Leaderboard

I am not a skinner, just an average user. But when I saw the request for specific Viper skins, I thought "hey that is an easy one, except for the Danish one these are all available already in great quality". Having them made from scratch instead of using what is available appears a strange approach. To pick just one example - it is ironic that we have one livery artist, who's BAF skins are so outstanding, that the Belgian Air Force (the real one) chose him to design a special livery for their milestone jet (a real flying F-16). A livery, that was shown in aviation magazines around the globe. A livery that meanwhile even is available as a decal sheet so his name will be on scale models worldwide. But his skins aren't good enough to be even considered by ED as default skins and have to be created new by someone else? (no offense to the guy who was chosen!) @Roughmaster @wolfthrower @Kerbo 416 even if ED ignores your skins, be assured, we the users know who you are and WE do appreciate your work and we will continue to use your excellent skins! The headline is "livery policy" not livery police! Your comment is basically a slap in the face of everybody creating any form of content for DCS.

I'm not sure you get the point of the post here. Not once did you reply to the case at hand, but instead you critize the OP for what you consider to be disrespecting other creaters. That's missing the point by a mile. You seem to have deleted the original post leading up to this thread, which is a shame tbh. However, I would just like to ask you one thing: Who made the Norwegian F16 Liveries used in the 2024 and beyond trailer? If your answer is someone else then the artist you chose over anyone else, I'd reconsider the previous decision and open up for other artists to participate and get some well deserved recognition for their work as well tbh.

Hey, so, kind of don't know how to approach this to be honest. I have been creating skins for over 5 years now I think and in that time period I got to work with some of the most amazing livery creators for DCS, even help some to learn ( while I learned myself ) and watch them grow as artists and become the best for the specific module they are working on. for me personally I love working on the viper, I enjoy painting it, researching for months about the panels and decals and trying to make each livery as real as possible down to the last detail, either by myself or as a Collab with other amazing artists such as my good friend @Roughmaster, all of us who are passionate about creating highly realistic liveries for the viper, do it not only for growing as artists but also to make the community better, to make DCS look amazing, and always appreciate the fact we have this platform to work on. this is why this is difficult for us to understand, its a feeling of being unnoticed when clearly so many people put so much effort out of their free time to create new content. content that brings more people towards DCS (and the viper module specifically in this case), content that already exists in very high quality, so why did you chose to ignore it? most of us don't want to annoy the ED staff with requests to put their specific skin in game so we wait, for opportunities like competitions, so when we pour our heart out into a livery knowing there wont ever be an opportunity...its kind of disappointing and honestly brings the wind out of our sails. I think all of us would like ED to consider to use some of those user created liveries, and not just by one specific creator. but ultimately we will of course respect any decision you guys make, I know there are a lot of things to consider also that we as livery creators are not aware of when implementing new skins in the sim. thank you.

I am not sure about ED's position as a company, or the rest of the community's opinion. However in my humble opinion custom liveries are an essential part of this game and locking them out for any reason is not a good idea. I know there were quite a few people who were excited to make liveries for the newly released models only to then be disapointed with the reality. if this is the future from now on then I'd be very disappointed in ED. (I think that sometimes we as a community can be too hard on ED, however this time I think the criticism is fair, and while the wording may be harsh, I think that is coming from the language barrier present rather then any malicious intent) I think in the future having an avenue of communication with the skinning community (weather that be through the Livery Art Group Discord or some other forum such as a channel on the official discord) would allow ED to incorporate the best of what people are creating for this game, while acknowledging the effort put in to such work.

Do not write any articles that will cause conflict or provocation under this subject, this is not a fight hall, we just think that some things need to be understood, that's why we are opening this topic. Dear ED team and members, I have been producing liveries here for a long time, also i took steps to make the textures look as good as possible and i know people who do the same. The reason I'm bringing this topic up is that we want to know exactly what the ED team expects from livery producers. Because we agree that there is no respect for livery producers after the recent events, no one works for something that will be bad for the community here, everyone strives to be better. I understand that 3rd party DLC producers are free to add liveries of people they want to DCS. But I don't quite understand why some advanced liveries offered by ED are ignored, in addition, every livery ED adds takes up space in the files. Yes, we can delete them, but they are restored with every update. Many of these liveries are of unnecessarily poor quality and should not be there, or should be fixed. I'm sure some people had contacted the ED team before this about adding a livery, and the same response everyone got was that no livery would be added anymore, or not in the plan. For example, our friend named @Texac remade the F-16 template as best as he could. It is a great effort to rearrange the rivets one by one, but I personally did not see any interest from ED. It's as if the template made by Texac is invisible, or maybe it is. Not just that, @Roughmaster, @wolfthrower ,@Kerbo 416, @2IAE-CrashBG, and people like that are too many. These people do not get money from ED, there is no need, they do what they do because they love it, if ED gives them the impression that they do not respect them, of course these people will not do anything anymore, or they will do it but they will not share it with anyone, I don't know if ED will lose anything from this, but there is only one thing I know. It is necessary to establish proper relationships. Nobody here is saying that someone made a mistake or that someone's livery is bad, everyone makes mistakes, just ignoring the help shown is a big problem. I don't want to play the role of a wise man, but I would like to ask the ED team or @Wags to please provide some information on this subject, Thank you in advance, Have a nice day.

The key issue this thread is supposed to translate is, that with the recent forum thread made by Wags for submitting F-16C community liveries for inclusion in the base game was short lived and ED's decision rather disappointing for other livery creators and parts of the community. The submission process went from a possible multiple entries from various talented users to the selection of only a single livery creator from the community in a week. Whilst this is totally viable to do by ED it's also in my view additionally a massively missed opportunity in great potential from other artists and a significant loss in quality even. I don't claim to be an expert 2d/3d graphics artist, and I only do this as a hobby/passion for free as well, but as you mentioned, I was able to implement a few liveries for the Hornet back in 2018 with the excellent help of Eagle Dynamics' 3d artist and you @Flаnker. During this process I learned to follow certain guidelines and rules for a uniform quality standard that would keep all skins at one level of quality. An example would be choosing the correct color values, checking for a good balance between quality and compression, correct export settings, file size, etc. Till today I have been trying to go by these standards as best as possible. However years have passed and I don't know what technical level of quality is acceptable for Eagle Dynamics nowdays and what they are aiming for. But the level of detail, the default Viper textures bring to the table in comparison to other modules is IMO subpar. Hence that was something I wanted to tackle with my Viper Textures Overhaul. I also don't intent to neg on anyone, or break the forum rules, but from my experience and from what I have learned in the past 7 years of 2d painting, I'm claiming that with the current selection of livery creator(s) they would fall short and not even meet this technical standard mentioned above. At all. Still a lot of users are showing great interest in that work so that is something none should dismiss and I fully respect their opinion. But again I personally don't believe the quality or detail would achieve a much better or higher level (if that were to be the goal?) with the latest selection in livery creator(s). Which I believe other artists would strongly surpass.

Also don't forget about ED themselves using his work as the main screenshot for a news update Sept 2023.

Changelog for next update ChinaAssetPack. Missiles KD-20, KD-63 and C-701T switched to ED’s declaration ChinaAssetPack. Bomb Type-200A switched to ED’s declaration ChinaAssetPack. LS-6/GB-6 updated range table ChinaAssetPack. HHQ-9 cold launch effect New: refill external fuel tank via radio menu Fixed: fighter-to-fighter datalink Fixed: GB-6 open altitude setting (now is 800-3200ft) Fixed: GB-6 (Cluster Bomb/SFW) dispenser accuracy Fixed: Type-200A cannot CCRP release over 1000 feet Fixed: PF12 pylon weight Fixed: GB-6 indicated launch range too short issue Adjusted: oxygen volume and consumption rate Prepare to switch to ED’s LS-6/GB-6

It would be absolutely lovely. A couple of years back (IIRC) there was a 3rd party IADS module planned but it seems to have been abandoned. ED had plans of their own but no details as of yet. Personally though, and I'm sorry to say this, but I feel like it should be said, I find it quite difficult to believe that we'll be seeing significant changes in this area for the forseeable future. I mean, it's nearly been 2 and half years since the S-200 released and it still doesn't even have the right search/acquisition radars. Let alone have the right guidance profiles. What's worse is that we've had a 3D model for a radar, of perfectly adequate quality, appropriately animated and in the right format, that's not only more suitable for the S-200, but fits a decent chunk of our maps and was very prolific, being a staple Cold War Eastern Bloc radar. Yet, for over a decade, it's been relegated to wholly non-functional eye candy on the Caucasus map alone. Sticking with radars, it's been more than 2 and half years since the trailer mounted Tin Shield released and it still can't be used with the SAM system it's actually accurate for. It also cannot be used in the role that it's more commonly utilised IRL, as a general purpose EWR. Both of these are items that would be fixed with just a small addition on a single line in 2 .lua files, something that should take no more than a minute or 2 at most. If it's taking this long to just get these items (which, apart from 3D work for the former, should honestly be trivial), how long is it going to take for say, FCRs to get their respective modes modelled? For the S-75 and S-125 to be treated as command guided with their proper profiles (i.e. half-lead/lead and 3-point, instead of SARH with proportional navigation)? For backup optical modes for applicable systems to be implemented? For the SM-2MR to actually behave like an SM-2MR, instead of an SM-1? And on and on and on. Let alone stuff like tactics, IADS-like functionality (I mean, even there the purely cosmetic EWRs on some maps are problematic enough) and electronic warfare. Looking at the title, when it comes to SAM sites, battery components for all but a select few are quite thin, for the S-75 it's the minimum and the S-200 isn't even that. There still aren't things like placeable revetments and for the Caucasus and the SoH/PG map, real-word SAM sites (such as what's seen on Sinai and at some sites in Syria) aren't even present! Okay, rant over. I'd love to be proven wrong here, but given that the absolute basics, that should be the bare minimum are taking multiple years to implement (if they're even still planned) it's really, really difficult to be optimistic about this.

A more deeply IFF system. In DCS it is too accurate with no possibility of failure. Right now it is lagging behind other functions. I guess there is already a thread about this, although I haven't found it. Cheers!

Dear all, After talking with lee1hy, we've decided that he'll be providing the requested skins, and quite a few more. He does fantastic work that I believe players will enjoy. In the end, we want to provide the best possible F-16C liveries to our customers. After a careful review of the F-16C user file skins, we believe that lee1hy provides outstanding F-16C skins that meet our needs. Further, by using a single source, it greatly streamlines the process. It was my mistake creating this topic prior to carefully reviewing the F-16C user files skins before making this decision. Kind regards, Matt

Thanks for all your feedback, we will take it into consideration.

Given how terribly implemented anti radiation weapons are, it's ridicolous to hear about those strict requirements, we can literally take missiles from alien space ship and they will perform more to RL than Harms and Chinese/Russian Eqiuvalents, based on data from various books and pilots interview on topic, it's safe to say they overperform by hundreads of %, if 3rd party dev have a chance to bring some order to this chaos, and give a lot of selling points to module as a bonus, it's an offer hard to reject. Hopefully members of this forum have some documentation that could help with this. Adding Armats to one of F1 version would still be less of a stretch than Sea Eagles on C-101

I've never bothered with the TARGET software. I've done always everything through the ingame control options.

Definitely - it simply lacked scope to include them. Frankly the scope of that particular map seems not only very limited, but also quite odd from the outset. Suffice to say I really hope ED won't make that mistake again with Iraq and Afghanistan, it would be a royal shame if they did.

Aqil, thank you very much for this post. Seeing one (talented for sure) creator be asked to create skins whilst they already exist from multiple other creators such as you mentioned was disheartening. I hope ED can reconsider their choice and add liveries from different Viper-loving creators, as we have all poured our hearts and souls into them, giving them extra details like rivets, reinforcement plates, nozzles, that make them so much more realistic.

RAZBAM Mig-23MLA https://discord.com/channels/536389125276827660/1196617030233751573/1206823664109092906

Hi All The latest update will come via your Auto Updater. Or is available at https://github.com/Penecruz/VAICOMPRO-Community/releases/tag/v2.9.3.0 This update adds another Chatter theme targeted for Navy flyers using the NTTR terrain. It was part of my learning journey into the construction of the Chatter Extension. Now that is complete, it will allow the addition of other themes to suit new terrains. Also, some work on the UI and databases. It completes the work to ensure Vaicom Pro remains compatible with future versions of Voice Attack (Gary, Thanks for the help!) Complete Net 7 compatibility assurance. Added option to delete only the Imported keywords from the database. Added new Chatter theme Fallon.(Navy range and ATC chatter, includes some BFM training chatter) Added all terrains to the Kneeboard time zone check. null

Any plans for creating hangars for players to view and interact with aircraft? Like installing/removal components, viewing details, maybe even customization of paint or interiors? A sense of aircraft ownership would really bring in the immersion.

I have no date to share at the moment, testing continues. As soon as I have a confirmed date to share I will update the patch status post. thank you

Engine and Governor System is ready for release

@Slippa Thank you! I'm sure my wife would have a lot to tell me if drug an ACES II or Martin-Baker through front door. I don't think that go over very good.

I asked my crew chief, SSgt Paul Lane that question and he replied "because that's all the T.O. requires". I never asked again.

I can’t find that thread anymore … it is really disappointing to see the way ED tackled this issue, hiding it under the rug is not a mature way to react. I can fully understand the frustration that the livery creators can feel when treated this way

I’d have to agree with MaXSenna about the hardware. Just don’t get too carried away if and when you build a sim-pit. You really don’t want a working ejector seat indoors so don’t be nicking anything from work. Happy HOTAS Birthday too.

Agree all above. When I use T.A.R.G.E.T just for testing hardware and reset/adjust hardware, and nothing to do with DCS.

The coords in the Tomcat have only one digit for seconds thus can not be very precise. You can have it right on the spot in ME but after entering the WP into the Tomcat computer it is where it lands. That's theory because I don't go back seat.

Hi, Want to share the WSO sticks project. you can find the design here: https://www.cgtrader.com/3d-print-models/hobby-diy/other/f-15e-wso-sticks-for-3d-printing-with-all-functional-buttons here are some pictures:

Small update. Im evaluating new info i could scavange on painting procedures of the dora. As established the junkers pre manufactured jumo engines came prepainted in a light blue rlm76 and rlm81 green on top having a very clean straight demarcation line. Upon assembly it is said that the power egg was oversprayed in the blue-green/beige version of rlm76 and topped off with brown rlm81. Same method was sort of applied to tail section as these came premade from another subcontractor. The joint then was overpainted in the saddle section. With the mimetall 500xxx series this was done with rlm 82 as previously discussed. Pictures somehow underline aforementioned procedure as the cowling often has a misalligned demarcation line most noticably on the right side where the demarcation line of the power egg is somewhat centered around the middle of the supercharger scoop and on the fuselage the demarcation line is higher around the strengthening spars. This methid was explicitly stated for the 5006xx series. However there seems to be a tripping stone... rlm81 green and rlm 81 brown look very identical on b/w. Nearly indistiguishable... Also, planes like the blue 12 of the same series also had the top front of the cowling sprayed in rlm82 light green... that strikes it pretty odd given the fact how much paint was used / wasted and lookin at the dire situations the luftwaffe was facing... Basically youd have rlm81g/rlm76b then rlm81b/rlm76bg and then a coat of rlm82.... overspray a green with brown to be resprayed with green?? Sorta odd... It sure would make a nice visual detail but the question about execution and time investment vs result arises... Anyway.. ive got some books incoming that might help hopefully... Theres few minor adjustmwnts and fixes bein done meanwhile along with slight color hue corrections. Unique serial nrs were made for brown 18 and 4, underside spray pattern of the elevators were fixed, nr "4" was fixed in shape and dimension. The droptanks were colored rlm65 as it seems this was the predominant color. Also theyll receive some dings in the normal.

Old toys! I added military guys for good effect! Got MILK? These guys get around! I'm of FIRE! Send in the relief team!

I think the SAM issue is one of the larger ones in DCS currently. From what I gather, ED seems to think AG is preferred to pure AA. Maybe that's true for most players, but I find it hard to get into AG with SAM's as they are. They barely do anything to warrant the I in AI since they just sit emitting until something gets close enough to be fired upon. When the Hornet came out I thought SEAD would be the most fun AG mission to fly, but it turns out it takes a lot of setup to make SAM's exciting. While SAM systems could be improved massively in a lot of areas, I think as a first improvement they need is having some kind of life to them even more than they need detailed systems or radars. At a minimum they need to try to hide emissions and work together with other radars around the map. That alone would make them many many times more engaging and threatening than they are now without putting a burden on mission editors to spend forever setting up triggers or IADS scripts. Then of course, like all AI, they also need some human fallibility. Without that we run the risk of going too far the other way and creating nigh unbeatable super weapons. Ideally some delay time in communication between units/groups, uncertainty on the part of the AI on what they're shooting at, especially if friends and foes are in the same area, and some kind of aversion to being shot at by the enemy.

Still a ton of work to do, but I figured I would post a small update before I go back to studying. I've got a cert exam in two weeks, and it's been eating most of the free time I would rather spend on finishing this skin up. Camo layout's all pretty much done at this point, just need to go and align things. After that...it's detail hunting season. That's going to take an eternity. In the end I'll probably create an olive drab Czech Air Force version to go with the camo one, for people who like a little variety in life.

There has been some very odd activity around previous competitions - the Apche one asked for entries and had some amazinbg skins produced....and the winners were plain green with a different squadron badge. The B17 competion and the discussions around roughmets and PBR/Specular maps.....then the Mossie competiion that again, the winners were rather similar to what was available already. A competiion usually showcases the best and the most innovative, the most creative, a winner should be head and shoulders above the others. For @Wags to ask for entries and then a minute later say we are going with someone who in my view is surpassed in terms of creativity and innovation by many others seems again, unusual. Its also sad that the most talented livery creators out there dont even bother to enter the livery competions any more. They just dont see the point of putting days of work into a complex, custom 3 colour Apached camoflage pattern when the see winning entries are indistinguishable from t he default one. I produce skins for several prominent content creators, official campaign makers and third parties. i know many others pixel-pushers that do. We all would have liked the oppertunity to contribute to what we all spend countless hours on, day in, day out. You missed another opeprtunity, ED, another missed oppertunity. Sad times.

You are right, if it weren't you guys there would not be great liveries

Fully agreed, Alot of the liveires we have ingame not just the F-16 are really low quality compared to whats on User files. People are putting days/weeks into making 1 skin for everyone. would be amazing to see liveires from people like Texac be added some day... because their derserve it for their hours of work for us to use it and enjoy their art.

Agreed, the encryption of the recent AI model enhancements and the decisions of liveries included in game, while excluding others is very discouraging to some of the people who put in dozens, if not hundreds of hours of work into making this game more enjoyable for all of us. I hope ED can consider at the very least adding liveries that are created in excellent quality from users such as Texac, Roughmaster, and Crash among others. Among others, not including roughmets in the B-17 competition, excluding excellent creators from inclusion in the game, encrypting the models which were recently released, issues in the templates and textures. ignoring requests for normals on older models.

During editing and testing a mission I created 4 groups of F-16s with 4 elements each. All datalinks, STN, Voice Callsigns, transmit power and flight details inserted in the editor but in-game nothing is the same. Example: Enfield 4 ship flight with STN from 00011 to 00014, Voice callsign EN11-14, transmit power high and for EN11 to be Flight Lead, during the mission is shown as EN12, STN 00011, OWN#2 which should be #1 as it's flight lead, transmit power MED and FL NO (Flight Lead). This also happens with the other elements in exactly the same way. The only option to have it in a correct way is to be manually inserted in-flight.

Haha! This is the way. Keep your simpit outdoors! Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

It’s a difficult one. Personally speaking, one of the things that improves DCS is the amount of skinners and modders bringing so much to the table all the time. They are the community and they’re giving, not necessarily selling things they’ve worked on with a real passion but giving, to the community. Silly to shut that community out, bar one. Especially when there’s clearly the talent ready, willing and able. I wouldn’t mind skinning or modelling a bit myself but looking at the prices of some of the software alone makes my eyes water. Never mind the time spent learning how to use it all properly. I’m grateful for all of it. Whether or not I’m using all of it so cheers to all of you that do all the bits and bobs anyway. Much appreciated. Not handled well by the sound of it, nor in the spirit of things.

My AH-64D collective grip and Rotorplus Base arrived today.

@razo+r Awesome Thank you for the response. @Schlingel mit Kringel Thank you for the response and the tip about clearing out the column. I will definitely do that when I get it. @MAXsenna agreed. I like to try to map as close to the real thing as possible. With out TrackIR or anything. I'll have to use one of my hats for looking around. I was using the little mouse nib on my X52 to that and it made it so much better. The A10 not so much. I got a lot of work to do learning that aircraft

Never used T.A.R.G.E.T, it's good if you need more buttons. But I map buttons as close to the real thing as possible, so I have no need for it. Edit: If you get hooked you might find the TM T16.000M lacking of buttons. So you better plan and start saving for a future update. This hobby is highly addictive hardware wise... Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

OK here's the best I can do right now with the V-22 Back up your current MAM V-22 lua and try this. Updates Name changed to MV-22B Performance data adjusted VTOVL/STOVL modes BASED ON WEIGHT/FUEL LOAD 50% and LOWER fuel load results in vertical take off and landing. Fuel load ABOVE 50% will result in short take off and landing. THE BAD NEWS Only the vertical "parking hot " take off animation for the engines is correct. All other types of starts/landing and the props will hit the ground at some point. The plane takes no damage and working fine but it just looks so wrong You can also do a uncontrolled "ramp" start that will make the plane static with the engines in the correct position, but even if you start the plane via trigger the props will hit the ground on start. The issue lies somewhere in the "fold wing" code ARG 999. I can fix the ground strike but then the wing never go fully level for flight. But it can still be fun for mission just use parking hot or don't look during take off Enjoy And Remember, fuel load equal take off / landing mode V22_Osprey.lua

asking for people to contribute to a number of skins that Wags wanted in-game, then tellign everyone not to bother because they have picked someone who has been considered a controversial choice - who is for soem reason popular among a vocal minority but there are questions around their technical ability.

For the life of me I can't remember his forum name - only his real name. He is French - he did all the French character's voices, I did all the different British voices and someone else did the one American character. It was a lot of fun and got me on to do voice work for a couple of other devs. Took up many hours but as I enjoyed it so much, it didn't matter to me. It was very nice to be given 'inside access' to guys in the dev team as well, and was very enjoyable talking to them on Skype about their work and upcoming projects at the time. Seems an age ago now. *just looked right back to 2016 Gazelle posts and slapping my head as i see his name! Really don't know if he's Fragger's brother, though.

There is a trial system. You can try out Nevada free for two weeks. Also try out Syria. Not sure if Sinai is available for trial yet but at least try Nevada and Syria.

It’s social media, Backlash is both a given, and an intended feature of all ad monetized platforms. The F-4 will not be universally loved. It doesn’t fix your mistakes.

That used to be called “knowing how to fly a tactical jet”. A lost art, evidently. It really is simple- 1. Don’t pull too hard. 2. Be smooth with control inputs. 3. At high AOA, center the stick and roll with rudder only. Keep trying until you are proficient in all of the above. It’s a desktop sim, you’re sitting on your arse in a chair that is firmly on the ground. There is no reason to be intimidated or overwhelmed. Learn one step at a time. A bunch of real pilots from my era, who tend to be dismissive of Youtube Hero’s, especially those who vomit every detail of their lives in public, call those two guys, “Loser” and the “Donkey”. We have a bunch of great guys from a time where drama and nonsense is met with acerbic, but hilarious commentary. Cold, but effective, it’s a valuable tradition.

Are you trying to say that dogfighting on an F-4E will be more troublesome than on an F-16C? Whoa! I would never have said it!