This unproven British combat theory regarding F3 tactics is quite clear & written in plain English and leaves no room for interpretation.
It states the Aim9L “may just intercept the opponent’s missile”. Nothing more.
Not “may just, & also….”
The only possibility as stated in the F3 tactics manual is the missile “may just intercept the opponent’s missile”.
Read the sentence in its entirety.
Now lets, read the rest of the scenario in its entirety shall we???
Read carefully.
"Attempt to induce a miss off the tail by greater than lethal distance…"
That means whoever wrote this British F3 tactics manual is already well aware that the opponent’s missile will still track you regardless in the event your Aim9L does not intercept it and offers zero possibility or a scenario that the opponent’s missile will magically decide to abandon a well-established signal that is many times larger in Infrared wavelength and frequency than a much smaller, weaker IR Missile traveling much too fast to stay in its fov long enough anyway.
This is a 100% clear cut case of confirmation bias. Because the word “decoy” is in the manual you and many others make the mistake of ignoring the entirety of the manual. No where in the F3 tactics manual (that you shared) offers the possibility that an opponent’s missiles will stop tracking. In fact, it prepares a pilot ONLY for the inevitability that an opponent’s missile continues to track him if his Aim9L fails to intercept it.
I won’t deny it if I’m stupid and incapable of proper research but I can not find the specific parts where these statistics are stated.
And what about the current top speed? Do I need to show you detailed documentation to prove that it’s not correct?
If so where do I get it? Because even though the only F-14 documents I could find are on the A and D, neither of them seem to feature performance metrics so much as “Don’t do this here, don’t do that there.”
Although there are limits imposed on allowed airspeed at certain altitudes with load. Neither the altitudes or the speeds stated can be reached in game, not counting stall climbs for obvious reasons.
I don’t mean to come off as argumentative, but I’m at a loss. I just genuinely want the F-14 to be the most F-14 it can be.
You’re not stupid, just unaware of the already filed reports and sources.
Top speed was already adjusted to current documentation per others’ reports.
Most documentation is available online, I do not have them saved or catalogued. Any reports made likely have them attached in the hidden files section.
This is why top speed is still met regardless of missile loading… Otherwise the Gripen would top out at mach 1.4 at altitude when carrying 2x sparrows and some sidewinders.
It is one of the best modeled flight models in the game as far as I’m aware. It may even be slightly overperforming in turn rate with wings fully forward w/ flaps.
I’ve noticed this, haven’t played it in a while so I’d need to backtrack and read the datamine changes later to see what happened.
No changes to its config in over 2 months. May be there is something in the gameparams I have missed. The only recent radar change I remember was the “fix” to this bug a week ago. May be it somehow affected ARH missiles.
I don’t think I’ve played the tomcat much in 3-4 major updates, but there is clearly an issue. It may have something to do with the radar and not the missile as well… Or both.
The best thing they could do is capitalise on Hearblur’s work and model both the F14 A and B after DCS’s, but they like to do their own (questionable) research and modeling, so they can pick what features they want or dont want instead of making an accurate aircraft for once…
If what comrade 23 is saying is true about the fm, then there is trully no hope XD… The planes on sim fly completely different than their DCS counterparts so Idk what to tell you… I rather trust a company that has an excellent record of making very detailed and accurate models with attention to detail, rather than Gaijin…
DCS’ flight models have had a questionable history. There are multiple teams of developers, low fidelity flight models, the performance was often extrapolated in the past from questionable sources (especially from Razbam)… And they didn’t update them when better information was available. It can at best be considered a cockpit sim.
Please, don’t refer to me as “comrade”, it appears you’re trying to be insulting.
DCS flight models are good for a civilian sim, definitely better than gaijin. I test the F-15 in DCS and I would give it about 85% similarity to the real aircraft. There is no better F-15C on the market.
Falcon BMS imo does a better job at flight models. They take it seriously. Even a group of people like @BBCRF made superior flanker flight models to what is found in DCS as another example.
While DCS is good in your eyes, in mine it’s not a single step up from WT.
I don’t know what the F-15 model is in BMS, I’ve heard the Su-30 in DCS is criticized for over-performance bias, but I don’t know. I don’t judge.
In DCS, the F-15 has a pretty interestingly modeled AoA for me, there’s a Wing Rock, buffet where it should be, etc. It can go above 30 AoA and also maneuvers harder above 21 AoA.
I dont think you can compare low fidelity aircraft to the high fidelity ones. Since this is a page about the
F-14, I was refairing to Heatblur and Heatblur alone… There is nothing questionable about their work on the Tomcats and its the most accurate and well made module we have to this date… You dont need to take my word for it, there is a wide array of ex-pilots that have said so. Overall tho, to say that DCS is not a step up from War Thunder sounds like an extremely problematic statement to say the least…
P.S. I wasnt trying to insult you, it was merely a combination of your profile pic, name and how weird it seems to me to refer to you as an aircraft…
