Its interesting they only listed single mounts as well, seeing as they apparently tested double mounts for the AIM-120 on the F-14:
Allegedly, there’s also a pic out there of this same F-14 with 8 AMRAAM’s across station 3-6, the dual AIM-120’s on 1B and 8B(as seen above), along with twin LAU-7 launch rails on 1A and 8A bringing the total carried missiles to 12x AIM-120A and 4x AIM-9M, but I’ve yet to see this picture, so take it with a grain of salt.
Has the issue of the engine temperature being way above what it should be, been brought up to the devs? Talking about the B model
I made a bug report about the A and they told me to kick rocks. Id expect the same treatment regarding the B.
The issue iirc is that gaijin uses instrumented temperature limits, and the F-14 has a turbine inlet temperature sensor iirc, which is one of if not the hottest places in the engine. Most other aircrafts take a temperature at a different, cooler spot, so they get to be colder in WT
lol, when was that ?
Yes, they won’t fix it since they lack info on other aircraft, and go off what was marked in the cockpit.
So that means that those that use Inlet probes run significantly colder than those that use Turbine probes.
Even for those that we have actual sources for(F-5, MiG-29, F-14A & -B etc.) they won’t change.
Oh, is that why F-5 is so friggin cold in this game?
It’s the most difficult aircraft to kill with Fox-2, from my experience.
2 years ago, looked into it again, the report was about AAM’s being able to lock the F-14A from much too far due to its absurd heat signature.
Here is an R-60M locking the F-14A at 33km rear aspect through nothing but clouds:
(missile lock indicators were bugged back when i did this test and the missile lock circle often showed up tiny and on your plane, but i very much could fire this missile, though it didnt have the range to hit)
Not my greatest bug report, but i figured gaijin could figure out that an R-60M being able to lock through 33km’s of clouds is not working as intended, but apparently they cant and the bug report was closed as “not a bug” and the thermal signature was considered “correct”
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/ll7pOaGaWnna
I’d be curious if you can still do this…
Yes, it doesn’t help that Flares run absurdly hot( though much of this is due to abstractions, and things not quite yet simulated)
what the hell kind of logic is this lol… They have the data but they wont use them ??? So if the gauge would read up to 5000 F then I guess the devs would go with that… Great stuff
Unironically yes
I’m guessing you didn’t see the NATO MANPAD debacle lol
i havent lol… do i want to ? XD
There are literally afterburner plume heat charts in the manuals we could use for F-15 and F-16, I’m sure if someone pointed to those they could demonstrate the temps are too high. It would be a report on engines in general, not just the F-14 tho.
Its a similar issue to how they don’t directly use data from Firing trials to model Shell performance, but run it though a bespoke performance calculator to equivocate performance (which itself has a number of issues, which is basically never going to be revised).
There is simply not enough details known to even begin to guess at IR performance metrics for most of the engines in game, let alone the specific chemistry of IR countermeasure compositions that would be needed to fully implement a similar solution (also various airframes are in configurations that never existed / flew so there is a lack of data for them).
Yes, there are methods that could be used to fairly approximate performance(e.g. implement GASRAD, or alternately anything discussed in the handbook), but it would require significant work to get going, and even then there are likely a few edge cases where things fail due to a lack of data.
I won’t derail this topic too much, but here’s a link to Gaijin’s official response thread, enjoy the comment section XD
I personally prefer this topic since it’s a little more concise.
Oh yes, that’s the one!
lmao… great stuff… idk how one can still have faith in this company XD
It’s really weird how they over-model heat signatures and at the same time under-model IR detection ranges such that everything’s too hot but you still can’t see it from far enough away I don’t get it
Regarding the previous discussion about OLS and potential fixing of the AN/AXX-1 TCS will lead to it having a proper sensor interface like radar an IRST…
Obviously, the most important function would be allowing the TCS to slave the radar if the radar itself couldnt maintain a lock, but I find one of the things that bugs me the most about TCS (particularly since ive migrated to sim air) is the fact that the only 2 ways for me to see its display are in the actual pod view, or the un-zoomed MFD view in my cockpit, which makes easily identifying targets while maintaining your situational awareness and flying near impossible. They could either make it so they TCS view in the cockpit MFD can be zoomed, or maybe replace the radar window with an optical TCS view window when the TCS is acting as master sensor, similar to how IRST has its own sensor window when switched to IRST as main sensor.
This would also be a step in the direction of future IIR IRST such as the AN/AAS-42 on the F-14D, or the PIRATE IRST from the Eurofighter
