Jump to content

Hate to wake up a dead subject but F14" "


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

I keep hearing the release of the F14D is not possible because of the lack of information... Can some one enlighten me on the data availability of the F/A 18 Hornet, and F16. I'm pretty sure these jets still have classified things about them. Currently they do not mimic 100% of the sim factor although close. I talked to an F18 Pilot and there's just much we can't do (he still thinks it's awesome). In the same way we are still fudging systems of these Jets. I only bring this up as many simulated modern conflicts leave the Jet feeling a little behind the times when going up with the 18/16/15 and so on.

Why can the Tomcat D not be fudged a bit as well?
 

I would much rather hear Heatblur say they don't want to do it vs the information is not out there. People have found plenty.


Edited by Gentoo87
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why don't you make a D model with all that plenty of info people found? I don't get it. If a flight sim development company says they don't have enough info to make a F-14D, why does this question keep surfacing? You think they're lying?

  • Like 9

i9 9900k @5.1GHz h100i |Asus ROG Strix Z390 E-Gaming | Samsung NVMe m.2 970 Evo 1TB | LPX 64GB DDR4 3200MHz

EVGA RTX 3090 FTW3 Ultra | Reverb  | HOTAS Warthog | Saitek Flight Pedals

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Gentoo87 said:

I keep hearing the release of the F14D is not possible because of the lack of information... Can some one enlighten me on the data availability of the F/A 18 Hornet, and F16. I'm pretty sure these jets still have classified things about them. Currently they do not mimic 100% of the sim factor although close. I talked to an F18 Pilot and there's just much we can't do (he still thinks it's awesome). In the same way we are still fudging systems of these Jets. I only bring this up as many simulated modern conflicts leave the Jet feeling a little behind the times when going up with the 18/16/15 and so on.

Why can the Tomcat D not be fudged a bit as well?
 

I would much rather hear Heatblur say they don't want to do it vs the information is not out there. People have found plenty.

 

Heatblur are already adding at least 4 Tomcats, and that's already above and beyond what anyone else has done (only Aerges' Mirage F1 will feature that many variants). 

 

I think the D just needs to be put to bed, it's been discussed to death. I don't want to shoot anybody down, but it's been said over and over again and the answer is a fairly firm no.

 

Don't forget that Heatblur are still very busy with their current and future offerings, the F-14D is more complexity for them to do, when there's still a fair bit missing on the F-14A and B, even if they're more miscellaneous items (such as OBC and some other tests).

 

And if it makes you feel better, last time I checked everything EW related on the Avro Vulcan is still classified - an aircraft that entered service in the 1950s and was fully retired in the early 1980s...


Edited by Northstar98
  • Like 7

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV-2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, CA, NS430, Hawk

Terrains I own: Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas

System (RIP my old PC): Dell XPS 15 9570 w/ Intel i7-8750H, NVIDIA GTX 1050Ti Max-Q, 16GB DDR4, 500GB Samsung PM871 SSD (upgraded with 1TB Samsung 970 EVO Plus SSD)

VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite

Dreams: https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/bG9bBc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MAXsenna said:

Oh, let the penguin dream about his favourite ride. emoji6.png

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk
 

 

Don't have a problem with the dream, it's one I share.

 

My problem is with the insinuation the HB are lying about the issue with finding the appropriate information. It's a lazy, ignorant argument which even a cursory glance of these forums will quickly refute.

 

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
Don't have a problem with the dream, it's one I share.
 
My problem is with the insinuation the HB are lying about the issue with finding the appropriate information. It's a lazy, ignorant argument which even a cursory glance of these forums will quickly refute.
 
Yeah, I know.

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's two issues to unpack here.

 

1. is that while plenty of information does exist for the F-14D, it's still not certain if it can be featured in DCS at all, as some of the stuff that HB needs is still classified. Now, granted, much of it should be accessible, but even if it is, it's eyes-only, which means copies can't leave the USN Archives.

 

2. Legal issues. Heatblur may have gotten a license from Northrop Grumman to make the versions we have, and as such, are only legally allowed to make those aircraft. Creating a version that falls outside those limits would mean they'd lose the license, and ED would have to take the aircraft down from the store (and depending on how hard the lawyers push, refund us and take the module away). Alternatively, if NG told HB "No, you cannot model the D", then that means that under penalty of a severe lawsuit, Heatblur cannot make an F-14D.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate to be that guy, but after probably answering these questions a few dozen times, Heatblur created a FAQ:

 

 

 

It's probably a good idea to stick to that FAQ and assume nothing has changed.

  • Like 7

http://www.csg-2.net/ | i7 7700k - NVIDIA 1080 - 32GB RAM | BKR!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TL:DR Heatblur has higher standards then ED or RAZBAM, what might be ok for those companies isn't ok for Heatblur, plus some critical info such as MFD pages and such are not available at the moment to make it possible to make an F-14D

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
12 hours ago, Mower said:

Licensing issues would be odd given that all of the Deltas met the chopper.  Why should Grumman care?

 

 

For the same reason they cared about the A and B versions of the plane. Iran. 

Specs: Win10, i9-9900KF@5Ghz, 32GB DDR4 RAM 3200XMP, 1 TB M2 NVMe SSD, KFA2 RTX3090, VR G2 Headset, Warthog Throttle+Saitek Pedals+MSFFB2  Joystick. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 6/29/2021 at 6:21 PM, Lurker said:

 

For the same reason they cared about the A and B versions of the plane. Iran. 

Iran in the year of 2021 is irrelevant. Iran has the best electrical engineering schools in the world as well as access to the Russian equivalent of GPS which would allow them to give their Tomcats all the same capabilities as the F-14Ds had.

 

What the actual issue is, is some equipment that is used on the F-14D is now used as the basis for very new and classified technologies. Back in the 1990s/2000s the DoD took all the (then) classified info into a separate manual, NAVAIR 01−F14AAD−1A, this includes info on the newer AIM-54s, PTID display and SMS pages and general MFD pages and Hud layouts. In 2021 these are or more or less not relevant anymore however there is still 1 item that IS still officially classified which is the AN/AAS−42 Infrared Search and Track System. Why? because it has become the basis for Lockheed Martin's Legion targeting Pod. 

 

I have an American friend currently running an FOI on this particular manual with instructions to redacted whatever they like from the section on the  AN/AAS−42 and make this document publicly avalible, the Department of the Navy has found the document and was meant to be finished on the 24th of June but apparently they require a bit more time (presumably due to delays in the world of COVID) and then hopfully we'll get our hands on it.

 

Its our hope this is the last piece of the puzzle that HB requires in order to think about pursuing an F-14D however I wouldn't get your hopes too high because even if this was the case, the F-14A took about 2 years to complete and really the F-14A-GE-135 Late is just a F-14B with TF-30s (partially since the current B is using the analogue EIG panel from the F-14A anyway).

 

For a full cockpit redesign we might not see something like a D for several years even after giving them this info IF its enough to finish the puzzle. 


Edited by Southernbear
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're probably correct Southernbear. Still, I think all this talk about DCS "D" version is basically flogging a dead horse over and over again. Heatblur are not going to do the "D" version, they have said so repeatedly and it's all beside the point. Even if their reason is "We don't want to" it's perfectly valid and we should just let them do their thing, whatever it's going to be. 

  • Like 3

Specs: Win10, i9-9900KF@5Ghz, 32GB DDR4 RAM 3200XMP, 1 TB M2 NVMe SSD, KFA2 RTX3090, VR G2 Headset, Warthog Throttle+Saitek Pedals+MSFFB2  Joystick. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/2/2021 at 7:33 PM, Lurker said:

You're probably correct Southernbear. Still, I think all this talk about DCS "D" version is basically flogging a dead horse over and over again. Heatblur are not going to do the "D" version, they have said so repeatedly and it's all beside the point. Even if their reason is "We don't want to" it's perfectly valid and we should just let them do their thing, whatever it's going to be. 

Its been said by HB staff that they do *want* to do an F-14D but simply lack the information to do so to their required standard.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Southernbear said:

Its been said by HB staff that they do *want* to do an F-14D but simply lack the information to do so to their required standard.

 

You got a quote for that somewhere? I've been following Heatblur's F14 project pretty closely since it's inception and I've never seen any of their staff say that. The closest I've seen them comment on the F14D in that regard has been that if they were to even consider doing an F14D the first thing would be for them to have all the proper information. 


Edited by Lurker

Specs: Win10, i9-9900KF@5Ghz, 32GB DDR4 RAM 3200XMP, 1 TB M2 NVMe SSD, KFA2 RTX3090, VR G2 Headset, Warthog Throttle+Saitek Pedals+MSFFB2  Joystick. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More recent info from Naquaii on B(U):

 

🖥️ i3-10100F 3.6-4.3GHz, 32GB DDR4 2666, GTX970 4GB, SSD SATA3   🥽 Rift S   🕹️ T16000M HOTAS   ✈️ FC3, F-14A/B   🚢 Supercarrier    🌍 NTTR, PG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the D model:

 

"If this would change we may reconsider it" - Hardly the same as saying that they want to do it. 

  • Like 2

Specs: Win10, i9-9900KF@5Ghz, 32GB DDR4 RAM 3200XMP, 1 TB M2 NVMe SSD, KFA2 RTX3090, VR G2 Headset, Warthog Throttle+Saitek Pedals+MSFFB2  Joystick. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On 7/2/2021 at 11:12 AM, Southernbear said:

I have an American friend currently running an FOI on this particular manual with instructions to redacted whatever they like from the section on the  AN/AAS−42 and make this document publicly avalible, the Department of the Navy has found the document and was meant to be finished on the 24th of June but apparently they require a bit more time (presumably due to delays in the world of COVID) and then hopfully we'll get our hands on it.

 

Please keep us informed of the outcome of this request.

Thanks.

Sons of Dogs, Come Eat Flesh

Clan Cameron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/1/2021 at 7:44 AM, Tank50us said:

2. Legal issues. Heatblur may have gotten a license from Northrop Grumman to make the versions we have, and as such, are only legally allowed to make those aircraft. Creating a version that falls outside those limits would mean they'd lose the license, and ED would have to take the aircraft down from the store (and depending on how hard the lawyers push, refund us and take the module away). Alternatively, if NG told HB "No, you cannot model the D", then that means that under penalty of a severe lawsuit, Heatblur cannot make an F-14D.


This also needs to be put to bed. Not ED, nor the 3rd parties, need a license to make any of the modules. There isn't a legal president at all that will a) either prevent them from representing an aircraft in the sim nor b) make them liable for any litigation. This has been stated multiples by ED and 3rd parties. The bottom line is if they have the data, they can make it. What a license does do though, gives them support from the manufacturer for data and SME input, that's all. If HB had the data for the D, there is sweet nothing NG can do to stop them to produce it as a module for DCS.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...