-
There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.
If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.
Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.
The Staff of SOH
DC Designs F-14A/B Tomcat package for MSFS
- Thread starter DC1973
- Start date
Navy Chief
Senior Member
Outstanding! I'm ready to turn and burn
, and go vertical
...... NC Go NAVAIR!
, and go vertical...... NC Go NAVAIR!
MrZippy
SOH-CM-2025
Beautiful bird! You can be my wingman anytime, Pete!
Victory103
SOH-CM-2025
Looks the part DC and happy to see the Turkey come to life in the new sim. I read over the FB post and agree with your design idea of a fun flyer without in-depth systems, so I would not worry too much about the engine differences between the A and B models. I exclusively fly the Cat in that other sim and find if flown properly, the TF-30s behave. CADC programming the wings would be worth a look. I know most of the guys I fly with that do dabble in both MSFS/P3D/FSX and DCS understand there are massive differences between platforms, but sadly we will probably see a review like the -15. Your models have me slowly looking over MSFS again.
DC1973
Members +
Really glad to hear that you're being teased back to flight simulator by my work, I do hope that I can live up to folk's expectations, the new sim has so much going for it, but also so much for all us devs to learn, so it's a steep curve at the moment.
I was having some conversations with Dave Baranek and Jon Chesire, both former Top Gun graduates and F-14 crewmen, and both said that the TF-30s were fine as long as one was easy on the rudder at high AoA and also easy on the throttle movements at high altitude. The big thing is that the B model's engines provided a huge increase in thrust, allowing the F-14 to fight in the vertical against F-15s and F-16s etc, not to mention our Communist friend's best jets in the east. For that reason, I'd like to have the different performance between the two, and those compressor stalls to catch the unwary in the "A" as it adds what we pilots liked to call "moments of interest"
Regarding DCS-fan YouTubers, it's surprising how quiet they all went after the Eagles had their first update, and how silent they are now after Update #2. Most of them were just after the clicks. I'm pretty sure that once we really get to grips with MSFS and its SDK, and fighters / carriers start appearing in decent numbers, a large number of DCS users will leave for MSFS. Despite claims to the contrary, most flight sim fans are not button-pushers and want to enjoy aviation - weapons and highly-complex systems are desirable but not top of the list for the vast majority of users. Forget the "surveys" - it's sales figures that count and really tell devs what people are buying, and up until the release of MSFS, DCS World was the go-to place for military aviation with a high quality visual environment. Not any more. Now, all the platform really has is more complex fighters that most don't want to use if they have a good, easier alternative, and is confined to "arenas" whereas MSFS has the entire planet. I also know several devs who worked in DCS World, and dropped it the moment they got their hands on MSFS, which says quite a lot in itself.
DennyA
SOH-CM-2023
Wow, Dean, that looks great. [Insert Futurama "Shut up and take my money" Fry meme here]
Agreed on systems complexity. I've been a flight sim fan since the C64 days, and I was lucky enough to be the Simulations editor for Computer Gaming World magazine back when flight sims were at their peak in the second half of the 90's. (Oh, man, if we had that quantity now, with today's technology...) I remember when the experience of flying a plane was key, vs. the realism of convoluted systems management. Let me tell you, I'd happily trade any number of detailed engine cooling/management features in a WW2 sim for AI fliers who actually fly like real pilots (Zero pilots turning, P-40 pilots boom-and-zooming, and damaged pilots actually heading for home instead of circling till they die, etc.). So being able to fly the F-14 like you needed to avoid compressor stalls is great, but having to go through the full tuning setup to get a radar contract is best left to the hardest-core.
I was lucky enough to take the controls in the back seat of an F-15D many years back and let me tell you, I remember everything about the experience from takeoff to landing like it was yesterday, but the engine startup sequence was exactly 0% of the fun, and 0% of my memory. (Well, I do remember thinking "Oh, sh**, we're really doing this" when the engines started. )
I really wish combat flight sim designers would spend some free time reading books by pilots about combat experiences. Because the exciting stuff was chasing Bf-109s in a hail of flak while surrounded by B-17s, it was coming in 30 feet over the ground in an RF-8 during the Cuban missile crisis. It was not adjusting the mixture or finding the right azimuth to lock a radar contact.
Younger sim fans have been trained to be system-managing rivet counters and to expect older planes to be unrealistically unstable death traps. It's a shame. I want a convincing experience, not an ultra-accurate systems simulation in a sterile world.
Now, get off my lawn and finish that F-14. ;-) Sorry for getting off on a rant.
Agreed on systems complexity. I've been a flight sim fan since the C64 days, and I was lucky enough to be the Simulations editor for Computer Gaming World magazine back when flight sims were at their peak in the second half of the 90's. (Oh, man, if we had that quantity now, with today's technology...) I remember when the experience of flying a plane was key, vs. the realism of convoluted systems management. Let me tell you, I'd happily trade any number of detailed engine cooling/management features in a WW2 sim for AI fliers who actually fly like real pilots (Zero pilots turning, P-40 pilots boom-and-zooming, and damaged pilots actually heading for home instead of circling till they die, etc.). So being able to fly the F-14 like you needed to avoid compressor stalls is great, but having to go through the full tuning setup to get a radar contract is best left to the hardest-core.
I was lucky enough to take the controls in the back seat of an F-15D many years back and let me tell you, I remember everything about the experience from takeoff to landing like it was yesterday, but the engine startup sequence was exactly 0% of the fun, and 0% of my memory. (Well, I do remember thinking "Oh, sh**, we're really doing this" when the engines started.
)I really wish combat flight sim designers would spend some free time reading books by pilots about combat experiences. Because the exciting stuff was chasing Bf-109s in a hail of flak while surrounded by B-17s, it was coming in 30 feet over the ground in an RF-8 during the Cuban missile crisis. It was not adjusting the mixture or finding the right azimuth to lock a radar contact.
Younger sim fans have been trained to be system-managing rivet counters and to expect older planes to be unrealistically unstable death traps. It's a shame. I want a convincing experience, not an ultra-accurate systems simulation in a sterile world.
Now, get off my lawn and finish that F-14. ;-) Sorry for getting off on a rant.
DC1973
Members +
I couldn't have put it better myself
And, while there are exceptions, from what I've seen from most of the DCS World crowd, they can program a radar to the nth degree, but get them to fly straight and level or actually perform any proper aviation and they're hopeless. Some of the flying I saw in the F-15 "reviews" was utterly atrocious, and that, from self-appointed "experts" with DCS tutorial videos done etc. One blamed the velocity vector in the HUD for his poor landing, claiming it was inaccurate. He was using Track-IR, and HUDs cannot be collimated in MSFS yet. The mind boggles...rubblebeam
Members +
I couldn't have put it better myself
Each to their own I guess.
You seem to be advertising a pretty empty experience, in your own words, for $40 a pop. Strange sales pitch I must say.
DC1973
Members +
Only strange if you don't understand the flight simulator market very well, and only empty if you think that super-detail is what everybody wants. And I don't set the price for the Eagles, the vendor does. My own-branded products will be far more in line with current market trends.
DC1973
Members +
I know that this is definitely on my list, as are the F-16, Thunderbolt, the late and early model Spitfires, ...
Guess I'd better start topping up my PayPal!
Priller
The P-47 and F-16s remain on the list as definites, but with two cracking Spitfires already on their way from Aeroplane Heaven and Flying Iron I'm not sure I'll take mine any further at this stage. I'd like to keep my projects as unique as possible, so a Corsair might represent a good alternative. Still, they're all a long way off at the moment, with Tomcats, Stearman, P-47 and Concorde occupying my time for many months to come.
wombat666
Administrator
Well, considering the AH Spit is a Mk.I and the other a Mk.IX perhaps a decent Griffon powered version would be a popular project.
The F Mk.XIV family would round out the series, and sub-variants such as the FR Mk.XIVE, F Mk.XVIII and even the PR Mk.XIX would be reasonably straight forward to include.
The F Mk.XIV family would round out the series, and sub-variants such as the FR Mk.XIVE, F Mk.XVIII and even the PR Mk.XIX would be reasonably straight forward to include.
Ah, but those are the Spits that I'm referring to Dean! A Corsair would definitely be on my list as well!
Priller
DC1973
Members +
Well, considering the AH Spit is a Mk.I and the other a Mk.IX perhaps a decent Griffon powered version would be a decent project.
The F Mk.XIV family would round out the series, and sub-variants such as the FR Mk.XIVE, F Mk.XVIII and even the PR Mk.XIX would be reasonably straight forward to include.
Maybe one day, but folks' often don't have as much free money these days so they're going to pick their MSFS Spitfire and stick with it I suspect. While there is still so much choice of aircraft to bring to the sim, it's better to try to avoid conflicting products where possible. So far only my Stearman has a comparable product coming to the sim from GAS, and they're reasonably different approaches to the subject aircraft so should find their own customers naturally. Further down the road I suspect there will be more cases of this, but of course that has happened for years in FSX / P3D and not really been an issue - everybody finds their own personal favourite.
The one advantage of this being the early days of the new sim is that all of you can go for "obvious" subjects that will bring in money. And all of us will love you for bringing native Spitfires, Mustangs, Corsairs, F-16's, Tomcats and so forth. Because they aren't here yet!!
Priller
Hi folks!
It's time... This is the one I've been waiting to do all along, and am now able to release more details. Won't go over everything that's on the Facebook post, but feel free to read it if you're interested, link to my page is in my signature
View attachment 81686
View attachment 81687
View attachment 81688
View attachment 81689
I for one am ready for the F-14 and other traditional frontline current and past fighters/warbirds. Looking forward to the F-14. I am much ready to have F-14/16/18/22/4/35/EFA-2000/Rafale/Su series/MiG series over some lesser known aircraft that have been in development or released lately.
DC1973
Members +
Fully customisable crew, helmets, faces, name tags and flight-suit patches added, as well as rais-able visors and detatchable oxygen masks controlled by cockpit switches. The exterior model is making full use of MSFS' new decal system for rivets, panel lines and warning markings. The level of resolution available via this technique is truly awesome.
The idea is for anybody to fully customise their pilot and RIO to match their requirements. Full instructions will be included in the manual for this purpose.
P.S. Maverick and Goose will not be included with the package, it's just to show what can be done already with the F-14s
The idea is for anybody to fully customise their pilot and RIO to match their requirements. Full instructions will be included in the manual for this purpose.
P.S. Maverick and Goose will not be included with the package, it's just to show what can be done already with the F-14s
DC1973
Members +
A few shots of the forthcoming F-14A Tomcat, work progressing very quickly now on both the external and internal models. Also a shot of the forthcoming DC Designs NAS Miramar scenery, which will launch alongside the Tomcats for MSFS.
All shots are WIP, cockpit is only about half-done at the moment. RIO cockpit will be equally detailed. Systems depth will be slightly more complex than the F-15 Eagles, but flight model will be much more detailed and compressor stalls will be a real possibility in the A model if you're too heavy-handed with the controls
Launch set for late May 2021, but of course that is subject to change, all depends on how things continue to progress.