Stackup

Yes of course skin making is possible if you have a proper description.lua, the problem is getting one. Cool that one guy figured the B-52 out, would be nice if he shared it here too. If I understand LODs correctly, that doesn't account for the missing windows on the B-1B that are present in the promotional materiel. Maybe it does for the polygon count, but missing details that could be painted on at minimum not being present would not be affected by this. Same with the lack of Sniper pods for both the B-1 and B-52 which were both shown carrying them in the promotions. It would be nice if they went back to the models they showed us when the S-3 tanker gets released.

Ideally they would give us a template even wothout holding a competition, but you might be right they've been doing a fair amount of those recently.

+1

In addition to this, editing those files does nothing to the in-game model and without ModelViewer we can't get a baseline description.lua so this also prevents making custom liveries for any of the new models.

+1 The S-3 is the same way, as is the B-52.

I'll just add this here in hopes putting it more places gets us somewhere in the template(or some other solution) department. The files found are not the files used by the model in game. They are a lower resolution quality and editing them does not change what shows up in game (I've tried). The model .edm files also are apparently locked so you cannot open these in ModelViewer and therefore cannot even get a starting point for a description.lua as we don't know the file callouts for the different sections. This really sucks as ED isn't likely to give us more than the default skin they already did and I was looking forward to making some S-3 skins as well as seeing what more experienced livery makers could put out. Hopefully ED hears us on this because they've put out templates for high quality AI only models like the B-17 already so I see no reason for them to prevent us from making custom liveries for these new ones which is exactly what they have done by locking up these files. I hope this is just an oversight and that we'll get a solution sooner rather than later. Especially with the Tanker variant coming soon as I know there are campaigns that use custom liveries for the S-3 and I'd hate to see the ability to recreate those cool skins be completely eliminated for the new model. Here's some examples of what we're losing, since they can still be used on the old tanker model. (Obviously the new model itself is miles better, but since we can't skin it or change the bort numbers like the old one ...) I made none of these, props to the creators and hopefully they can make them again for the new model whenever this gets fixed.

Same. It says VS-32 on the side but it doesn't look like a VS-32 Viking. Where are the tail markings? If you're gonna label it as a specific squadron, at least add the markings on the rudder or else leave the squadron off for an actual default livery. I'm also really hoping for a paint kit because the texture files I've found, while being for the new model, are not actually the high quality textures used on the model in game. So currently you can't even attempt to make your own template/liveries because the files are locked away somewhere...

Yeah, I just saw the Discord stuff this morning. He also did the first carrier takeoff and landing in it which is pretty exciting and i can't wait to see the external model they've made for it.

Nice find, thanks! Didn't think they would be in the coremods folder. And all the other new models are there too. It does look like a pain to work with although at least we shouldn't have to do anything but the external areas unless you want to do pilots too. The new tanks and refueling pod textures seem to be in that folder as well despite not being in the game yet.

I doubt we get official livery templates since we didn't for other new models like the C-47. Pretty sure most of the AI don't have official templates anyways. I'd just like to know where the default skin textures are so I can slap some paint over the top for starters since all the great S-3 skins I have downloaded now only work on the Tanker variant beacuse they didn't change that model yet.

@ShinyMikey this is the latest info on the A-6 AI which is from last month. Cobra says it is definitely coming this year same as the F-4. Heatblur is in crunch time for the F-4 and that is holding up things like the A-6 AI, F-14A early, TARPS, etc. as they rush towards the F-4 release. It would be nice to know why it was allowed into DCS videos when they clearly aren't happy with it because as an AI it just needs basic functionality and a good external model. Now for the full release obviously it needs a cockpit, deeper systems, interactivity, etc. As to why you found it in the ME list, probably the same reason the F-15E Suite 4 showed up in the list on an OB patch before that release and just like the A-6 that was quickly patched out as it's not intended to be there. The F-15 glitch did have the full model visible in game though.

While everyone else fiddles around with DLSS and graphics settings, here's some shots of the new S-3! The new model has it's probe so it can be refueled in the air now, and I think the tail boom was extendable in development screenhsots but no idea what conditions it would need to do so. Wish we could have gotten the tanker version in this update too, but "shortly following" is different from "soon" so maybe it isn't really to far away. In the meantime, the regular S-3 is greatly improving the look of my carrier decks!

To be fair, Flying Iron might be new to DCS but just like IndiaFoxtEcho, they have plenty of prior experience with developing planes for flight simulators. Plus they gave a presentation on flight modeling/CFDs to NASA using the A-7 module as an example so they obviously aren't underqualified or underexperienced in this space. Plus they decided to rework the entire exterior model last year so I'll cut them some slack. They also seem to be doing annual reports so I expect to see one at the end of this year/beginning of next year. I wouldn't be surprised if it's a lot farther along than we think it is. Development progress has been basically all kept hidden, the same as basically every other new dev announced within the last couple of years and the majority of the longstanding dev teams too. On the otherhand, they probably hit snags along the way, the same as experienced devs like Heatblur who have yet to release the F-4 and Razbam who had difficulty releasing the F-15E this year and started their own hype train way to far in advance of release in my opinion. Maybe we see it in 2025, who knows since it doesn't (so far as we know) fit into the "close" category of upcoming modules.

I completely agree it would be nice to have more AWACS/EW and tanker aircraft in game(AI aircraft in general tbh), but I go the exact opposite direction in time with what I'd like to see in game. So here's my list: KA-3, KC-135A, KC-10, EC-121, EA-3, RC-135, S-2, EA-6, 4-blade E-2(B or C), plus a buddy tanking option for all upcoming modules capable of doing it(A-7E, A-6E, A-1H, F-100D, etc). With DCS lacking more modern aircraft modules to go with more modern AI aircraft, and the influx of 3rd parties doing aircraft from the Cold War(plus my personal bias for Cold War aircraft/combat) in my opinion I think this is the direction DCS should go.

Well the Black Shark campaign was featured in a recent newsletter. I've also heard that the F-16 wild weasel camapign by Ground Pounder Sims is supposed to be ready. Steam database shows two unnamed items for DCS and two campaigns makes more sense to me than a surprise module release since we are already getting the Mirage F-1BE.

0% chance we see an La-5 anytime soon. An La-7 on the otherhand, maybe. I'm still betting on the Phantom being the next module release.

I don't know about large packs, but some developers have already added free asset packs to the base game. Razbam did a South Atlantic asset pack, Deka did a Chinese asset pack, Heatblur was planning all 4 Forrestal carriers plus the AI A-6E, KA-6D and a J-35, and then we have the WWII Pacific Assets pack from M3/ED that should be coming with either the F4U or WWII Marianas map. Or maybe that one wil be paid like the one we already have from ED, who knows at this point. So it's not out of the realm of possibility for asset "packs" to be added for free. None of the currently released items I mentioned even requires you to own anything but the free DCS download. Another thing is how realistic do you really need these insurgents to be? Humans are pretty small in terms of looking at them through T-Pods or out the window so they don't necessarily have to be the most highly detailed assets ever, unlike a tanker aircraft that's rather large and you spend a lot of time looking at it. There are already insurgent units in DCS (yes I know they don't look that great or fit the middle east and they still have the old janky animations) and infantry is on the list of things to be updated so expect the units we currently have to be updated. Of course anything they do will take 2 weeksTM...

Nah it'll be an XF4H-1

DSCG coming first confirmed on the HB Discord.

Except of course DCS: World, which is in fact free and marketed as such. From their own website: Instead of asset packs, I say they should just make the base game $60 or something and actually upgrade all the models for every asset they've ever put in the game and work more on the core of DCS instead of just new aircraft modules. That way they can make money without making and selling new aircraft and can actually focus on additions to the base game like more and better assets like ships, AI aircraft, infantry, ATC, the world map, etc.

Submit a bug report then.

Well that's about word for word what Cobra said in September on the Discord. It's been almost a month since then though so something very well could have changed.

This isn't a German plane. Fair, but how do we know THEY had it modelled correctly? This is a reciprocating engine, spark plugs are necessary for operation. A manifold pressure relief valve, while helpful, is most certainly not a necessary item for the proper operation of an engine when the pilot operates it within limits. That's why they provide pilots with operating limitations... Just because you've never read something that says it didn't have one doesn't then mean that it did. If you're really that bent out of shape about it and can't bring yourself to pay attention to the engine to ensure that you, the pilot, are keeping it within limitations as is your job as pilot, then please submit a report in the bugs and problems section so ED is more likely to see it and tell you what their information is and whether this is correctly modeled. Good luck with that though as they recently locked a similar thread about bearing limitations despite being given evidence from the actual aircraft manual that contradicted what they said and how they have it modeled.

I just updated my above post with my numbers. To summarize, Chuck's Guide says under WEP, the throttle should not be advanced past 95% or 1/8" from full throttle. Having just tested it at above 15,000' where you should be using this, that comes out about right. So, having determined that the engine does exceed WEP limits if full throttle is applied from my test and your experience and engine power degradation begins within a couple of minutes, we can conclude there is not a manifold pressure regulator on the P-47 in DCS and you should operate the aircraft with that in mind. However, you will have to provide proof this is inaccurate and you have not so far besides talking about other aircraft with different engines and systems. The Allison V-1710 used in the P-38 is not the same as the R-2800 used in the P-47 and you shouldn't expect them to have all the same systems simply because they were available at the time.

What altitude, max manifold pressure achieved, Turbo RPM, etc.? Give me some numbers so I can see if my test results match what you see. At 10,000', I went full throttle, boost, and prop and acheived 61" Hg and 12,500 turbo RPM at redline RPM without water injection. With water injection, the engine did exceed 64" Hg acheiving 68.5" at 14,500 turbo RPM. According to Chuck's Guide operation of the WEP system should be done as follows quote, "Water injection occurs when the engine is running in War Emergency Power (WEP) mode, which is activated by pressing the water injection button on the throttle and then throttling up to approximately 1/8 inch from the full forward throttle position (95%). The pressure in the collector reaches then up to 64 inches of Hg, increasing power by 30%."