Stackup

Yeah, but I'd still hope to get the buddy pod anyways since who knows how long we'll have to wait for the KA-6. ED is hopefully redoing the pod since the S-3, A-6, and A-7 (possibly more too) can all use the same one and are all coming at some point.

Maybe for the stuff that pays the bills, I still think less than a year and no screenshots or newsletter features from ED means otherwise as they are generally more talkative than HB. The stuff I'm waiting on from both ED and HB don't necessarily qualify for that as they are core additions to the game. New AI models for the S-3, B-52, and B-1 teased numerous times with nothing released, same for the A-6 AI. I get stuff takes time, especially with small teams, but it's been years at this point with beautiful models shown off in multiple videos, yet they keep getting pushed back in favor of "look shiny new module!" We routinely get early access FF modules I'd think we could at least get EA to the AI models even if everything isn't modeled or animated yet because the current ones don't do everything anyways.

We've seen the CH-47 a grand total of once during it's announcement at the beginning of the year and only recently Wags confirmed they are actually doing the F model, how could it possibly be ready for this Christmas? I'd be very surprised if that released before the F-4E. I do think the module probably isn't the Phantom though given HB hasn't done their unveiling yet.

I do hope the A-6E gets the refueling pod (even if only for the AI version and not the flyable one) as an alternative to the S-3. ED seems to be spending a long time redoing the modeling for the S-3 and we haven't seen it with the refueling pod yet so maybe it's being turned into a normal store that can then be used by other aircraft like the A-6E.

+1, with the AIM-9J already in game it's really disappointing that it hasn't been added to the F-5. The AIM-9E should come with Heatblur's F-4E and if not it most certainly will with the F-100. To me, stuff like this begs the question, why didn't they implement these missiles in the first place? How did they justify the gap from the AIM-9B to the -9P despite the -9E also being in the manual? This question becomes more important when we see things like th -9J get added to other newer modules but not older modules that should have had it to begin with!

All cool stuff and I can't wait to fly it in DCS! Back to the IRST though, if they are both F-8J's and therefore, both fighters, what does being attached to VFP-63 have to do with the IRST and do you know if the J will be equipped with the same one the E got? Or is it a case of not all E models recieved the IRST and therefore only those airframes that did would still have it when they were upgraded to J's?

So the first is a fighter version an as such still has the IRST while the second has been converted to the camera system? Interesting.

I can't say for certain, but according to this article/paper I found, the F-8J is just the E model with extra/newer systems that made it much heavier but a more powerful engine. https://www.aerosociety.com/media/8037/an-examination-of-the-f-8-crusader-through-archival-sources.pdf This F-8J has the IRST bump visible in front of the canopy. On this F-8J, you can see the ISRT looks to have been removed. So it seems like depending on what year our F-8J is from we may or may not see the IRST. Hopefully when the Corsair is released we will get some more info.

Thanks Urbi! I haven't done hardly anything with roughmets before but I knew it wasn't supposed to be gray. Should've known it was an issue with Gimp and formatting, thanks so much for the .xcf! null

Okay, I did that and I seem to have made the entire skin matte instead of glossy... I didn't add the letters, they are a part of the "color" layer in the Diffuse group, all I did was remove the yellow from that layer. Where is "PLANE USAF"? Is there a reason to change transparency if you just turn the lower layer off? Here's what my DIF.psd looks like. I guess I'm not seeing the coloring, it all looks pretty gray to me. Other roughmets I've seen have a lot of bright colors but this one doesn't. I copied the USAF layer and removed the areas like you said, but it turned the whole airplane matte and I don't understand why or really how roughmets work aside from the color of the roughmet determines the finish. I am using GIMP if that makes a difference although it hasn't before. Here's what my Spec.psd looks like. Thanks for the reply, any further help you can give would be much appreciated!

Well by being older. I think "earlier" is more accurate than "historical" since the comment was referring to the AH-64A vs D. It's not that a modern version is less relevant per se, but more of the fact not everyone likes their planes to have the latest and greatest equipment. There's people that would prefer to have the A models of the teen series fighters like the F-15, F-16, F-18, and of course we got that with the F-14. Doesn't mean the C variants we have aren't relevant, but that some people would prefer the older versions for more analogue gauges with less screens and no FBW. To go even further than variants of the same aircraft, I would rather fly the upcoming A-7 than the F/A-18 that replaced it because not only would I no longer have MFD's but I have a dedicated light attack aircraft with a higher payload that can operate in scenarios from the 70s all the way to Desert Storm in the 90's. Same thing goes for the F-4E. The modern version is less relevant to those who want to simulate the Vietnam War because of the upgrades it received after the war. But, if you want to simulate something from the late 70's into the 80's, the version we are getting should be right at home. It all depends on what you want to simulate as to what is relevant. Another example of the modern version not being relevant is the F-14B vs the Early A. The A model was featured in movies like Top Gun and The Final Countdown as well as the Gulf of Sidra incidents. The more modern B model has no place in those scenarios. Yes they flew in more places than Vietnam and served with many countries. However, not all export F-4E's had slats. If we want to simulate an F-4EJ for instance, or even the F-4E as it debuted in Vietnam, we would need a more historical (older) version with the hard wing. That doesn't mean the one we are getting is bad or irrelevant by any means, but it IS irrelevant to those scenarios unless you use your imagination. In the same way, I hope the Naval F-4 is a J and not an S because the J has a hard wing and was also exported to the UK. To me an S would be pointless since it was overshadowed by the F-14 and the F-4 saw the vast majority of it's USN action in Vietnam, so I would prefer a version that fits that timeframe.

Hi everyone, I downloaded the official template from the ED website and it only had a preview image and the DIF and SPEC psd's for the fuselage included. I attempted to try a simple bare metal design by erasing the yellow stripes, it looked fine in the dds file, but looked like this in game. I don't know what exactly the SPEC file is supposed to be since it doesn't look like the Roughmet files these usually come with so needless to say I'm confused. I also noticed that the US AIR FORCE on the tail is higher on the right than the left and on the right there is the same text but in the matte gray and in line with the black on the other side. I can fix the lettering and stuff easily, but how do I get the matte gray to go away and be polished silver like the rest of the jet? I've also noticed in other liveries I've downloaded there are way more than just the DIF, SPEC, and lua files. They have seperate files for drop tanks, helmets, pylons, gear, etc. Are these supposed to be included in the official template or are these all custom psd's someone made? Any help with this would be greatly appreciated.

I'm sure someone will make an early Cold War server that will allow it to not be outdated. The Skyraider, F-100, and F-8 are all coming as well which, in addition to the already excellent A-4 mod, gives us a decent early Bluefor lineup. Then we have the MiG-19P(maybe S at some point if RB is still doing that?), MiG-17F, and possibly some kind of Fitter(OctopusG or Mag3?) to round out Redfor. Maybe add in the F-5, F-4, and MiG-21 depending on time period and with a little imagination you can do missions on the Sinai and Syria maps and use Caucuses or Marianas as a quasi-Vietnam. It won't happen quickly as that's a lot of modules yet to release but they are at least coming and the 17 isn't out yet anyways so plenty of time for one or more of them to finish up.

As I've said previously, I don't care that we won't get missiles and am fine with only getting the MiG-17F. That being said, "trust me bro" is not a valid source either. You gave a nice and thorough explanation as to why this variant doesn't get missiles, but like so many other people not a single source for anything you've said has been given, yet you expect everyone to accept it as fact. To me, providing outside sources such as where you got your own knowledge is especially important when you are saying someone else's sources are invalid.

Here's the Discord post. Still not sure why they and others insisted the F-15E release had no effect when the fact that it was slotted ahead of the F-4 caused HB to increase the scope of the initial release. Sure sounds like an effect to me. Of course at this point, it doesn't really matter as long as the quality is there on release.

Um, what? If you have 4x Paveways in the tunnel, the tunnel is full. That leaves only the 4 shoulder pylons. The Phoenix takes 1 and that leaves only 3 for AIM-9's and that's assuming another aircraft is lasing the target for you. If you're self-lasing, the LANTIRN takes up yet another slot leaving you with only 2x AIM-9s.

And? It was a Cuban version without an afterburner and had the missiles Cuba would have used and that makes it historically realistic. It's also premium and is NOT removed, just not currently sold making it rare enough to fit the parameters of low modification count. In either case, I'm happy we're getting the MiG-17F because that's the version used in Vietnam and I would rather use the cannons instead of knockoff AIM-9B's.

If I might ask, what missiles did the Cuban version have? That other game gives it the R-3S and the devs were going with that as well so what did they use if it wasn't that?

That's kind of a moot point because the version of the AS RedStar had planned would have had the R-3S, but they cut that variant from the module. I clearly don't have the encyclopedic knowledge of the MiG-17 variants you do but just thought I'd point out that historical or not, it was planned by the devs before they cancelled the AS.

Did the Tomcat ever use the 9Bs? I would've thought the earliest we could see would be 9D, G, or H. Also pretty sure the J was a USAF model so we wouldn't get that one unless the IRAIF version would. The various F-4's should bring more early Sidewinders and definitely some 7Es to player aircraft so we should begin to see the earlier missiles at some point.

But it's free...

The miles program is optional for 3rd party developers. They aren't required to participate.

I dunno, these RF-4B's would pretty much only fit on the 4E because of the nose. It's highly unlikely we'll be getting a reconnaissance version and the gameplay isn't really there, but i think they look kinda cool. Wasn't expecting to find long nose Phantoms ever operating off of carriers but there you go.

What makes you say that? The R-3S is the exact same missile as the K-13A. In DCS, currently the MiG-19P is using the K-13A label and the MiG-21 is using the R-3S label along with labeling the rest of that series with the R- designation (R-3R, R-13M, etc.). Also Red Star themselves said it was the R-3S when they still thought it would be possible to make the MiG-17AS model.

Flight model is 95% complete, external and cockpit models are complete, cockpit is being textured, and exterior is ready for texturing. That doesn't sound like "many years" to me. At any rate, Red Star said early on into development that they would release it even if they didn't get 3rd party status so I highly doubt they stop development at this point.