F-14B Air to ground weapons not attached to pylons

[Warmbrak]

I noted a while back that many of the air to ground munitions are not attached to the weapons pylons - there seems to be a fixed offset. I don't think it applies to all (I think the MK84's attaches correctly). This is in the current stable release on this date.

[near_blind]

The MAK-79 adapter hasn't been modelled yet, it's on HB's to do list.

[Warmbrak]

Thanks for the response.

[Zeagle]

Seriously? It's like leaving off the gear struts. We need a rack. This is such a high quality bird. But I cannot understand why we don't have this basic component already.

[Blinde]

Seriously? It's like leaving off the gear struts. We need a rack. This is such a high quality bird. But I cannot understand why we don't have this basic component already.

 

Indeed. Can't understand how this has been dismissed for over a year, like those EIG gauges.

[near_blind]

Seriously? It's like leaving off the gear struts. We need a rack. This is such a high quality bird. But I cannot understand why we don't have this basic component already.

 

If I had to guess, probably because that particular adapter was actually used fewer times than I have fingers on my hands and the only reason we have it is because HB are nice people.

 

Coincidentally the ADU-703/BRU-32 combination that was actually used happens to be modelled pretty well, so I guess y'all can always use that in the interim.

[Zeagle]

near_blind...read your statement " the only reason we have it is because HB are nice people". We DON"T have it. That's the issue. AND...your "actually used" statement carries no weight at all when a cursory check of Google reveals that it was indeed used. And whoever said that an item had to be used a lot to be included? No one. So, I stand by my original statement. Seeing bombs floating underneath the F-14B, especially with such a nicely done module, is ridiculous.

[near_blind]

[...]your "actually used" statement carries no weight at all when a cursory check of Google reveals that it was indeed used. [...]

 

Notice that the picture you posted, and every other picture with MAK-79s all feature F-14As in early prototype test schemes, and that there are no pictures of operational squadrons with the pylons, nor do any aircraft actually drop bombs from the pylons. Those are publicity photos aimed at the USMC and other potential customers saying "of course the F-14 can totally do air to ground". The problem is that the loadout had significant separation issues, especially with retardation devices. These problems were never solved before the F-14's air to ground capability was deleted due to budgetary issues and the primary customer (the Navy) focused instead on rooty tooty Phoenix shooty and other such air to air needs.

 

When air to ground did start to become a thing again at the end of the 80s, the MAK-79s did not return with it. F-14s with little exception would drop single bombs from pylons 3,4,5 & 6. A cursory check of google will confirm this (and actually show them dropping the bombs).

 

The facts of the matter are:

• The MAK-79 was never used operationally.
  
• HB added the MAK-79 configurations as a hypothetical assuming they were ever fixed, because they're nice people.
  
• The Art for the MAK-79 will be made in the future, probably after the A is comfortably in the wild.
  
• In the mean time, you can put 14 Mk-82s under your jet and pretend you're a goofy F-111, even if the bombs float.
  

[9thHunt]

Didn't they also use TER's attached to BRU-32s?

[near_blind]

Didn't they also use TER's attached to BRU-32s?

 

They did. So far I've only been able to find pictures of Mk-76s and smoke markers loaded on them though. That and a China Lake jet with TALDs on them.

[Zeagle]

 

Notice that the picture you posted, and every other picture with MAK-79s all feature F-14As in early prototype test schemes, and that there are no pictures of operational squadrons with the pylons, nor do any aircraft actually drop bombs from the pylons. Those are publicity photos aimed at the USMC and other potential customers saying "of course the F-14 can totally do air to ground". The problem is that the loadout had significant separation issues, especially with retardation devices. These problems were never solved before the F-14's air to ground capability was deleted due to budgetary issues and the primary customer (the Navy) focused instead on rooty tooty Phoenix shooty and other such air to air needs.

 

When air to ground did start to become a thing again at the end of the 80s, the MAK-79s did not return with it. F-14s with little exception would drop single bombs from pylons 3,4,5 & 6. A cursory check of google will confirm this (and actually show them dropping the bombs).

 

The facts of the matter are:

• The MAK-79 was never used operationally.
  
• HB added the MAK-79 configurations as a hypothetical assuming they were ever fixed, because they're nice people.
  
• The Art for the MAK-79 will be made in the future, probably after the A is comfortably in the wild.
  
• In the mean time, you can put 14 Mk-82s under your jet and pretend you're a goofy F-111, even if the bombs float.
  

 

My answer to you is "so what". There is no requirement for operational status imposed by anybody (case in point...the chrome cat). Bombs on the F-14 without racks looks silly. Period. Either model the racks or delete the ability to load the bombs. Pretty simple. Absolutely none of the list of FACTS above, which I am sure are correct, have anything to do with it. And I don't think it would take a good 3d artist more than a few days to model the rack.

 

[draconus]

Zeagle, we all want it to be added, ok, and we're assured it will be. Is it more important than A versions, instruments, Forrestal, A-6, F-14 itself model corrections, AIM-54? Hell no. That's why it's postponed. In the meantime you're free to use more realistic loadouts for your missions.

Edited November 11, 2020 by draconus

[Mirknir]

The problem is you can't really reason this way ; it's taking a problem and making it way too simple.

 

First, the importance of a fix or feature is subjective and while the F14A is more important to you, it's not to me.

I want my F14B to be finished first, my bombs to be attached to the planes, my Jester to be able to lase targets...

You can argue that as a company wanting to satisfy its customers, HB is the only one that can gather proper customer feedback and put a meaningful importance to features / fix.

And as such, posting on the forum to ask what's important to you is how to make sure HB has a good picture of what's important for the community.

 

Then you need to add development time.

If you take 9 month to birth the F14A but 1 week to have quick fixes/wins on a the already released product that is the F14B... is putting the F14A first really a cut dry decision?

Quick wins and fixes also create a good relationship with your customers and indirectly promote your product to more customers.

 

Then you add dependencies.

Even if everyone wants better AIM54 features ; is it really HB working on it? They often state that they are waiting for some ED's framework feature or such.

 

Then you add the DCS development schedule: there is no schedule.

90% of the product are late or have no release date and when the are released, they are in early access for a long time and the quality vary ; what a wonderful experience the F16 early release was!

In this context, I feel its understandable that some people (I am one of them) give more importance to a concrete fix that a big ass feature that will most likely be released in a uncertain state even if I have to agree that HB has a good track about releasing products in good state.

 

All these to say that not everything is cut and dry and importance is relative and not the only thing in the balance.

Every time you ask something, there will be more "important" stuff they can do and I feel it's because of this kind of reasoning that we have so many unfinished products or products with many annoying bugs that give you a bad taste in the mouth.

I think it's better to let HB answer why they chose not to fix this seemingly easy bug after 1 year ; I think it's a legitimate question by Zeagle.

I also think it's better development etiquette to finish the product you released before releasing more but again, it's DCS :)

 

[Naquaii]

The simple answer is that we're focusing on having the -A Tomcat out over the MAK-79s. Rest assured though that we're also tired of not having it done and it will be at or near the top of our modelling todo list after the -A is out.