Swamp_Fox

So, tried doing this, noticed it was taking a lot longer than the original plugin and figured "that's okay I'll just move the .py out of the plugins page and put it back in to save as BC7 at the end." Instead it's throwing this error now. So, what's wrong?

If you were one of the first 25 people or so it's not the exact same file, since I did update the skin to have the 25th Infantry Division (not II MAW like I originally said; forgot which of the two I ended up going with over the Iraq combat patch), but it IS the same page on user files, https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3322060/

Link is now up at https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3322060/ I also updated the patch on the right sleeve to be that of the 25th infantry division, as apparently the Iraq combat patch was more for higher ups, and the 151st operated in support of the 25th infantry division during that timeframe.

Most of the really tedious work was something I was doing for a commission, actually, so that probably wouldn't have really helped much (be kind of a dick move to split work on something only one person is getting paid for). Yours isn't too bad itself, though; best of luck! I was under the impression I just did. Is there something more to it that I'm not aware of other than just adding the user files link once it's approved?

So. I was about 85% done with my own South Carolina National Guard livery when Wilmeister posted theirs here. Figured I might as well finish it off, be a shame to do all that work and then just abandon it. I'll attach the user files link as soon as it's available, but for now, just the pictures. Contains 4 skins; two generic ones (one with the drab gun and partially drab TADS that seem quite common on gray Apaches, one without), as well as two specific aircraft, 40331 and 40332 in about 2004, when the unit was in Iraq. Of note is that, due to using common textures to save on space, none of the skins will work if the gray generic skin isn't present, and 40332 won't work if 40331 isn't present. That can of course be changed if need be, though the file size will approximately triple. Reflecting that they deployed to Iraq with these liveries, the combat patch on the right arm is that given for the Iraq tour, and the patch on the left arm is, of course, the SC ARNG patch. The patches have their own custom roughmets and normal maps, and most of the aircraft has custom roughmets as well. There's also custom textures for the M261 rocket pods and the fuel tanks. There are of course some differences between the AH-64A and AH-64D that made it not an exactly 1 to 1 representation (mostly the exhaust shrouds and the side pods; the top half of the shark mouth in particular goes noticeably further forwards, since the sidepod goes further forwards, and making it the "correct" size resulted in not being able to see much of the mouth from the front).

I know, I know... but a gal can dream

they haven't specifically said not, but they said they're doing an F-4E module and then a later naval one.

No F-4G, looks like

F-4G please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please

while we're on the topic... please, for the love of god, add VF-32 100 or 104 so we can have a four ship of Tomcats that's all one squadron without repeating numbers.

Yeah, I know the afterburners consume a lot more fuel. The issue is that the NATOPS specifically say that the fuel flow indicator doesn't include fuel flow to the burners, only to the main engine. The fuel flow is showing the real number; the bug is that it's not supposed to.

Yeah that was my bad, but it still says it doesn't display afterburner fuel flow, and an 180% increase in non-afterburner fuel flow from mil to max seems stupidly high.

Also, while I'm at it, "During high g maneuvers when moving the throttle to idle, the flight idle stop may retract and allow selection of ground idle." This affects about 0% of my ability to enjoy the Hornet, but it'd still be cool if it were modeled.

According to the NATOPS, the fuel flow indicator "Displays main engine fuel flow only (afterburner fuel flow is not displayed). Range is 300 to 15,000 pounds per hour with 100 pounds per hour increments. The tens and units positions have fixed zeros. When fuel flow is less than 350 PPH, zero is displayed." Here it is at mil, and here it is at max. Now, unless the engine alone consumes 180% more fuel in mil power than max power... I suspect that the fuel flow indicator is counting both. It's also listing fuel flow as 25,000 lbs per hour on the EMI, which is 10,000 lbs higher than the EMI is supposed to be able to count.

Thanks. Probably because I was looking up "wands" and not "glow sticks."

Mind letting me know where? Wasn't able to find anything, hence the question.

Are we getting wands at some point? Night ops are severely lacking without them IMO, I might as well be taking off from the Stennis.