LanceCriminal86

As the proper 80s art comes around I know most of us will be working to have all our past skins reworked to include pylons and TCS mounting areas. One thing to note is I did find shots of VF-111 around the time TCS was coming online where they had the ALQ-100 affixed, but you could clearly see an outline where a TCS had been. So for 80s skins it might actually be correct in a way to have some outlines of TCS footprint in the grime, versus skins intended purely without it may want to clean up those areas further. The big problem with removable bits is that the Ambient Occlusion, Normals, Roughtmet, etc. are intended for one or the other, and I don't believe you can dynamically switch between two sets of each and have that be triggered by the anim argument through the loadout page. You'd need multiple sets of each of those with unique names or in a dedicated folder, which would then increase the amount of textures that need to be loaded increasing overhead. And of course if a skin is using patterns that call for roughmets different from the standard TPS or gull gray schemes, a whole extra custom set is again needed. Ultimately something will be done to clean it up, but trying to make all conditions perfect to swap those arguments around "live" and expecting it to always look perfect is not realistic right now the way the engine is set up.

The Fuzz Busters were really for the Improved Hawk systems that the Iranians were sold before the revolution, but the common misconception was that it was for SA-6.

Yep, the 'Early' and 'Late' are a bit of a misnomer if we're talking about the actual production blocks, and 'Early' doesn't really match the timeframe of the F-14's service either. I've been using the term 'Earlier' as it more correctly indicates that this represents an earlier configuration of the jet, but isn't really the 'Early', initial production run of the F-14A. The -135s were the second to last production block of the F-14A, ordered up around FY 1984, delivered around 85-86, and most of them went right to the FRS/RAG at VF-124 and VF-101, and a few of the last ones from that block went to VF-1 and VF-2. Additionally, most of the remaining airframes from the -60 and -65 production blocks, used for T&E and the initial VF-124 RAG to train VF-1 and VF-2, were flown or shipped to Calverton and rebuilt during that same time to -135 standard. Due to the Navy's directive to have the Reserves using the same aircraft as the fleet squadrons, the only way to accomplish the numbers to fill out the second pair of reserve squadrons with CVWR-20 was to rebuild the old jets, and an additional 2 airframes each from the very end of the last F-14A block were also provisioned. The best way to think about it is this: The F-14A modules currently included represent the latter half of F-14A production, starting with the final jet of production block -110 (161168), through the final produced F-14A, in production block -140 (162711). The -135 (Early) represents those later production blocks as they would have been configured from 1983 through approximately 1995. Around 1983 various updates such as the TF30-P414A, Sidewinder seeker head position, improved SEAM logic, the 2-line TID and scan volume updates, and the currently available radio setup (ARC-182) were being performed and incorporated in new build jets like the -130s & -135s. This also included the TCS, as it was greenlit around 1981 finally and sets were slowly equipping squadrons through the 80s. Until they had enough to equip all jets 1:1, sets were exchanged between squadrons returning from a cruise, and squadrons preparing to depart. A deploying F-14 squadron by '83 would have had TCS sets available. With the LANTIRN attached, this ALSO represents those jets from 1996 through 1998. During that period, only these serials of jets (and for some reason 159428) were converted to be LANTIRN capable, but with no changes to the RWR. The -135 (Late) represents those same blocks of jets but around the 1998-1999 timeframe when the ALR-67 conversions were beginning. While ideally this jet should also have had the PTID and DFCS performed, this at least provided us an F-14A to play with during that window where the F-14A was being brought to similar parity with the F-14B, but before the F-14B started to receive the more significant upgrades of the B Upgrade program. To be clear as well, the -95/IIAF jet will not be a 1:1 of the actual jets shipped to Iran, that would almost be a separate module's worth of development or at least a significant rework of the existing jet. While the real F-14As produced for the IIAF would have been missing the upgrades I listed that were rolling out in the early 80s, the MODULE will effectively be the above jet with some systems disabled such as TCS, payload restrictions, and *maybe* the changes to the tapes for the Sidewinder and SEAM. Seeing as the IIAF didn't ultimately get their Navy AIM-9s, SEAM probably would be disabled on that module. As to what we should expect for the externals or configurable options on the Earlier -135, we should at a minimum get the 80s/production style gun vents and gas purge setup, the missing ALQ-126 jammer blisters added, and hopefully the ALR-67 stuff removed and the ALR-45/50 antennas added. Whether glove vanes come in visual form only is anyone's guess, though they were still an active feature of the F-14As as they were built in that time. As to the -95/IIAF? The above earlier gun vents, ALR-45/50 antennas, and the restricted ALQ-100 only for the nose would be what I'd expect. No promises were made about the earlier "beaver tail" in the back of the jet to remove the ALQ-126 blister. I hope that makes it all clear as mud.

Yep, the dome was added when a jet was converted to be LANTIRN capable. We'll probably work through and backdate the Gulf War/older skins on the B as all the art stuff gets completed, HGU-55, fix the BuNO and a few other outstanding things that needed to be done for the B. It needs some minor work around the dome in the textures so we may need to make a common set of roughmet/normals otherwise the size will start creeping up again.

I'd expect to see better solutions roll down in follow-on updates and as the early art gets done these arguments might change. Probably the TCS variations should just be one animation and need a way to ensure when you change jets it resets the argument so it doesn't carry over. There is also a goal to try and make sure that the 80s/90s skins and Yae's 70s stuff would get moved over to the 80s 135, but still have a link over so the late jet could use the skins without actually copying the files (so missions don't break or for those that like blasphemy). You can use the description.lua to reference another folder/skin, like we used on the Phantom to share some common bits like roughmets or helmets and pylons. Hopefully updates to the base files should also help slim down the need for custom roughmets and normal maps too, at least for a good portion of the jets. Hopefully, someday a better livery management solution comes along so folks that want to slim down the install size can, and those that want the terabytes of skins can get them directly from HB or through the ED launcher or something.

No, it's an appearance only. If the actual ability to change them comes about then that would be reflected in changelogs.

Guess I should get to work on a default QF-4 skin for us to include, I think I already had some of the masks created for the hi-vis paint, just need to make a very faded and weather worn Hill scheme.

You're not going to get any traction on that request. Again, tying up dev time that can and should be spent on actual F-14 things, not fantasy weapons that were never operationally used or even integrated on any of the jets being presented.

Those were all carry tests, with only the one known AIM-120 being an unguided "shot" for weapon separation test. I have never seen anything showing that the finalized software being worked for the D ever made it to a live jet to fire a live missile, and the A/B would have been right out of the picture as they lacked the digital stuff needed to properly use an AMRAAM. The 88, 65, 84 are completely out as there's never been anything showing Grumman had even made progress on actually integrating those into any jets, again just carry tests. There are much more important things that are relevant to the actual jets we have and are getting that are worthy of dev time.

This came up as being something that was desired, part of the issue I believe is that there are scripts when the aircraft loads in, particularly when manned, that set up all of the various arguments. That loadup activity overrides the custom args, as Yae tried similar in the Tomcat to hide the RIO. They may work with a static aircraft but they don't work with AI or manned, it would take a deeper approach to allow those args to be overriden after the aircraft loads in. Or that's what I recall from when we last brought it up.

The USAF didn't lean into NVG usage until ANVIS sets came online and were available in enough numbers. The Phantoms were being retired as those sets were coming online, so there was likely no overlap. The F-4Gs were around slightly longer but I've seen no indications of NVG use with them either. The Navy began using NVGs around '86 with first on-cruise usage in Intruders during the '87/'88 cruise on the Coral Sea. As quickly as NVG usage started coming online it also identified the need for NVG compatible cockpits, which is something there's evidence of in Navy aircraft but not in the F-4E in USAF usage. Modernized jets from other countries, the Greeks and Turks are more likely. I can't say I saw any ROKAF crews with them nor JASDF in their EJs. Unsure as well with the Germans.

And the first Tomcat drop of bombs in combat were VF-41 in Bosnia, dropping LGB that were buddy lased. It wasn't until '99 during Allied Force that they dropped self-lased LGBs in combat.

They could launch and trap, but they couldn't go below decks. Which is why there's the clips of them doing carrier quals on Coral Sea, and the story of a jet each from VF-114 and 213 that landed on Midway due to weather and low fuel state and launched the next day.

They've answered that so many times, NO, there isn't info on the APG-71, and NO the D is not on the docket.

Yes