Stackup
-
Posts
514 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Stackup
-
-
16 hours ago, -Rudel- said:
It can be done, by modifying the description.lua
Is this modification coming standard in a future update? Seems silly to me that this feature is only on the dark blue carrier liveries, but not any of the others when it clearly should be.
2 hours ago, Rudel_chw said:Just tried it, but it seems it will only work with all-blue skins
You have to add in lua lines for each number, not just the argument change for this to work. Working off the default VBF-10 descrition.lua, you can pull the selected set of numbers(I'll use the fuselage ones) and drop them into the description.lua of the skin you want to change. By default, all lines will end in true, but we don't want that, otherwise the livery will pull data from the default skin which in this case is the dark blue VBF-10.
{"F4U1D_NUM_FUSE_L_VBF10_001", 0, "F4U-1D_Fuse_01", true};
{"F4U1D_NUM_FUSE_L_VBF10_001", 1, "F4U-1D_Fuse_01_NMp", true};
{"F4U1D_NUM_FUSE_L_VBF10_001", 13, "F4U-1D_Fuse_01_RoughMet", true};
{"F4U1D_NUM_FUSE_L_VBF10_001", 3, "F4U-1D_Numbers_US_v00", true};If you leave it true, you end up with this.
nullIf you change the lines to read false for all but the numbers, the description.lua will pull data from the files it is directly foldered with which is what we want.
{"F4U1D_NUM_FUSE_L_VBF10_001", 0, "F4U-1D_Fuse_01", false};
{"F4U1D_NUM_FUSE_L_VBF10_001", 1, "F4U-1D_Fuse_01_NMp", false};
{"F4U1D_NUM_FUSE_L_VBF10_001", 13, "F4U-1D_Fuse_01_RoughMet", false};
{"F4U1D_NUM_FUSE_L_VBF10_001", 3, "F4U-1D_Numbers_US_v00", true};This is the result.
Edit: To make this even simpler, the description.lua from the VF-17 1943 Bouganville livery is exactly what you need for all the Tricolor liveries. The arguments block should look like this for the fonts and colors.
[1000] = 0.00, -- Cowl
[1001] = 0.20, -- Fuse_01
[1002] = 0.00, -- Tail Fin
[1003] = 0.00, -- Rudder
[1004] = 0.05, -- Fairings (Doors)And all that is required after that is to include the lua lines for the door and fuselage numbers.
{"F4U1D_NUM_FUSE_L_VF17_001", 0, "F4U-1D_Fuse_01", false};
{"F4U1D_NUM_FUSE_L_VF17_001", 1, "F4U-1D_Fuse_01_NMp", false};
{"F4U1D_NUM_FUSE_L_VF17_001", 13, "F4U-1D_Fuse_01_RoughMet", false};
{"F4U1D_NUM_FUSE_L_VF17_001", 3, "F4U-1D_Numbers_US_v04", true};
{"F4U1D_NUM_FUSE_L_VF17_010", 0, "F4U-1D_Fuse_01", false};
{"F4U1D_NUM_FUSE_L_VF17_010", 1, "F4U-1D_Fuse_01_NMp", false};
{"F4U1D_NUM_FUSE_L_VF17_010", 13, "F4U-1D_Fuse_01_RoughMet", false};
{"F4U1D_NUM_FUSE_L_VF17_010", 3, "F4U-1D_Numbers_US_v04", true};
{"F4U1D_NUM_FUSE_R_VF17_001", 0, "F4U-1D_Fuse_01", false};
{"F4U1D_NUM_FUSE_R_VF17_001", 1, "F4U-1D_Fuse_01_NMp", false};
{"F4U1D_NUM_FUSE_R_VF17_001", 13, "F4U-1D_Fuse_01_RoughMet", false};
{"F4U1D_NUM_FUSE_R_VF17_001", 3, "F4U-1D_Numbers_US_v04", true};
{"F4U1D_NUM_FUSE_R_VF17_010", 0, "F4U-1D_Fuse_01", false};
{"F4U1D_NUM_FUSE_R_VF17_010", 1, "F4U-1D_Fuse_01_NMp", false};
{"F4U1D_NUM_FUSE_R_VF17_010", 13, "F4U-1D_Fuse_01_RoughMet", false};
{"F4U1D_NUM_FUSE_R_VF17_010", 3, "F4U-1D_Numbers_US_v04", true};----------------------------------------------------------------------------
{"F4U1D_NUM_DOOR_L_VBF10_001", 0, "../1943 Tri-Color v3/F4U-1D_Wing_L", false};
{"F4U1D_NUM_DOOR_L_VBF10_001", 1, "F4U-1D_Wing_L_NMp", true};
{"F4U1D_NUM_DOOR_L_VBF10_001", 13, "../1943 Tri-Color v3/F4U-1D_Wing_L_RoughMet", false};
{"F4U1D_NUM_DOOR_L_VBF10_001", 3, "F4U-1D_Numbers_US_v04_Black", true};
{"F4U1D_NUM_DOOR_L_VBF10_010", 0, "../1943 Tri-Color v3/F4U-1D_Wing_L", false};
{"F4U1D_NUM_DOOR_L_VBF10_010", 1, "F4U-1D_Wing_L_NMp", true};
{"F4U1D_NUM_DOOR_L_VBF10_010", 13, "../1943 Tri-Color v3/F4U-1D_Wing_L_RoughMet", false};
{"F4U1D_NUM_DOOR_L_VBF10_010", 3, "F4U-1D_Numbers_US_v04_Black", true};
{"F4U1D_NUM_DOOR_R_VBF10_001", 0, "../1943 Tri-Color v3/F4U-1D_Wing_R", false};
{"F4U1D_NUM_DOOR_R_VBF10_001", 1, "F4U-1D_Wing_R_NMp", true};
{"F4U1D_NUM_DOOR_R_VBF10_001", 13, "../1943 Tri-Color v3/F4U-1D_Wing_R_RoughMet", false};
{"F4U1D_NUM_DOOR_R_VBF10_001", 3, "F4U-1D_Numbers_US_v04_Black", true};
{"F4U1D_NUM_DOOR_R_VBF10_010", 0, "../1943 Tri-Color v3/F4U-1D_Wing_R", false};
{"F4U1D_NUM_DOOR_R_VBF10_010", 1, "F4U-1D_Wing_R_NMp", true};
{"F4U1D_NUM_DOOR_R_VBF10_010", 13, "../1943 Tri-Color v3/F4U-1D_Wing_R_RoughMet", false};
{"F4U1D_NUM_DOOR_R_VBF10_010", 3, "F4U-1D_Numbers_US_v04_Black", true};}This gives you this result.
-
1
-
2
-
-
-
7 hours ago, leonardo_c said:
instead of going for the long solution and creating new missile variant, just go for the stopgap solution and add the loadouts with J and P.
those would be more than good enough and do not require any additional modelling, texturing, riveting and counting.
Except these missiles will be needed for future modules like the navy F-4, the A-7E from FlyingIron, and assuming they get to it, the F-8J from Mag3. It's not just the F-14A that needs them.
Heatblur has already made plenty of new weapons for their aircraft including the remodel of the AGM-45 and AIM-7E they made for ED to go with the F-4E along with all the other new weapons that came with it. Personally, I disagree that the J and P should be used instead of adding an H model. They're fine for the IRIAF Tomcat, but the US Navy didn't use those missiles and we should get at least one earlier one they did use. I'd also include the AIM-7E-4 to this list as an earlier Sparrow variant that should be added for the F-14.
-
On 2/3/2025 at 2:29 PM, draconus said:
It'd be what it's best at in current DCS - tanker.
Which will already be covered by both the A-6 and A-7 since both of those can buddy refuel and will come well before any full fidelity S-3. Still requires ED to make player refueling an official thing which they are supposed to do for the KC-130J from ASC.
-
2
-
-
9 hours ago, Tomcatter87 said:
One thing I don't get, though: Why does Heatblur point out the Expanded Chaff Adaptor and the ECM pod as news? Those have been around for a long time now.
I wondered that too. Maybe they're going to make them functional? Hard to believe they'd forget what items are already in game, but mistakes can happen.
-
Surprised nobody is talking about the new F-14A pictures Heatblur put out because they relate here quite closely. So we saw the mock up of the F-14 B/U in the 2025 and beyond video. Great, sounds good. I would still rather have the promised F-14A early first(luckily that's clearly still what's happening), because they've had that on the roadmap for years now and the B/U was never confirmed except for allusions that it might be a separate paid addition if they ever got the info to do it properly, not part of the main F-14 package like the early A.
Now we have more news on the early A including screenshots of the cockpit panels and TCS pod options. The older style gun vents have not replaced the NACA ducts yet, but I hope they get added along with earlier missile options like the AIM-9H and AIM-7E4.
-
3 hours ago, Chess96 said:
Nonetheless, claiming we should have 4 siwa on the tiger because the swiss did it would be missleading.
Regardless of whether or not we should have the 4 missiles, ED specifically say they are modelling a Swiss F-5E-3. Which means if the Swiss did do this on the F-5E-3's they had, we should get it, regardless of what the US did when they bought it back for their aggressor program.
The jet we have doesn't fully match either plane despite what ED wants us to think with their, "Well the jet we're modeling didn't have that" talking point. Which brings us back to the fact that all F-5E's were factory capable of all export options, including as I understand it, the 4x Sidewinders that was approved by the US even though it never saw operational use and the refueling probe among other items. Other aircraft like BlackShark3 and the F-16 have unrealistic/test loadout options that don't match what ED says they're modeling so this is very clearly a randomly applied standard based on percieved value the addition would bring to the market vs time spent adding it. The uproar over 4x HARMs for the F-16 got that feature re-added so who knows.
-
1
-
-
38 minutes ago, RustBelt said:
FI has seemingly abandoned anything not The Operating System Flight Simulator.
They walked on all their XPlane stuff just like here. Went out for smokes and never came home. Too much money in Micro$$oft.
I can't comment on the X-plane stuff, but where's your evidence they have stopped working on the A-7 and have abandoned DCS? Oh, that's right, there isn't any evidence of this besides "Waah, they won't talk to us about something we haven't paid money for yet".
I understand wanting more information and for people to actually stick to deadlines they give themselves, but ask yourself this. How many DCS developers actively interact with the community at all? How many of those developers primarily use alternative platforms like Discord as opposed to the forums here? How many projects have been announced that keep getting next to no information released?
It hasn't even been a full year since the last update, there's no reason to say anything is "vaporware" or abandoned yet except certain other modules that are no longer being updated.
-
6
-
-
One thing I will note to the people saying they have to restart DCS entirely every time they make a change, I have found that it is only necessary to restart DCS when you make a change to the description.lua file as it is only read once on first use while DCS is running. Texture, roughmet, normal, etc. changes will usually update after a mission using the livery is loaded and then returned to the ME. This is way shorter than a full restart although still not ideal in any way, but when you're someone like me who couldn't ever figure out the model viewer in the first place you do what you can. Painting the newer assets like the B-52 and S-3 was painful, but not any harder than any other plane was for me to do. Of course, people have figured out the majority of the description.lua for both of those planes while there isn't any way to get the F-5's currently so we can't even do that.
-
1 hour ago, Silver_Dragon said:
Start to think, that move to the A-6E full fidelity module previouly to a IA release.
Uh, what? I genuinely don't understand what you're saying here... Did you mean that you're "Starting to think the AI A-6 has been moved to release only with the full fidelity module" ?
Heatblur has continued to say the AI version will release first without needing the full module, and went so far as to say it was coming "in one of the next updates" in their September 2024 update. Of course, like the early F-14A they also said they wanted released before the end of 2024 in that same post, it isn't here yet so obviously something has caused them to delay. Again. They finally showed us the J-35 AI model in game which means clearly they are working on their AI units, they just haven't yet figured out how to quit "crying wolf" as it were. Or in this case, "crying release".
-
6
-
-
So, it's "coming in one of the next updates" and yet didn't make an appearance in 2025 and Beyond? It would be nice if Heatblur would actually make an updated statement on this.
-
9
-
-
null2025 and Beyond
-
5
-
-
28 minutes ago, Shrike88 said:
Looks like you should be eating your words along with a side of humble pie
Why should he? The B/U is not the same thing as the D.
-
4
-
-
14 minutes ago, Gunslinger22 said:
Am I the only one who is partially disappointed to see HB showing new toys but we’re still awaiting the release of the F-14A early, which is what I literally purchased the module for and was shown since the beginning of development.
Seems they’ve got a lot of their plate development wise, it’d be nice to know that this feature creep isn’t massively the reason why we haven’t got the ALR-45 in our cockpits already.You aren't the only one, gib ALR-45! They keep seeming to find ways to push previosuly announced projects like the full fidelity A-6 further onto the back burner which saddens me to no end...
-
11
-
-
1 hour ago, MAXsenna said:
The usual end of year report hasn't landed yet?
Nope, not yet
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, felixx75 said:
Last Update: Nov 08, 2023...
Technically the last update was March 12, 2024, although it was only on the Discord.
-
5
-
1
-
-
I found the holdup guys! Jester tried to eject (as per usual) only it didn't go quite as planned and now he's stuck.
-
3
-
-
6 hours ago, NRG-Vampire said:
You can remove tail-code, tailtop-stripe, noseart/patch in description.lua using the custom_args lines.
Arg is 52, currently value above 0.7 or less than 0 ( I tried value: -0.5) removes textures, so you will able to use/see your individual (painted) tailcode/noseart.
Arg52 value 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, ( .etc, +so on) changes "builtin" decals: tailcode/tailstripe/noseart.
Cheers
Awesome. Any ideas how to remove/edit the default bort numbers? They are quite annoying on non-gray skins.
Also, does anyone know where the random gray square on the left side of the cockpit suddenly came from? It wasn't there on the low res model.
-
2
-
-
On 12/19/2024 at 12:22 AM, Convoy said:
The computer that had the AI A-6 data on it got lost in the Ukraine war. They had to start from scratch. It is coming.
That's not quite true. From what I heard all they lost was the suspension model which has since been redone. They did not have to start from scratch on the entire aircraft and supposedly it is close enough that they said in September that it was coming in "one of the next updates". Of course this would also be the third year in a row that Heatblur has made essentially the same "coming this year" comment in regards to the AI A-6 and the early F-14A so who can really say given that track record. AI Draken perhaps? Oh wait.
Anyways, the new stuff I want to see is the F-100, Skyraider, and MiG-17. More A-6 and A-7 footage is also welcome as is more Pacific Theatre stuff.
-
3
-
-
2 hours ago, TeTeT said:
@Stackup I'm not aware how we can add the radial engine sound without changing the engine to radial in the config. Unfortunately it didn't take off from a carrier when we did so. Maybe it's time for a re-test, seems ED has been fixing carrier code lately.
Gotcha. I know next to nothing about modding in DCS so I didn't know if it was just a sound file change or something.
-
This mod continues to deliver awesome Vietnam content! Any chance the Skyraider could get a proper radial engine sound as opposed to the current turboprop sound which is identical to the C-130? Also the Mk-81 bomb?
-
1
-
-
Could we please get the AIM-9E? We already have the B and the J of course, but the E is the intermediate step between the two and also needed for the F-4E as well.
-
1
-
-
Ah silence. Maybe there's one last update planned before the end of the year, but it seems we're going to be getting another "it'll come out this year" that will prove to be untrue. I sincerely hope they prove me wrong.
-
8
-
2
-
-
3 hours ago, Stratos said:
Thanks for posting this, but apart of the skins, what's the difference?
That's the difference. They can get away with saying "3 different helmets" because although they are all the same base helmet they are different helmets. For example, Maverick would not wear Goose's helmet because both have personalized their helmets making them in effect "different" helmets. Sure, that's not what we want to hear, but that's a perfectly valid reading of the statement and not surprising given the overall lack of updated content in this "remaster"
-
1
-
%2Fa-6-intruder-large-56a61b753df78cf7728b5fce.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=983f8966b16c993c796e3fa3316e84b7a3730fd79493fad66409209fafd94bf5&ipo=images)
livery requests
in F4U-1D
Posted
Only on the fuselage numbers though. The v5 includes a normal (NMp) file the others do not. Simply change the NMp lines for the fuselage numbers to end in true instead of false and they work properly.
As for the other fuselage numbers, play around with them until you find the desired look. The gear door issue I can answer, you don't want the white numbers from the VMF-312 skin, you want the same black numbers at 0.05 as seen on the two-tone VMF-222 skin which should have the code setup so you can just copy paste.