F-14A on the 19th? *wink, wink, nudge nudge*

Just gonna leave this here:

 

 

 

(click "continue thread")

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Would rather see the D model.

Not gonna happen, though, which is fine

Glad to hear a semi-firm date for the -A (October patch). Had some rig upgrades planned, gives me more time to complete them.

Yeah, this was a bit surprising to see HB to commit to this date.

Hope he meant October 2020 :-)

Yeah why go backward??? :huh: Would rather see the D model.

Yeah, why would they possibly want to cover the longest-serving model that fits into scenarios anywhere in a 35-year timeline instead of a model that only served for 15 years they have incomplete documentation for? I wonder...

Yeah, this was a bit surprising to see HB to commit to this date.

 

Hope he meant October 2020 :-)

Just wait!

Just gonna leave this here:

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/hoggit/comments/iorsmt/since_the_other_post_was_deleted_harrier_deemed/g4gvnwq/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3 (click "continue thread")

I still wonder why they haven't announced this in the forum, the official thread for the actual game.

October works well for me, I have a massive amount of school to get done before 31 October anyways. That will help set that distraction to the side.

My goal is to get some good VF-201 skins released and tweaked for the A model, at least the line birds while I continue to revise the final CAG bird.

I still wonder why they haven't announced this in the forum, the official thread for the actual game.

We did, several times, answering everyone who asked the question throughout numerous threads and to everyone who asked the question on facebook, reddit, etc. We will also be releasing an official update soon.

We will also be releasing an official update soon.

That's all I'm asking. Thanks.

As for the F-14D heres the issue.

Heatblur about a year or a year and a half ago said a F-14D "might be possible" my guess is they were still looking into it to see if they could add it onto the F-14 module if they wanted too.

Turns out the radar isn't the issue as like people have said the APG-70 and such is on the F-15E which we "might get" <------- and I'll get to this in a bit

No the real classified parts that are the issue is the PTID and the SparrowHawk/Kaiser HUD

The PTID being the big one as it came in many different set ups across the B/U (a B upgrade which is where you first see the use of JDAMs) to the F-14D, here are some pictures:

F-14 with the circle radar scope but improved DDD:

F-14 with PTID but regular DDD:

F-14D with PTID and the upgraded DDD display:

As you can see there is many different versions from the B to the D with different arrangements and presumably for these bits of infomation to be still classified is so that Iran can't upgrade their tomcats in the same way (this is why if they chose the F-15A over the tomcat we might have a very different experience then we have today)

As for the F-15E even if RAZBAM could get the info on the APG-70 theres no defiant bet they could share it with ED or Heatblur as ED confirmed with the Harrier situation that some weapons for example like the GBU 54/32 RB might not have access to but ED might have access but they still can't share information as some would expect and thus HB might not be able to get access to AGP-70 data either...hell we might not even get the F-15E at this rate due to the shit storm over there with them sneakily saying the Harrier is "Feature complete" when its not...Nineline and the rest are doing a great job trying to communicate with RB to the community because RB doesn't use the forums but yeah...its not pretty. Its defiantly going to lower the confidence of EA buyers for the F-15E and Mig 23 at the very least.

Just a sidenote ahead - let us not have the stuff surrounding the harrier spill over here please, and my reply below is not at all related to that, just as an fyi.

----

There's also a difference between recreating a radar and recreating a radar. As you know, we simulate our radars, systems etc in depth, means we dont just fake-grab the data in dcs, but we emulate the signals this data would produce, how the radar would capture them, then compare them to its database and create a track from that not knowing the source (very simply put). The same goes for the PTID. It is not enough for us to know how to operate and what would be seen as a result of this operation, but we want to know how it works in the background. We also recreated the WCS in such way, for example we emulate the memory tapes, which you can notice when you switch between AA or A2G modes, the hud will blink for a while, because the WCS has to physically unload the memory tape for one, and load the tape for the other. Those are all simple examples, the rabbit hole goes deeper of course. As such, the data we seek, is buried even deeper. This is not only related to it being classified, but simply also to it not being available. Likely some of the data needed rests with Grumman alone, or some technician or engineer somewhere, who still held on to such a manual. Most of the folks we know, discarded that unfortunately. No one thought back then it would be still needed for some kind of purpose. Back then most of the folks who were working on Tomcats were young, not exactly an age where preservation of history is at the forefront of your mind. But I am speculating now. In short: it's not readily accessible for us atm. So for now, it is just a no on the D. If that situation would change one day, and if the data needed would be obtainable legally, then yes, we would consider it. But imo it will be many years till a) it will be fully declassified or not problematic in light of the export laws regarding Iran and b) we actually find the data we need. So in general, don't get your hopes high. If the situation changes, we'll let you know of course.

There's also a difference between recreating a radar and recreating a radar. As you know, we simulate our radars, systems etc in depth, means we dont just fake-grab the data in dcs, but we emulate the signals this data would produce, how the radar would capture them, then compare them to its database and create a track from that not knowing the source (very simply put). The same goes for the PTID. It is not enough for us to know how to operate and what would be seen as a result of this operation, but we want to know how it works in the background. We also recreated the WCS in such way, for example we emulate the memory tapes, which you can notice when you switch between AA or A2G modes, the hud will blink for a while, because the WCS has to physically unload the memory tape for one, and load the tape for the other. Those are all simple examples, the rabbit hole goes deeper of course.

And that's why I love the HB modules so much. If you play around with them a lot you do notice how much more there is going on under the hood in Heatblur modules, than there is in most other DCS modules! :thumbup:

And that's why I love the HB modules so much. If you play around with them a lot you do notice how much more there is going on under the hood in Heatblur modules, than there is in most other DCS modules! :thumbup:

I just noticed that the red flood light's strength fluctuates ever so slightly. It's more apparent when you accelerate time. It's unbelievable how much attention was paid to such little details :thumbup:

 

We alternatively could've just released the F-14B and called it quits. How many other modules give you an extra (two) flyables, two campaigns, more than 50 missions, an AI aircraft, AND a carrier? We've always stated that working glove vanes would not be implemented. A vast majority of models with glove vanes had the glove vanes welded closed and they never worked, even leaving the factory. We're giving you an Iranian A and the definitive late 80s A model, is that not enough extra free stuff?

hmm. but that wasn't what you told your customers on release of the F-14. I don't know why your acting like it's free, when I bought this module at release, this is what I was told my $ was buying. Why you talking down to your customers ? If it's about the gloves, then just say 'it didn't have gloves' - but don't treat us like we owe you something for your marketing decisions.

 

hmm. but that wasn't what you told your customers on release of the F-14. I don't know why your acting like it's free, when I bought this module at release, this is what I was told my $ was buying. Why you talking down to your customers ? If it's about the gloves, then just say 'it didn't have gloves' - but don't treat us like we owe you something for your marketing decisions.

 

Didn't seem like he was talking down to anyone. He was explaining it to us. There's a difference bro!

 

hmm. but that wasn't what you told your customers on release of the F-14. I don't know why your acting like it's free, when I bought this module at release, this is what I was told my $ was buying. Why you talking down to your customers ? If it's about the gloves, then just say 'it didn't have gloves' - but don't treat us like we owe you something for your marketing decisions.

 

If you read more of the posts around this one, you'll see that I was responding to a customer that was claiming the F-14 product is fraudulent because a niche feature that they wanted (and we never confirmed) is currently not planned to be included. I wasn't talking down to anyone and I certainly don't think anyone owes us anything. Conversely, we also don't owe every customer every item on their personal F-14 wishlist, and not implementing every item on every customer's wishlist does not make our product a fraud. Have to draw the line somewhere. We are still in the process of delivering all the items we said we would deliver, and when you look at the F-14A/B in context of every other DCS module that exists, you are getting much, much more for your money. I think nearly everyone can agree on that.

 

F-14D with PTID and the upgraded DDD display:

 

What is the box above the handle above the DDD?

 

What is the box above the handle above the DDD?

GPS.

1) It's the Digital Display (DD) and control panel for the APG-71. It's a completely separate system than the AWG-9's DDD and has a bunch more functionality.

2) The box on top is the Sensor Slaving Panel (SSP), Which is a tool to help the RIO determine which sensor is slaved to the other. Sort of like how you can slave the TCS to the RDR or vice versa in the B, only with more options.

... when you look at the F-14A/B in context of every other DCS module that exists, you are getting much, much more for your money. I think nearly everyone can agree on that.

I know I do.

 

.. when you look at the F-14A/B in context of every other DCS module that exists, you are getting much, much more for your money. I think nearly everyone can agree on that.

I have no problem with content but please lets not go down this road, reading the constant comparisons to Ed modules becomes really boring.

People seem to forget Ed give you a free world with there modules to fly in.