11 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

And the F-14 is really quite nice for a Default addon. But it wasn't really finished, and it's rather frustrating to try to fly it "by the book". My main gripe being the lack of controllable spoilerons/Direct Lift Control, which is a critical aero feature for aircraft carrier landings. But there's a couple others.

I think that Direct Lift Control could be implemented in the X-Plane native flight model with relative ease.

Maybe Plane-Maker could be enough for a simplified version of DLC (Plane-Maker has a "spoiler with flight speedbrakes" entry), while a more accurate version of DLC could be implemented with a plugin (each single control surface can be independently controlled via plugins, AFAIK).

2 hours ago, Murmur said:

I think that Direct Lift Control could be implemented in the X-Plane native flight model with relative ease.

Maybe Plane-Maker could be enough for a simplified version of DLC (Plane-Maker has a "spoiler with flight speedbrakes" entry), while a more accurate version of DLC could be implemented with a plugin (each single control surface can be independently controlled via plugins, AFAIK).

Oh, absolutely! And the sad thing is that DLC (and a few other things) are already halfway implemented in the addon. I.e., the custom controls/keybinds for DLC activation, DLC increase & decrease, maneuver flaps, and some other things, are there - even down to in-cockpit button presses and sounds(!). Even though some of what is implemented doesn't seem to perform according to IRL (e.g., spoileron auto-DEactivation at greater than Idle Thrust with weight on wheels).

Based on all that, I can only surmise whoever was sub-contracted/assigned to build the jet wasn't allowed or able to finish it off for some reason. 😞

An even sadder thing is that it appears time WAS spent on functional weapons systems, which in XP even I find to be rather extraneous.

I'm just disappointed because there are signs that this could've been (and could still be) one of the best Default addons in perhaps ANY simulator when it comes to interesting & engaging aerodynamics (as I take it was true IRL, as well).

Anyhow, I still use the F-14 from time to time because it IS a good Default addon that has a good amount of depth (as do many other XP Defaults), and it flies nicely. But my use is limited because I just can't take it too seriously in the critical activities around carrier ops and landing given the existing limitations (and this isn't a Puritan outlook - it messes with my ability to consistently achieve success when flying the ultra Hi Fi version in DCSW. Same reason I also no longer fly it in MSFS, either).

For X-Plane military use, I'm finding the DWS M-346 to be a satisfying modern fast jet - mainly because of its comprehensive navigation/flight plan capabilities and general ease of use (it is an IRL trainer, after all 🙂 )

BUT, if Just Flight / Thranda upgrade the Hawk T1 for XP as was just done for MSFS - well, game ON!!

Edited April 16, 20251 yr by UrgentSiesta
clarification

12 hours ago, GoranM said:

Please don't misinterpret my reply to you as malicious or aggressive (if you are).

I admire and respect healthy discussions, as long as they remain mutually respectful and courteous.  And I took your post towards me as such.  I have no problem with disagreements, but perhaps I may have missed some context in your response.  If you're referring to jet engines that are capable of propelling an aircraft beyond the sound barrier, then I admit I don't know much about their physics in X-Plane, or what their flaws are.  Keeping in mind, it was about 2am when I posted that reply to you, and the brain was feeling very cooked after a long day.

If the fast jet engines (Mach 1+) are not performing accurately, then sure, I'll take your word for it.  I haven't spent any time looking into those types of engines within the X-Plane environment.

I simply assumed because of the F14, that the fast engine physics were working correctly.  

Again, apologies for any misunderstanding.

Agree, Sir!

You have my highest respect, you always bring a healthy serving of facts and conviction.

BTW: congratulations on your Hot Start C650's extremely high popularity in the Navigraph poll - well deserved kudos!

19 hours ago, Maya2 said:

I personally don't recommend changing it, the current value of it is physically correct and anything else is going to be inaccurate. It was calculated based on the luminance ratio between double scattering and all multiple scattering orders.

The reason I don't recommend changing it is because there is a better dataref to change which creates the same effect - scattering/hack_cloud_shadows. This controls the shadowing of the multiple scattering due to the clouds. The correct value for it 0.5 (or slightly below, technically the physically correct value is supposed to be 0, but due to the nature of the approximation we use to calculate the shadowing of the multiple scattering, it often underestimates the brightness levels, and 0.5 sets a limit to the attenuation based on the mathematical worst case scenario. It was not set to 0.5 because the art team felt that even 0.5 is too low in some cases, and they're almost always right on this kind of stuff (massive shoutout to the art team especially to Daniela), so it was decided to be set to its current value until we found a better approximation. This is one of the very few remaining hacks in the lighting model, but thankfully it often doesn't have a major visual impact. We're still working on a better approximation for it.

Also I need to add the mandatory disclaimer (for my own safety 😅), editing private art controls is discouraged.

Realistic is fine and dandy, but sometimes you just want that extra drama...😉

 

Default 12.2.0b2 (multi_rat = 1.25, hack_clouds = 0.8):

 

Multi_rat = 0.25, Hack_clouds = 0:

 

 

32 minutes ago, UrgentSiesta said:

Based on all that, I can only surmise whoever was sub-contracted/assigned to build the jet wasn't allowed or able to finish it off for some reason. 😞

The good thing, and I have this black on white, is that Laminar is very open to people tinkering with, and improving, default X-Plane aircraft. So less complaining, more coding!

 

40 minutes ago, UrgentSiesta said:

(e.g., spoileron auto-DEactivation at greater than Idle Thrust with weight on wheels).

See "F14_fltCtrls_auto_speedbrake_retract()" in "Aircraft/Laminar Research/Grumman F-14 Tomcat/plugins/xlua/scripts/F-14D_sys/F-14D_sys70_fltCtrls.lua". Retraction occurs at > 60% throttle.

I also don't get the fuss about DLC. It's just a slightly fancier spoiler control.

3 hours ago, Bjoern said:

The good thing, and I have this black on white, is that Laminar is very open to people tinkering with, and improving, default X-Plane aircraft. So less complaining, more coding!

 

See "F14_fltCtrls_auto_speedbrake_retract()" in "Aircraft/Laminar Research/Grumman F-14 Tomcat/plugins/xlua/scripts/F-14D_sys/F-14D_sys70_fltCtrls.lua". Retraction occurs at > 60% throttle.

I also don't get the fuss about DLC. It's just a slightly fancier spoiler control.

Yessir, agreed.

But given my day job fighting with technology of all sorts, I simply have little inclination to bring work home with me.

Or as I used to frequently see, "I'd rather be flying!" 🙂

Thank you (really) for looking up that value. AFAIK (and i'm interested enough to research it myself), the correct behavior is retract at > 0% (and IIRC, that also goes for the actual speed brake which was extended on downwind).

I can understand your question, and at least in my case it comes down to (trying) to be consistently successful with carrier operations.

The DLC on the Tomcat were designed to assist with maintaining the oh-so-important AoA & glide slope without having to resort to throttle or stick changes. This increased the likelihood of the pilot being able to successfully catch a wire on the aircraft carrier (as well as catching that coveted "3 wire").

And the auto-retract helps ensure you gain enough airspeed that when you bolter/miss ALL all the wires, you go flying instead of swimming!

It's amazing how much of a difference they make, especially when you try to do without them in another simulator. 👍

7 hours ago, Murmur said:

Maybe Plane-Maker could be enough for a simplified version of DLC

Maybe in a distant, hacky sort of way. DLC also actuated the elevons to maintain attitude (or AoA, not exactly sure which). That controller would require a plugin.

The speedbrake+spoiler linkage appears to be an on-off behavior as a function of flight spoiler command. Maybe if the spoiler axis was bound to the roller wheel, it might be smooth modulation that tracks with the spoiler command position? As for the pitching moment when both wing and body brakes are up simultaneously...that might actually keep things at a constant pitch in a lucky roll of the dice but as far as I've been able to see DLC didn't use the body brake so it would be technically unrealistic. Physics is all there. It's just the control logic that's missing.

No words needed 🤩