Jump to content

LanceCriminal86

Members
  • Posts

    639
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About LanceCriminal86

  • Birthday 04/06/1986

Personal Information

  • Flight Simulators
    DCS
  • Location
    'Murica
  • Interests
    T O M C A T S

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. They change to gray on firing. The solution there is that the 54A needed to become a separate missile model in the core sim which is what should be happening here.
  2. As Cobra's least favorite rivet counter I totally get it, that's where I'm hoping they can eventually get the deets for using the LUA ordnance switch framework that ED has. It's doubtful that we'd get 20 different iterations but an alternate white C shouldn't be too bad a stretch, but would probably come down the road. Right now I think we're ramping up towards some of the big visual updates and additions with the external fixes and tweaks that are coming this next patch. Those lay the groundwork to add the missing bits on the B and late A, make some fixes, and start working towards the "early" features.
  3. I wouldn't rule it out in the future, right now separating out the AIM-54A is the short term solution. Eventually they may be able to leverage EDs own ordnance skin flags like bombs can for the AF/Navy with ablative. And remember too there were some mixmaster missile photos, part gray and part white. I tried but couldn't see any AIM-54A in gray, I'm guessing that they didn't repaint them and just expended them for live fire shoots.
  4. Tyndall AFB should be TD, which operates or operated QF-4s. Since the pic is 1997 I'd assume they did "heritage" liveries of the different F-4 schemes, with the one you pointed out in Euro One. And since I've been focused on Texas Tomcats I'll probably end up doing that one.
  5. Yeah, that's based on animation arguments though. What I'm talking about is deeper integration of the date system in MV as well as assigned country to actually determine loadouts, systems. The specific case being just making a -95 GR Tomcat, and the Iran configuration disables some of the functions and locks it to only using the ALQ-100 pod without a TCS, locking out the ALQ-126 blisters. Technically the Iranians had the Air Force style helmets and harnesses but that would mean another pilot remodel. Maybe when the F-4E comes in, they could "port" those crew over to the Tomcat but for now that's a lot lower on the pole than working out the system differences. And the challenge for the Tomcat is it's much higher on the poly count and textures than the C-101, trying to store all those different possible configurations in the Tomcat would likely cause a serious performance impact after talking it over. As much as I would love to see every configuration of the external model available as an animation argument, concessions will have to be made. Me, I'd be fine settling for having to keep the late beaver tail if we can swap out the TCS and enable/disable the ALQ-126. Then the early and late A model can be mostly correct to represent older blocks back to the ~ 90-GR range through the last 140-GRs, the older jets that were still around in the mid-late 90s, and the newer late blocks that finally did get the DFCS, ALR-67, LANTIRN, PTID, etc. The reserve squadrons had a mix of these, with 201 through 1998, while the fleet squadrons mainly had the 110-115+ GR blocks through the end. 161134 at Valiant is one of the few I've seen that were pre-ALQ-126 but still served through with VF-41 to Afghanistan. Almost every other jet has been the very late blocks.
  6. An early "135" isn't really any different from the existing A except in the RWR and lack of LANTIRN, plus the old style gun vents. Technically the ALR-45 jets have visual differences from ALR-67 equipped ones as well but unsure if those nuances will be remodeled or not. At one point there were some thoughts about making the ALQ-126 jammer blisters and TCS mountable "pods", which would allow the early and late A models to more easily represent a broader range of production Tomcats (if you pretend the beaver tail isn't there). Even neater would be if ED's framework would allow for one module to be configured differently based on dates or assigned country, because then you wouldn't need a separate Iran jet. I'm hoping it's still a consideration, as making some of those model changes might be very invasive and resource intensive, same with the dynamic MODEX. I don't care about dynamic MODEX myself but I get that others do. As for scope/feature creep, at this point it appears each HB module will be benefiting from other module developments. Existing code and features speeds up development in some areas, and as breakthroughs are made, they are reworking older features to improve them. The Phantom will be benefiting from the groundwork laid by the Tomcat, and the Tomcat will benefit further from the work that will go into the Phantom. And the Intruder will likely benefit from both, as by then the pilot/BN animations will have matured from the Tomcat and Phantom. Jester's LANTIRN functions will likely be a big part of the groundwork for the A-6's BN AI, and I'd bet whatever WSO work is done for the F-4E will also carry over to both the Tomcat and Intruder. And the Viggen tangentially is benefitting from all this as system coding can trickle its way down. That and things like the Bullpup might be built from that one missile the Viggen has, and then backwards again if the new code is superior. Or maybe folks would like the Tomcat to be like the F-5E, F-86, and be left as "done" with issues still existing while resources are put elsewhere? I've been waiting for mostly visual changes on the F-14, but I haven't been screeching about it. Just casually sending pictures of my growing mountain of flight gear, HGU-55s, and HGU-33s to Cobra. Hell, a few of us folks started just making the changes and documenting it so we'd actually be helpful when the time comes. But I suppose it's a mindset thing. I've been hammering away at school and work so that when the time comes, I can start pumping out Tomcat skins and helmets. Whenever the new helmets arrive there's going to be a ton of work to do, and frankly I'd rather help and contribute than complain.
  7. Looks like the same jet here, or actually no as the teeth are different. Need to find the serial for your pic's jet unless it's the same just redone later:
  8. I think her long service life and use in 2 "incidents" and 2 conflicts is worth considering. Yes, the Kitty Hawks should be in someday, somehow, but trying to do all 3 can quickly get challenging with the differences in their superstructures and other details. First 2 Forrestals had some differences from the last 2. Enterprise is the other candidate if you had to do a 1-off, a unique design if you do the work to represent pre- and post-refit islands. And she did at least have 3 F-4J cruises, while the Kennedy went right from F-4Bs to Tomcats when VF-14 and VF-32 started the transition in 1974. I just think given the maps we currently have in the Med, the JFK checks a bunch of historic boxes and for multiple modules. And for the Pacific, yes the Enterprise would do the same.
  9. That's why the Kennedy is the right and true answer. Tomcats, Intruders, Corsair IIs from 74 onwards. Updated deck design as adopted in the Nimitz class, carrier from the '89 Sidra shoot down and the strikes following the Beirut bombing. Stayed active to serve in the Global War on Terror, and was VF-103's carrier for their final Tomcat cruise in 2004. She did have F-4Bs before the transition but we'd more likely be getting a J. Looking at the time and resources to do the whole Forrestal class it'd be unlikely they'd want to tackle another whole class, especially with the Kitty Hawk class having variations between the ships.
  10. That's an AU-1, ground attack variant and I believe the last Corsairs built. Regarding the Corsair in SEA, I believe the French used theirs in the Indochina war that preceded the Vietnam war into the late 1950s.
  11. When I was working on the 1988 skins to go with the Forrestal the photos of the decks were looking about like they are currently in the module. The photos as I recall were only a few months into the cruise, mostly during the NATO exercises in the north Atlantic. https://nara.getarchive.net/media/a-helicopter-combat-support-squadron-6-hc-6-sea-knight-helicopter-picks-up-e5f52a?zoom=true https://nara.getarchive.net/media/a-fighter-squadron-31-vf-31-f-14a-tomcat-aircraft-lands-on-the-aircraft-carrier-8c6c35?zoom=true https://nara.getarchive.net/media/an-f-14a-tomcat-aircraft-comes-in-for-a-landing-on-the-flight-deck-of-the-aircraft-5bf26f?zoom=true By the end of the cruise it looked like this: https://nara.getarchive.net/media/a-port-bow-view-of-the-aircraft-carrier-uss-forrestal-cv-59-with-a-formation-e2d5d3?zoom=true It strongly depends on if the ship just rolled out of a refit/resurfacing or whether it's partway through a cruise. I get it, some folks want it right out of the dock but I'd rather something representing mid-cruise.
  12. There are finite human resources available for changing existing features, never mind adding the new features that are still awaited. That seems to be the reality often not considered with the myriad requests made. What seems "simple" to you, generally isn't, and may involve stopping work on more important things like the ongoing autopilot rework, or <insert list of things still to come on the roadmap>.
  13. If you altered someone else's skin, without permission, and then uploaded it to UserFiles against their wishes, then absolutely.
  14. This is specifically the F-4E, we're not doing Navy/USMC stuff here. When the Naval variant is announced, it will be covered aplenty there.
  15. Oof, went looking for 74-043, immediately a pic of QF-4E. You can tell it's the same jet:
×
×
  • Create New...