HUD drivers are a sub category of the cockpit drivers. I'm in the second group. That is why we have such different opinions. :thumbup::pilotfly:

What exactly is a HUD & Cockpit driver? You mean you never check speed & AoA ?

As for relying on the HUD, that would be pretty bad in the F-14 considering the HUD tells you basically nothing :P

The reason I'd love the Sparrowhawk is because that would make checking the AoA & speed during a fight a little easier, which is a crucial aspect of getting the most out of your plane and the reason EM charts are made in the first place :)

What exactly is a HUD & Cockpit driver? You mean you never check speed & AoA ?

A cockpit driver is the simmer that gets most enjoyment from interacting with the cockpit. These guys are usually out best source of information on many aircraft. They know all the procedures, all the loads, all the restrictions, all the air speeds. If you as a developer botched the onspeed AoA by half a unit, these will be guys that will spot it first and report the issue. They also know all the switches, where they are and what they do.

A HUD driver is a guy that drives through the HUD (duh). I used to be this (as i assume most of the other people that started gaming in the 80's or early to mid 90's) at one point, more by necessity then by choice. Back in the day sims were all about vector graphics and fixed views. Very few titles had free view options and even those were usually clunky, requiring you to use a mouse or a numpad to look around. So naturally, many designers "concentrated" as much of the avionics and the instruments through the front view, usually dominated by the HUD. Sometimes this even resulted with the HUD having more functions integrated into it then the real plane would, to make the sim more user friendly. So "we" spent most of the time in the forward view and grew increasingly dependent on the HUD to provide all the data we needed. For me, the breaking point was a well known WW2 title from the early 2000's which shall not be named here. Being deprived on any navigational and targeting aids is a good way to learn new ways of flying in a simulated environment :)

As for me checking airspeed and AoA.

1. Of the top of my mind, i check air speed on 4 separate occasions, and 2 of them are landing related. I usually check air speed pre-merge, in the 10-5 NM range. Starting at 10NM and never looking back at the dial if i am where i want to be for what i've planed as my main game. Then i also use air speed during AAR (i totally s*ck at it BTW :P ). And then i check air speed during my initial upwind, when i overfly the carrier, and then during the downwind break, so i can deploy gears and flaps. Those are about the only "regular" cases. If i need to maintain a certain ETA, then of course i'll check my speed, but that will be my ground speed.

2. The AoA strip i consult immediately after my downwind break and never lose it out of sight during the entire trim-onspeed-landing approach.

The reason I'd love the Sparrowhawk is because that would make checking the AoA & speed during a fight a little easier, which is a crucial aspect of getting the most out of your plane and the reason EM charts are made in the first place

We must disagree on this. I don't think the EM charts were made so that pilots would fly their aircraft by them. At least i could never do it. I mean, if you only need to fly the STRs (0 excess power) then yes, i can see how they can be very useful. Aside from that, (for me at least) they are more of an "on paper" guidelines, then things to be memorized. There are way too many breakpoints, way too many energy states and way too many calculations that connect them for me to perform in real time, while fighting a bandit. I mean, there are reasons why i use spreadsheets when i calculate FM's. So i tend to rely on "cues" that tell me how my energy state changes. All i need to know is my initial point (look above for pre merge setup) and after that i fly 95% on "feel". :thumbup: