KingKenny04

Overall, I believe ED have done a much better job than expected in including critical Gulf War-era Coalition air bases. Most of the relevant bases omitted from the map are understandable, either being over on the West coast of the Saudi Peninsula and thus too far outside scope (King Faisal, King Fahad, and King Khalid ABs), or being present on the PG map already (Al Minhad and Al Dhafra). However, there is one glaring omission that I hope is under consideration for adding in the distant future: Prince Sultan Air Base near Al Kharj. This base was home to a huge number of coalition squadrons during Desert Storm, and a critical hub for major coalition operations. Below I've listed some of the hosted squadrons: While I understand that the facilities of Prince Sultan Air Base are very different today from what they were during the Gulf War era, the base itself has been a critical part of US-led operations from 1996 through today, so I don't believe that should be reason alone to exclude it. I sincerely hope this critical piece of Desert Storm operations is under consideration for addition to the Iraq - South map in the distant future.

I would like to add the calls for adding Prince Sultan AB to the map in the future, this was an absolutely critical hub for large numbers of Coalition operations during Desert Storm. Most of the other ODS-relevant bases that didn't make it in are understandable omissions, as they're either way over on the west coast of the Saudi peninsula, or already present on the PG map. While I'm hopeful that Al Dhafra and Al Minhad may someday be included on the Iraq map, I won't hold my breath. I AM holding my breath for Prince Sultan, I think that one is essential. I'll also include KKMC and KKIA, while they didn't support fighter sorties directly, they were critical hubs for support missions and hosted helicopter units.

I'd like to bump this topic. With the recent news that the ATC rework will require re-recording voice, I'd like to ask that new callsigns be added when the recordings happen. I understand that may be a low priority, but it would really help with immersion if we could add a bunch of new callsigns, especially those used in real operations. There are a ton of great suggestions in this thread, but I'd like to add a few suggestions of my own that I heard in the course of my time in the Marine Corps. ASSASSIN DEVIL GAMBLER HAMMER

Hey Reflected, these are all excellent! There are only three that stand out to me; VF-1 from 1989, VF-2 from 1987, and VF-2 from 1989. VF-1: The 1989 livery isvery close to the liveries used during the 1987 Ranger deployment. The only major modification that would be needed is the 1987 livery has the wing code on the inboard side of the vertical stabilizers. VF-2: From my googling (someone with better knowledge can confirm or correct this), both the '1989' and '1987' liveries were used during Ranger's 1987 deployment. So both liveries are perfect. One other possibility is VF-84 from 1993. Theodore Roosevelt was deployed in the Mediterranean during 1993, roughly around the same time as the Georgian Civil War. It's a stretch, since for that scenario to work you have to pretend the Montreux Convention doesn't apply or has been changed, and you have to pretend the bridges across the Bosporus don't exist, but it's better than nothing. This time/event would require its own skin as the 1990 skin isn't all that close to the 1993 as far as I can tell. Reflected, I'd like to encourage you to submit these to the HB livery contest. Right now there's a dearth of liveries that fit the maps and content (carriers) available to us in game, and getting these excellent skins added to the base game would help fill that gap.

I don't know if this helps anybody, but NHHC has yearly operations reports for a bunch of squadrons going back through the 70s. https://www.history.navy.mil/research/archives/command-operations-reports/aviation-commands.html If you click "VFA" you can find a bunch that used to be VFs. Not every squadron has had their reports digitized so some will probably require writing an email and hoping somebody can find and scan it for you, but right off the bat I can see they have VF-2 in there.

I tried to put something like that together several months ago and it wound up moved to the wishlist forum and buried. It was meant to be a collection of resources and references rather than a wishlist but I guess the powers-that-be didn't see it that way. I have a FOIA request ready to go for Naval History and Heritage Command but I'm waiting for them to reply to an email I sent last week before I send it, just in case a FOIA request is not needed. I'm specifically targeting reference photos for Ranger's '87 cruise but if they tell me I need to send a FOIA request, I'll add Forrestal's '88 cruise to it, just in case there is an issue and we only get Forrestal at first. I won't bother with a thread until I have photos to post, hopefully that will keep it from getting moved.

From Heatblur's May 2018 development update: https://forums.eagle.ru/forum/englis...paigns-content The linked PDF from Heatblur on the F-14A campaign essentially describes the campaign as being based directly on the events of Operation Earnest Will: From the DCS product page for the Syria map: I'm neither saying they should nor asking them to halt progress on skins already being made. Again, you're putting words into my mouth and arguing against points that I am not trying to make in the first place. You are again putting words in my mouth, and this time you're straw-manning me on top of it. I am NOT insulting anybody. I am NOT saying HB should be the only ones to make skins. There are a great many community skins of very high quality, and if Heatblur want to make those official skins and add them into the game, I think it's a great way to get necessary skins in-game without increasing the workload on HB. The point you're missing is that Heatblur and Eagle Dynamics are the only ones who can make the decision on which skins are added to the game. The fact that community skins exist has no bearing on whether or not they are added to the game. This can only happen if Heatblur and/or Eagle Dynamics decide to make it happen. If somebody decides to make any of the liveries in question as part of the competition, and they win and are added to the game, I'll be ecstatic. The point I'm trying to make is that HB and/or ED should make this happen. If they want to do it with community skins, fine. I have absolutely no problem with that. But add them to the base game. Don't limit us to purely fictional scenarios with mismatched assets, which right now is our only option for mission-making unless I want to force people to download a bunch of loose skins of varying quality (unless I get lucky with one CVW).

You are inventing an imaginary problem that I never mentioned and pretending like I did. I never said that I expected every single BuNo from every squadron that ever flew off the deck of an in-game carrier to get represented in-game. That's completely ridiculous. I'm not asking for anything different than what's done with the Hornet skins. I don't even care if they add CO's bird skins. Those almost always get repainted to standard grey before deployments anyways. Where did you read this? The last thing I've read on this from Heatblur was a couple of weeks before the F-14A release, and that was to say they're coming this winter. Have you misunderstood my original point? I am not trying to advocate for more carriers to get added to the game, I am only trying to advocate that priority for future skins from HB go to skins that cover content and events we can replicate in-game. Why would this slow anything down? If future skins are coming from HB for the A model Tomcat, what I'm trying to advocate for is that these future skins fit the carriers and events we can replicate in-game. If we're getting them anyways, I would rather they be skins from Ranger's '87 cruise or Independence's '83 cruise instead of random skins from some class of carrier we don't have during a deployment where nothing interesting happened. And I get that we can come up with whatever scenarios we want, but right now completely fictional scenarios is all we can do. Why do I have to rely on community modders to get the historical experiences that were marketed to me when I bought the maps? I think you are blowing my original point up into some huge issue beyond what I'm actually trying to argue for. All that I'm asking for is that priority be given to skins that would help us replicate real world compositions and events in-game. No extra work, nothing crazy. If there is a "to-do" list of skins for the F-14A sitting on HB's artists' computers, I'm just asking that the skins chosen at random that don't have any specific reason for being listed (i.e. that aren't iconic skins or aren't skins for aircraft that their SMEs flew or some other good reason) be replaced with skins for carriers and regions that we have in-game, for events that we can replicate in-game.

I understand that those skins take time and effort to make, I'm not arguing that HB drop everything and spit out more skins right now. I'm arguing that skins for Independence in '83 and Ranger in '87 should be high priority in whatever work schedule HB has set up for their artists. The fact that high quality skins are so labor-intensive is why I made this thread, I'm trying to argue the case that those limited resources be put towards helping to complete the game experience for the maps and assets available to us going forward. Given that we know Heatblur are going to make and release new skins for the F-14A, B, and A-6, my hope is that I can present a case for why they should prioritize skins that match the content we have right now rather than random skins from carriers we don't have that deployed in regions we don't have maps for (iconic skins being the exception). Please don't try to lecture anybody about "tone". I'm not a millionaire who can put together his own third party dev team, and there's no competition for DCS that I can turn to if I don't like the way things are going. My only alternatives are to stop playing altogether (which I neither want nor need to do), or to come on here and try to advocate for the things I'd like to see in game, which I believe I have done respectfully. Making your desires known is not bad, it's not offensive, and it's certainly not negative tone.

I can't speak for the Navy, but when I was with HMM-163 in the Marine Corps, we only had one colored bird, double nuts (00). When we deployed aboard USS Boxer, double nuts was painted up like one of the other birds and we had no colored birds until we got back to Miramar over seven months later. Not sure what this means for Navy fighter squadrons of the 80s and 90s but that's just my observation, and I'd like to hear from other vets who worked around Naval Aviation to see what their experiences were.

I would argue that inclusion of skins that fit the assets and maps we actually have in game is part of the core game experience. We shouldn't be reliant on modders to complete the game experience. HB could choose any skins they want to include in the F-14A release, so it doesn't make any sense to me why they would go out of their way to include skins that we do not have content in game for. For example, they included VF-21 for USS Constellation and VF-154 for USS Kitty Hawk, but to my knowledge there is no Kitty Hawk-class planned for DCS. Why are those art resources not being dedicated to cover the content we actually have in-game? Obviously there are some iconic skins that ought to be in game, for example VF-84, VF-32's Gypsy 207 and Gypsy 202, and VF-41's Fast Eagle 102 and Fast Eagle 107. I think putting the responsibility for completing the in-game experience on the community is a cop-out. This is absolutely HB and ED's responsibility, especially in the cases of skins for Ranger and Independence, where Operation Earnest Will (Ranger) and the Lebanese Civil War (Independence) were large parts of the marketing for both maps.

The Dynamic Modex numbers look fine to me, but it would be helpful if each skin had some kind of config file where you could designate a font or something in case they have a different font. In my circle of friends its really annoying when we're trying to fly a Tomcat mission and all three of us have the same Modex and all are somehow flying the CO's bird. Its also helpful for things like Harriers, where we can simulate a MEU deployment or an entire squadron deployment and change the Modex numbers to fit (i.e. 54 vs 04).

I'd like to counter that the issue at hand isn't a lack of liveries. It's a lack of liveries that specifically cover the assets and locations that are available to us in game (or in the case of the upcoming Forrestal carriers and Guam map, will soon be available to us). It is ED's responsibility to provide a complete game experience, not modders. Right now we do not have the appropriate liveries or assets in-game to complete a single real-world carrier air wing for any available or upcoming carrier on any map for any single point in history. I'm of the opinion that this is not a "wishlist item", but rather should be considered a problem to be rectified eventually (albeit not a serious problem).

If we could just have skins for one complete carrier air wing for one carrier in game or coming with Forrestal, for one time period on one of the maps we actually have in DCS, I'd be a very happy dude. Right now we cannot put together a single carrier air wing for any carriers in DCS from any location or time period. I was actually really surprised at the choice of skin for VF-154. That squadron made several deployments aboard Independence (a Forrestal carrier) throughout the 90s, yet it appears the variation HB chose was from VF-154s later deployments aboard Kitty Hawk.

First let me say that I hugely appreciate all the hard work and dedication that Heatblur have put in to the Tomcat. It's an extremely high quality product and HB should be proud of their accomplishments. I understand that more skins for aircraft that are already released is a low priority for HB, and priority rightfully goes to upcoming modules like the earlier A model Tomcats, the A-6E, and the Forrestal carriers. Having said that, it's frustrating how rare it is in DCS to get an accurate combination of real world events, assets, maps, and liveries for realistic mission-making. Poking through the available skins for the Hornet, I cannot find a single livery that fits one of the currently available or upcoming carriers and deployed in the areas of the maps available in DCS during some world event that realistic, plausible operations could have happened in (i.e. Lebanese Civil War, Operation Earnest Will, etc). Considering the releases of the Syria and Persian Gulf maps, the Tomcat, and the upcoming Forrestal carriers, I believe Heatblur are in a unique position to help rectify this. What follows is not just another wishlist, but a plea for Heatblur to give mission makers a hand by considering historical events and the available and upcoming assets for DCS when choosing future liveries to add to the Tomcat and Intruder. With that out of the way, here are some liveries that I hope Heatblur will give special consideration to including in future updates, with justifications: ASSETS: Forrestal, F-14A, A-6E, Syria EVENT: Lebanese Civil War ASSETS: Forrestal, F-14A, A-7E, A-6E, Persian Gulf EVENT: Operation Earnest Will ASSETS: Forrestal, F-14A, A-6E, Persian Gulf EVENT: Iran Hostage Crisis ASSETS: Forrestal, Supercarrier, F-14B, F/A-18C, Persian Gulf EVENT: 1997 Iranian Presidential Election One thing I want to make clear: I'm not at all suggesting that other skins shouldn't be included. Of course there are an infinite number of scenarios one could come up with that could include any number of skins or assets. I'm merely trying to make the argument for why these specific skins are deserving of inclusion in future updates. With these skins, I'm trying to come up with the most easily plausible scenarios for each map. For that reason I haven't bothered to include any Caucuses scenarios since modern aircraft carriers - in addition to being forbidden from entering the Black Sea by the Montreux Convention - are not physically capable of fitting under any of the bridges that span the Bosporus Strait. I appreciate everyone's time in reading this. Keep up the great work, HB!

Hi folks. Still don't have enough people for two full teams, so I'm going to postpone this for now. Expect it to happen sometime in November. In the meantime, I'll try to cleanup the briefing and rules, and I'll try to more aggressively recruit other vfs' to take part. Still open to suggestions and ideas. Thanks for the interest folks. Keep your eyes on this thread!

Hi folks, small problem we need some help with. I was planning to rent and set up a strong dedicated server for this comp. Unfortunately my wife lost her job last week. Out of respect for her and our family, we're cutting out all unnecessary spending until our financial situation is figured out. What that means is I won't be renting a server for October 10th. If anyone out there is willing and able to host the competition, it would be massively appreciated. Otherwise I'll be postponing the competition until sometime in November. I'm sorry to do this folks. While renting a server for a short time isn't all that expensive, its a principle thing. It would be really disrespectful to my wife for her to cut out all of her extra spending while I keep spending money on pretend airplanes.

Hi folks. I've amended the third post with a tentative date and time for the first trial run of this competition: 10 October @ 1900 Zulu This time is subject to change if needed. Per the rules, aircraft declarations are due no later than Monday, October 5th, 1900 Zulu. If we do not have two full teams signed up by that time, I'll push the tentative date back two weeks. LONEWOLVES/SMALL GROUPS WELCOME!

I'd like for at least one of the teams to be made up of people from a single group if possible? That was sort of the original intent. If that just isn't in the cards after a few days I won't keep beating on it, but I'd like to try for now.

Sure, go right ahead.

First few rounds will just be test runs trying to identify problems with the ruleset or game settings. What I'd like to do is get whichever two teams are interested in going first to collaborate on a date that works for the both of them. If you guys are interested, might you be available in, say, three weeks' time? Say maybe Saturday, October 10th?

Okay so here's an idea since I hadn't anticipated trying to collect smaller groups into a single team: People who don't already have a full team can sign up as Team Captains, taking responsibility for organizing and leading planning for their team. I'll post them to the third post of this thread, along with any links to forum/TS/Discord/whatever communication platform they supply that they want to use for mission planning. If lonewolves or smaller groups want to sign up, they can mention which team they'd like to join, and the Captains can approve or deny, until they have a full team. dundun92, would you like me to set you as a Team Captain? I should also clarify that 8 is the total number of aircraft for the Blue side. You can have more people than that if you have Tomcats that require a crew of two.

To be honest I hadn't thought of multiple squadrons on a single side. How many other Alamo dudes are you expecting for your side? I can mark your names down in the third post and put a note that you're looking for more people for that team. If people post that they're interested in joining your team, I would suggest that you all DM each other and figure out how you'd like to meet up and plan. I don't have a forum or a discord or anything like that.

I would think you would want to plan on your own, privately? Not sure I understand the question. You probably don't want your gameplan to be public. I'll amend the first post to clarify that you send your aircraft declarations to me via DM, so I can post both teams' Red and Blue aircraft declarations at the same time. The purpose of having the declarations made five days ahead of time is so that both teams have time to plan their Blue and Red gameplans.

Hi everyone! Thank you for taking the time to look over my competition. This is still very much a work in progress that I'd like to test. Currently there is no set start date. What I'd like to do first before officially scheduling and organizing a competition is to do a few test runs. Call them "exhibition matches". I'm looking for a couple of groups of pilots who are interested in running the mission as I've organized it currently, so we can see how it plays out and work out any kinks in the mission itself, the organization, or the rules. This can either be an organized group or just you and 7 of your buddies. For anyone that would like to sign up, just make a post. Once a couple of groups have posted, we can discuss a date and time that works for both groups and I'll make sure to have a server set up and ready to go at that time. I look forward to reading your thoughts, questions, and concerns! Thanks again! CURRENT MISSION Date: 10 October 2020 Time: 1900 Zulu Team Signups: Team A Captain: Alamo 1-1 | dundun92 Contact: https://alamosqn.freeforums.net/board/21/operation-sierra-hotel Pilots: Alamo 1-1 | dundun92 Alamo 1-2 | Dankguy Need minimum 6 more