BarTzi

--F16_bl50_MAT1_BORT_NUMBER_DECAL {"F16_bl50_MAT1_BORT_NUMBER_DECAL", 0, "empty", true}; {"F16_bl50_MAT1_BORT_NUMBER_DECAL", 1, "f16_bl50_main_1_normal", true}; {"F16_bl50_MAT1_BORT_NUMBER_DECAL", ROUGHNESS_METALLIC, "F16_bl50_Main_1_IAF_RoughMet", false}; {"F16_bl50_MAT1_BORT_NUMBER_DECAL", DECAL, "empty", true}; --F16_bl50_MAT1_BORT_NUMBER {"F16_bl50_MAT1_BORT_NUMBER", 0, "empty", true}; {"F16_bl50_MAT1_BORT_NUMBER", 1, "f16_bl50_main_2_normal", true}; {"F16_bl50_MAT1_BORT_NUMBER", ROUGHNESS_METALLIC, "F16_bl50_Main_2_IAF_RoughMet", false}; {"F16_bl50_MAT1_BORT_NUMBER", DECAL, "empty", true}; --F16_bl50_MAT1_BORT_NUMBER_X100 {"F16_bl50_MAT1_BORT_NUMBER_X100", DIFFUSE, "empty", true}; {"F16_bl50_MAT1_BORT_NUMBER_X100", NORMAL_MAP, "f16_bl50_main_2_normal", true}; {"F16_bl50_MAT1_BORT_NUMBER_X100", ROUGHNESS_METALLIC, "F16_bl50_Main_2_IAF_RoughMet", false}; {"F16_bl50_MAT1_BORT_NUMBER_X100", DECAL, "empty", true}; --f16_bort_number {"f16_bort_number", 0, "f16_bl50_main_2_IAF", false}; {"f16_bort_number", 1, "f16_bl50_main_2_normal", true}; {"f16_bort_number", ROUGHNESS_METALLIC, "f16_bl50_main_2_IAF_RoughMet", false}; {"f16_bort_number", DECAL, "empty", true}; --f16c intake {"F16_bl50_INTAKE_BORT_NUMBER",0,"f16_bl50_main_3_IAF",false}; {"F16_bl50_INTAKE_BORT_NUMBER",1,"f16_bl50_main_3_normal",true}; {"F16_bl50_INTAKE_BORT_NUMBER",ROUGHNESS_METALLIC,"f16_bl50_main_3_IAF_RoughMet",false}; {"F16_bl50_INTAKE_BORT_NUMBER",DECAL,"IAF stencil intake",false}; -- fin bort number {"F16_bl50_FIN_BORT_NUMBER", 0,"f16_bl50_tail_IAF_117", false}; {"F16_bl50_FIN_BORT_NUMBER", 1,"f16_bl50_kil_normal", true}; {"F16_bl50_FIN_BORT_NUMBER", ROUGHNESS_METALLIC, "f16_bl50_tail_IAF_117_RoughMet", false}; {"F16_bl50_FIN_BORT_NUMBER", DECAL, "IAF stencil 117", false}; This is what I did to bring it back to the state before the patch, plus enabling the intake bort numbers (all of those replace the old bort number entries entirely). I assume there is an additional parameter responsible for the position.

Some of the entry names were changed to: F16_bl50_FIN_BORT_NUMBER F16_bl50_MAT1_BORT_NUMBER This brings back the ones on the tail fin to a pre-patch state: {"F16_bl50_FIN_BORT_NUMBER",0,"f16_bl50_tail_IAF_117",false}; {"F16_bl50_FIN_BORT_NUMBER",1,"f16_bl50_kil_normal",true}; {"F16_bl50_FIN_BORT_NUMBER",ROUGHNESS_METALLIC,"f16_bl50_tail_IAF_117_RoughMet", false}; {"F16_bl50_FIN_BORT_NUMBER",DECAL,"IAF stencil 117",false}; The variable responsible for the position of the numbers on the tail is still unknown to me.

Santus- did you manage to find the new bort number entries? I can't generate a livery file from the model viewer.

Getting this error since the latest (SC) update, whenever I try to create a livery file:

One question that often comes up is if the HUD itself is capable of designating a target (when stores are not selected). It is capable of designation for INS updates. If it is indeed capable of designating a target outside of CCIP mode, then you could theoretically designate a target and the pod will automatically snap there. Additionally, you could then slew it when TDC priority is set to the HUD (just like you can in AUTO mode). That will give you the "TGP indication on the hud" effect.

To be fair, that's not entirely true. FLIR rendering is a platform update. It will also affect the LITENING and AGM-65 series for example. ATFLIR might be the technology demonstrator within DCS for a short period of time (or it might not. There's no reason to tie a platform update to the release of a sensor). All of the targeting pods will get to the same level either shortly after or at the same time the FLIR update drops. To me, having the right TGP is more important than what goes behind the scenes when the image is processed.

Well done! It looks amazing :thumbup:

I would love to see it, but let's be honest... It's too much work for almost nothing gained. CA doesn't allow human JTACS to transmit like that, and the AI JTAC doesn't do it either. So it will require additions to the F/A-18C module, CA, and the AI JTAC to be useful.

I didn't say all they need is the TPOD - I said they don't go without it. I don't think arguing about the A/G radar has any value. I based my opinion on what real hornet drivers said here and on other platforms. I respect your views and hope to see that mode of operation in the game in the near future. Yes, there are issues with the way the drag is calculated which should be addressed. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=226009 For the ground effect- it's known that there are a few issues with it causing the plane to be sucked to the ground when flying really low. That's the opposite of what happens in real life. ATC has two modes. PA handles flight with gears and flaps down. You can read more about it in NATOPS. That's the last bit of anything related to how the plane actually flies that was not implemented fully.

No, It wouldn't - because you can't rely on that radar alone. Do you think Rhino drivers carry it around just to take cool videos and show them in their cruise video? Yeah, sure - you might want it in the game as soon as possible, but the people here try to tell you that it isn't the magic bullet everyone thinks it is. Reversed ground effect, stores drag, and PA mode for the ATC.

Yest - I know. Did you look at my track? I know this was marked as correct as it- but can someone please look at the last track I attached and tell me if that's the correct reaction to pitch? The 65D does not do that. AGM-65F seeker pitch reaction.trk

Might be related / the same: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=250571

Realistic. Do you think it's related? I'm not slewing the seeker head, just pitching the nose after it is pointed at a target.

When you lock a target with the F model, pitching the plane will affect the location the seeker head is looking at (it will try to return to the original position once the plane is stable again). It's strange to me because it isn't the case with the D model the A-10 uses , and afaik they share the same type of seeker head. *I don't expect it to behave like the TGP for obvious reasons - but I think it should be stabilized as long as I'm within the gimbal limits. The first track shows the effect of 5 degrees of pitch (give or take). The second track shows the effect of very small and gentle movements. Notice the slight movement of the maverick picture as I pitch the plane. Doing the same for the AGM-65D results in no movement of the picture at all. AGM-65F seeker not stable.trk AGM-65F seeker gentle movements.trk

How can you even release something for SP only? If it's in DCS it's in DCS. Nothing will stop the guys who didn't read about the issues from trying it in MP and be disappointed.

Hi guys, Thanks for the warm feedback - I really appreciate it :) I didn't keep you guys in the loop, but the skins were recently updated to v0.92 - which is more or less final. Further adjustments and improvements will happen with time since I assume the 3d model is still WIP and the textures will have to be adjusted in the future.

The combination of ATFLIR and NAVFLIR is a unique Hornet feature, unlike the LITENING which is featured on three planes as we speak. It will also go with another module ED plans to release- the Supercarrier. Because we all know LITENING wasn't used in that environment by the US. I understand that the LITENING will have some of the same functionality, but to be honest, after reading this thread:https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=267125 I began to worry. Since the way a pod is simulated in DCS is pretty generic (no disrespect, but there are no optics, wires, or bearings involved when you code it) compared to the real optoelectronic device, can you please share why was it the route taken? Was there not enough information available? Was this choice made to help the development of the Viper in the long run? As a customer, I'm very concerned that we will end up not seeing this list completed, especially because some items don't add a lot in terms of gameplay value.

Here's a picture of the location of one of the fuselage lights: As you can see, it is missing the internal structure + the glass covering it. The light goes through that surface when you turn the fuselage lights on: That element is missing from the Viper texture template as well.

Is this the right place to report missing details in the texture template? Specifically the glass for the rear light that lights up the vertical stab.

Hi ED, I know it was probably discussed to death internally, but can you please reconsider focusing on ATFLIR. It's the main TGP the Hornet uses, and most of us would like to operate from the boat with a reasonably realistic loadout. Not to mention it was listed on the product page since it was released. The second thing I would like to know is if you have a plan to release those missing items in 2021, or is it just an estimation. You stated finishing the hornet will slow the viper development. How can we be sure you won't slow the hornet development so much during 2021 that you won't meet your goals? Some of the features listed to be added next year are very important.

Thanks for the tip guys. Changed the format to 7zip and repacked the skins for version 0.7.

I feel so stupid for not knowing that.... :cry:

One of the most immersive aspects of carrier ops is allowing human players to play as the LSO and learn to give the right corrections to the pilots. Until recently, this was achieved by using mods. What I'm asking is an option to mute the voice-overs of the official LSO. This option should only be available when someone mans the station and in my opinion, should be toggleable through the station itself. This should benefit the MP community and most of the squadrons, and can further be extended by allowing full control over items such as the W/O lights, grades, and so on.

The default cockpit livery will always be displayed, instead of any user made one that you select. I can load my livery just fine when using the model viewer, but can't do it in-game. -> The livery is selected via the game menu (options->special->F-16C->customized Cockpit).

Yeah. With more detailed models and bigger files - maybe it should be increased to 500MB or so. My 60th-anniversary skin is exactly the same as the regular squadron one, except for the tail. The difference is two files. There might be a way that I'm not aware of to make those two skins share the same texture set, which will cut the size by a significant amount. Two skin entries in one description file- Is this possible? Thank you for the compliment, your Hellenic vipers are phenomenal!