Stackup

So where exactly does ED get off saying they are modeling a specific version (F-5E-3) and saying all sorts of optional export equipment is off the table when they didn't even properly model the version they chose in the first place? Why does our F-5E have some of the Swiss upgrades but not all? Do we have a Swiss F-5E or a US F-5E? Why is it more of an aggressor variant instead of the standard USAF F-5E (preferably with a proper early bare metal livery)? Seems to me it is just another hodgepodge instead of a specific model despite what ED claims to the contrary.

If you expected a brand new external model to still work with skins designed for the old model, that's on you. It should have been obvious this was the case in my opinion, because changing the 3d mesh changes how the liveries interact with the model and would result in a different layout of the livery template. So even if the old skins worked on the new model because the file names weren't changed, they likely would not even line up properly as the basic model template was changed. To me, the fact they didn't explicitly mention this isn't odd at all because they shouldn't have had to as it should have been obvious. New model=new skins. I agree it sucks, but there's nothing to do about it right now. As to whether they knew about the encryption preventing new skins from being made, the answer is of course they did. The same problem exists to a lesser extent with the S-3B, B-1B, and B-52H as well as all ED assets added with and after them and we complained about it then too. We could still make liveries for them although it was significantly harder.

The Stennis did not receive the new deck crew like the rest of the supercarrier ships and seems to have had the crew entirely removed for some reason. It should still be showing the deck crew, including the new additions, to all super carrier owners but currently it isn't as seen here. No Stennis Deck Crew.trk

Are we hoping this is in tomorrow's patch or has other stuff come up to prevent that? Really excited for these two!

Awesome, thanks! I'll add one item I didn't see in the description.lua you made. For those of you wanting to paint the drop tank, the code line is: {"low_KS-3A_Aero_1D", 0 ,"low_S3BViking_Aero_1D_Diffuse", false};

That's the real trick now isn't it. It'd be nice if ED would just give us an example of every single description.lua, so we can just make skins. I just noticed my tankers were screwed up while making a mission. The default texture files from the tanker have had the "S3B" replaced by "KS_3A", which makes zero sense because the tanker we have in game is just an S-3B equipped with a buddy pod and external tank, not the dedicated KS-3A tanker. Maybe they're planning on doing more variants although that seems unlikely given they haven't even released the HD version yet... In any case, there doesn't seem to be any reason to have differentiated the tanker variant from the standard. The fuel tank and refueling pod model names have also been changed. I don't remember seeing anyone else paint these yet, but I rather enjoyed that aspect of customization.

I see a lot of "more modern variant" in here, so I'll just throw my A/B/C model request in here if we're talking extra variants. Mavericks are cool and all, but so are Bullpups. Anyways, "weapon adjustments including new laser-guided bomb loading options". Sooo, GPU-5 anyone? Heatblur was supposedly working on it for the F-4E and it was used on the F-5E. Also goes with the future A-7E and was at least tested on the F-16 so it's not like it would only be for the F-5. Edit: Almost forgot, where is that darn AIM-9E...

Well what do we think, will we see the Corsair before the Corsair II?

Only the ones we have access to though. The topic of this thread for example, is a HB aircraft that did not get an update with the patch

Only 2-ish more DCS updates till the end of the year. Hopefully they give out more news on the flyable module once they release the AI.

Maybe, just spitballing here, FlyingIron releases development updates that cover the entire previous year's worth of work on the A-7. Because that's exactly what they have done the past two years. The year is almost over, and I assume FI will hold to the established pattern and give us an in-depth writeup of all the systems and modelling they have been working on during 2024.

Yes. Also in 2024 and Beyond, same as the carrier

The USS Card is a Bogue-class escort carrier, not a Tarawa-class amphibious assault ship. They probably don't have a model for it yet and are using the DCS Tarawa as a stand-in. It was sunk in Saigon harbor by the Viet Cong in 1964, but the US refloated it 17 days later. Yet another modified WWII carrier that would be a welcome addition to this modpack. F-102 delivery to Vietnam.

It's probably beacuse no one has any plans to do one yet. I know I'm not the only one that would love FlyingIron to bring a P-38 to DCS once they finish with the A-7E. They've already done the research for the MSFS version, and ED has no plans for the P-38, so it seems the most plausible way we get one to me.

An A-20G would be a cool addition for sure. I'm not sure where you got your information on the nose armament though, because in all the pictures I've seen and all the games (including the DCS AI model) I've used it in, it has six .50 cals. Maybe it was a different version because you also left out the ventral gunner who has a single .50 cal in the lower tail. The DCS AI model also leaves this off, but the other games I've flown the A-20G in have this gunner spot included.

They've already stated the naval version will be a separate module as the differences are significant enough to warrant that.

And I was responding to someone saying that HB could work on it after the Eurofighter and A-6 are released. The next module in line after the A-6 is the carrier capable F-4. So of course I outright reject the idea that HB should waste time making the F-4E carrier capable during the time they should be focusing on the actual carrier-based F-4 they would be working on at that time. I'd rather have a proper naval F-4 and time spent modifying the F-4E to be fictional is time they could have spent working through their roadmap towards the actual naval module. Like Zabuzard and others have said, the F-4E is not a carrier capable plane and DCS is not intended to be a fantasy sim. It's aiming to be as realistic as possible and a carrier capable F-4E is not realistic in the slightest, given the missing equipment, altered landing gear and tires, different approach/landing profile, etc. As such, I would much rather HB focus on their other unfinished projects such as the A-6 AI, F-14A early, DMAS F-4E, the three other Forrestal carriers, basically everything still on their public roadmap before they waste time on a fantasy feature. I have no problem if someone wants to mod the F-4E to be carrier capable themselves, but to ask the devs to add fictional features when they already to plan to make a proper naval version is utterly ridiculous in my opinion.

They could. But after the Eurofighter and A-6 releases, the next DCS module on their roadmap is the naval F-4. So it would be even more pointless to make the E carrier capable at that time.

A-6E AI in one of the next updates? Great! Here's hoping they stick the landing this time and don't have a repeat of last year's "coming this summer" announcement.

It did thanks. Guess I'm gonna have to select the MT version manually every time now. The complete removal of the ST version with the next update can't come soon enough.

This fixed it for me. Had "play MT preview" selected as standard and it was still sending me to the ST version. Guess I have to select it every time now... The removal of single thread with the next update can't come soon enough.

Ok, checked and it's not loading the MT version. How exactly am I supposed to force it to load the MT version if the .exe from the bin.mt folder no longer launches MT?

Has the MT .exe been moved? This problem started recently for me and I'm still launching the one from the bin.mt folder just like I had been previously. Alas, no map appears in the ME or F10 map. Even a repair didn't fix the issue.

I wonder what all will be in the report for the end of this year, always interesting to read the writeups. Hopefully development has been going smoothly.

As razo+r said, you don't really need any mods to enjoy DCS. If you want more A-10C info, you should try asking in the A-10C section of the forum https://forum.dcs.world/forum/149-dcs-a-10c-ii-tank-killer/ as this section is for the A-7E.