BarTzi

Stable should be stable... The truth is the recent OB versions just weren't stable enough. There was a massive improvement with the SC build.

The AoA brightness knob now allows you to turn the indexer off (as intended). However, it still doesn't allow you to change the brightness. This was tested using all cockpit lighting modes (day, night and nvg). AoA indexer.trk

For all of you who are having issues with bort numbers since the latest update, please check this thread and the informative comments by Dgambo (ED team): https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4341890&postcount=72

It's better to wait for the next update (planned for June third), to get a more complete set of explanations and video tutorials. LITENING additions are mostly the new symbology, and I bet WAGS will cover it with the next batch of changes planned for the next update (which should make the pod complete).

It was changed. You will have to move the piece at the top and have it cover the 'holes' below. See attached pic:

Updated to v1.0: -Fixed the issue with bort numbers introduced in the recent patch -Added the intake bort numbers (light blue), with a representation of the font used by the IAF (still WIP. It's very similar to the one provided by ED, except the numbers 2, 3 and 5 are different. The IAF uses a different font for the intake numbers and I'm still researching in order to get the most accurate result). -Adjusted the position of several decals including the 117th logo, which was too big. -Added a Barak 2020 version of the livery (see details below). -The bort numbers on the tail are now placed symmetrically. Before addressing the changes, I'd like to thank ED for going above and beyond here, providing us with alternative bort number positions. This will help greatly increase the realism of the liveries of the export versions. Changes to the folder structure: Each skin has a main folder (for example: IAF 101st squadron). All subversions of the skins (60th anniversary, or Barak 2020) use most of the main folder files, and their folders only contain the unique files for that skin. Ths result is a massive reduction in file sizes, but the downside is that you can't change the names of the folder (otherwise you will have to edit some entries in the description files). Barak 2020: The IAF upgraded older block 30's with an avionics suite that is on par with their latest blocks of F16's. Some planes that were upgraded in that program have an additional logo (which reads 'Barak 2020' in Hebrew). That small logo is placed on the intake, just before the bort number. Barak in Hebrew means lightning, in case you are wondering why it has a lightning symbol on it. I've decided to add a subversion of each skin with the decal for the sake of realism. It's totally optional and you can delete that folder if you don't intend to use it. A picture of v1.0 with the new intake bort numbers and the Barak 2020 decal: I plan to go over the livery pages and update them with new pictures, but I don't have a lot of free time on my hand so it will take a while.

Hi Nine, you said on discord that you are legally allowed to use the Spanish docs. I take it as the team had no access to US docs or were not legally allowed to use those. Are you legally allowed to use US docs for the ATFLIR / has access to those documents at this time, or is it still in the gathering phase?

The question that should be asked is what qualifies as good evidence here. Apparently the videos are not enough, even though I think that for a simulating a pod, youtube is a great source. I wouldn't mind as long as the pods shared the same set of features, but as we learned recently they might not.

The scratches, dirt, and weathering layers do not cover that area in the texture template, since originally that spot was mapped elsewhere. The same goes for roughmet.

Thank you so much for explaining this! I have two additional questions: 1. I'm struggling with aligning logos that cover the entire tail fin - they always seem to have an angle when covering the rudder. Do you happen to know the angle between those parts or have any tips on how to place textures that cover the entire tail correctly? 2. Will the template be updated to reflect the recent changes to the tail texture? One example is that area, which seems to be mapped to somewhere else now:

When you box RTCL it should display the reticle (source: ). When it's unboxed no reticle should be displayed. In DCS it currently does the opposite. When you box RTCL, the reticle disappears.

I wasn't expecting that. I've never seen that symbology before on a US hornet. Well, those videos don't show target coordinates and compass even when the pod points to a target. I guess we shouldn't expect those at this time. I don't think I will ever use the LITENING if it really ends up being incapable of displaying the two features mentioned above. It makes me feel bad for the devs putting their time into it.

+1

Yes: --F16_bl50_FIN_DECAL {"F16_bl50_FIN_DECAL", 0, "f16_bl50_tail_IAF_117", false}; {"F16_bl50_FIN_DECAL", 1, "f16_bl50_kil_normal", true}; {"F16_bl50_FIN_DECAL", ROUGHNESS_METALLIC, "f16_bl50_tail_IAF_117_roughmet", false}; {"F16_bl50_FIN_DECAL", DECAL, "empty", true};

--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