LanceCriminal86

To really make things "right" ED needs to tie ordnance liveries to dates within the ME, and potentially another indicator within LUA to designate an aircraft "service", ie if you have the NAVY flag then the navalized ordnance skins are applied. Then before certain dates, you get white AIM-54s, and after you can have gray. Even more fun if you can have it use chance and pull a random livery from a folder to allow for customized bombs and missiles, or show mixes during transitional periods like the late 80s-early 90s for AIM-54. IMO they also need to expand the ME date filters and nationality concepts to be able to influence aircraft systems. If they did this, it would be something that I'd envision allowing for us just to have a -95 GR Tomcat, and then based on the ME date restrict systems like the TCS for the US. You could select the "135" in the 80s and have it restrict the LANTIRN and A/G loadouts before say 1996 (technically '99 was first deployment and use of A models with the capability but VF-103 with the B had a cruise with LANTIRN in 1996, and the capability was rolled out across A/B models). And if Iran is selected allow it to restrict more systems and select a specific cockpit config for example. And apply weapon restrictions as well. If that could be done then perhaps it could reduce the footprint of having the Iranian jet, older US jet, "late" 135 jet, and the A+/B all having to be separate folders and files.

Because ED's trying to make a much more modern F/A-18 than the era that the Tomcats fit into, so an E-2D and Supercarrier would fit together more closely with the Hornet than the Tomcat. That's why.

There's some external model updates that are coming after the Viggen update, at some point. The pilot body was shown to be basically complete, so it stands to reason that during the external model rework we just might see the new bodies get added in since they have to get in on the model anyways. It shouldn't be tough to rework the 55 to a bungee 68 with a little work on the textures/normals/roughmets.

Tomcatter did a VAW-122 skin for the 88 cruise: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3318646/

@NealiusThe differences within classes were pretty minimal. The Ranger and Indy were a liiittttleee bit different from the Forrestal and Saratoga, but otherwise very hard to discern. I think the America had a slightly different funnel from the Kitty Hawk and Connie, and Kennedy herself different from the rest of them. Deck layout and scale problems really do make the Stennis a decent candidate for at least a 67 renumber. Probably no way to add smoke to her though.

The Kennedy was an offshoot of the Kitty Hawk and was herself even more different. Slapping a 67 on the Stennis wouldn't be that much different either, Stennis probably has an elevator layout closer to the Kennedy than Forrestal. Stennis and Forrestal were longer slightly than Kennedy but the in-game Stennis scale is off. Stennis > Kennedy conversion is actually the better choice for deck layout:

For those wanting mods, Admiral189 has one replenishment ship USNS Patuxent and plans for the Sacramento I believe. But until something is added officially these look very handy for the intended purpose. Only question would be if they can keep up with the fleet at ~30 knots?

Super excited for some older US Cruisers! I really wish there were some Virginia class models that weren't so expensive. At least from 88 and 91 cruises though looks like early Ticonderoga class were assigned such as Yorktown. Looks like we also need at least some skins of the older Ticos if not some mods to possibly backdate some systems. Looks like Adams class DDG and Farragut class DLG/DDG were also in the mix. There's so many classes before we slimmed down to the Tico/Burke/OHP classes. Oh, and if you saw my comments above there were some NATO ships Forrestal operated with on exercises and cruises. Looks like there's a Bremen class frigate model out there, haven't seen the Spanish F72 though.

I'm looking at "waffle pattern" fabric now, probably won't be perfect but some seem to have a decent enough pattern. Mostly used for towels apparently but maybe I can find a corduroy style, in some kind of mustard or baby poop yellow.

1) Let me clean out my office so I can show you the ghettoest rig you ever saw, to make you feel better. 2) Has anyone found fabric close to the GRU-7 cushions? It seems like it's a coarse yellow or greenish fabric with square embossed pattern of some kind, probably designed to be tough and not comfy. I am slowly hacking up a cheap chinesium racing seat to get an ejection seat-ish look and feel, and was thinking about making or replacing the existing padded areas with something like that funky fabric. I'm also seeing that using it as dual purpose for work will drive me to add a layer of gel cushion or memory foam or something. Also need to chop the side bolsters off. Eventually I'd like to take a crack at building the GRU-7 template that was provided here but I'm a fair ways off of that and plywood is now layered with gold apparently.

While trying to find some more Forrestal related stuff for the 1988 cruise and 1991 cruise, I ran across these postings that I thought might give a glimpse into some of the ships Forrestal was attached to on some of her cruises: Twenty-nine years ago today September 27, 1991 as USS FORRESTAL CV-59 steamed in company with USS DEYO DD-989 and SPS ANDALUCIA F-72 operating west of Cyprus en route to Anatalya, Turkey. SOPA is Battle Force Sixth Fleet RADM Walter J. Davis, Jr., USN embarked in USS FORRESTAL CV-59. OTC is Commander Task Force 60 embarked in USS FORRESTAL CV-59. Commanding Officer Captain Robert S. Cole, USN And some more: Twenty-nine years ago today November 6, 1991 as USS FORRESTAL CV-59 sat anchored at Toulon, France in 138 feet of water to a mud bottom to the starboard anchor. SOPA is Battle Force Sixth Fleet RADM Walter J. Davis, Jr., USN embarked in USS FORRESTAL CV-59. Commanding Officer Captain Robert S. Cole, USN. Ships present include USS YORKTOWN CG-48 and USS DALE CG-19. And more: VA-176 KA-6D Intruder on board USS FORRESTAL 4 September 1988 Steaming in company with USS SEMMES DDG-18, USS SURABACHI AE-21, USS ELMER MONTGOMERY DE-1082, USS MILWAUKEE AOR-2, and USS DAHLGREN DLG-12 in the Atlantic Ocean from Benidorm, Spain enroute to Veste fjord, Norway. And another, more somber one: Twenty-nine years ago today July 19, 1991 as USS FORRESTAL steamed to the south of Crete. At 1430 hours, an A-6E Intruder from VA-176 crashed into the sea in international waters while on a routine training mission, about two miles northwest of Avgo Nisi, Crete. Both men ejected, and searchers rescued Lieutenant John W. Musaus the bombardier/navigator, who recovered from his ordeal with left arm and leg injuries at Naval Hospital, NS Rota. USS FORRESTAL, USS YORKTOWN CG-48, guided missile frigate USS DE WERT FFG-45, USS MILWAUKEE AOR-2 and Greek forces combed an area of 1,600 square miles for almost two-days, however, they could not recover the pilot, Lieutenant Steven J. Cullen, nor any debris from the downed aircraft. Crewmen aboard the aircraft carrier USS FORRESTAL (CV-59) observe the West German frigate FGS KARLSRUHE (F-212) underway alongside the carrier during exercise West Wind '88

Very brief glimpses here, tough to tell but it seems the sun is shining in the cockpit and some of the instruments are glared over, including the lights

As far as reference books go: Lock-On No 18 F-14 A/B by Willy Peeters - F-14A+ cockpit of VF-74 in 1992, photos show the fire warning lights being opaque, almost white. Uncovering the Grumman F-14 A/B/D by Danny Coremans - F-14A's cockpit has one fire warning white/opaque, and the other clear and red. Doesn't appear to be an illusion from flash or anything as it's consistent from wherever it's seen in the cockpit photos. Actually though, there's a closeup of the ACM panel and both warning lights look white/opaque, so either it was a different jet, or there IS something related to flash photography and the lights. F-14B Upgrade cockpit from the same book shows both warning lights being opaque. The cockpit overall is HEAVILY worn, finish from the stick and the other annunciator lights surrounding the pilot's screens is mostly worn off. F-14D doesn't even appear to have those warning lights. F-14 Tomcat by Dariusz Jezewski and Tom Zmuda - Opaque fire warning lights in an F-14A I think there's a decent question to be considered, flash vs no flash, does that impact how the fire warning lights looked? Did they maybe have some kind of anti-glare layer in there that actually made them harder to see? Lol guys, maybe the lights really just were that shitty? Here's video, no flash or anything going on, overcast day:

Turbine blades "windmilling" I do believe. Not a bug.

Getting my ghetto sim setup for my floor mounted Virpil (including chopping out the front of my seat to clear the stick) and actual rudder pedals has been enlightening for sure. I've forgotten how long it's been since I used rudder pedals, but I need to completely go back to basics on coordinated turns. I guarantee you would be shooting me down with the CIWS on 100% of my attempted passes if you were the LSO. I haven't personally used it either but it really sounds like I need to get the T-45 mod and focus on those basics. I'd love to see some guided mission sets that replicate basic flight training, formation flying, and around the boat stuff. As you've pointed out there was a lot to learn and *perfect* before pilots even got a CHANCE to get an F-14 slot.

I can see in the model viewer that the back of the lantirn ball does have pre-shadowing in the AO, this may be an unforeseen side-effect of that.

I use Youtube Vanced on my phone. No ads, lock the screen and still listen.

The modeling side is helpful, but I usually find some of the modulation and weathering done to be not helpful. As far as the TPS tones, there are some more modern digital photos from the last few years that seem to give a good representation of what the relationship of the 3 should generally be. But, I also suspect the paint mix could have changed over the years, and of course fresh paint vs at sea vs end of a cruise are all going to look different. The nacelle stuff, I've laid it out previously in the thread but there are some extra panel lines on the GE jets and a few features that would be missing on a B vs an A, the fire punch-ins changed locations too, and the NACA ducts are supposed to be on the left side of the engine and further back on the panels. You can take care of removing the B/D panel fairly easily, but in doing to you have to save over the existing RM/Normal which degrades it. And it turns out some alignment issues exist in the panels themselves that need to be move "upwards" on the nacelles, but we'll have to see what Cobra can do there. It's the kind of thing you mainly notice in doing the paintjobs, because you are trying to compare photos to the jet as you work, and often times when something doesn't line up right, you question why. That's basically what happened with the NACA ducts when we realized it didn't look right because the fire punch ins were needing to be almost centered in the panel but aligned with the back edge of the NACA. NACA was too far forwards, which in turn throws off trying to line up the punch-in stencil. As to the tails, the leading edge is supposed to taper. A few of us had made the change and Reflected updated it with his recent pack update so at least some of the skins out there have that correct. In looking at the originals though, I can see where they used the scan of an F-14D that notably has a patch on the leading edge, which should not be there on every jet, and certainly not on both tails. It's the museum D model that was listed as one of the jets scanned in one of the Carolinas. Not many pics of it but I finally found one that showed a grainy patch on the right leading edge of the vertical stab. The reinforcement shape itself was just an oops/oversight. Goal is to lay this all out to Cobra and see what is the most economical to tackle, between the model itself and what can be fixed just with texture changes. And this also has to jive with the time/effort that he's going to put in on getting us the missing late A/B features while also trying to implement earlier features for the older A and Iranian jets.

I get where you are coming from. I've been rivet counting visual issues to Victory205 and Cobra's chagrin, but after sitting down and actually looking at stuff I realized there will have to be some concessions somewhere. I'm not saying that's 100% the case here, but I get what Victory is trying to impart here. It's a different topic, but there were some things I used to take as gospel that were/weren't done. Then within a few weeks time I saw each of them shattered by either direct photographs, documentation, or first-hand accounts. It definitely adjusted how I looked at government manuals and documents. Not that they weren't a great starting point, but just understanding that they often were flawed or lacked coverage of what happened to a system after its initial issue. Once that sank in I stopped thumping the TMs and OMs and started listening more to armorers and guys that actually fielded the equipment because many either demonstrated that it underperformed, or in some cases outperformed the posted data. And often I was able to verify their findings practically speaking.

But that's exactly the point that you state and then proceed to step right back around to wanting it to match/be accurate to the chart. It's acknowledged that the numbers for some areas of the FM are fudged (by the Navy themselves) because they didn't test at sea level, so why should that portion of the chart be considered a gold standard by which the DCS FM MUST conform?

@Victory205 This sounds a lot like discussing Ballistic Coefficients. You have people that understand the mechanics of how velocity impacts BC, and how atmospherics and inconsistencies of cartridge production and bullet production further cause changes to velocities and ballistic coefficients, and then how a rifle's interaction with said cartridge can change the velocity and thus the BC, and reasons why the numbers printed in manuals and box are basically useless. And then you have the folks that don't.

I've written and re-written a few replies now, but I'll try to lay this out best I can. Basically set aside the existing stuff, it's either getting overhauled or replaced in some way. The base textures of the A and B, in certain key areas, need to be reworked/replaced. There were some oversights on the engine nacelles and tail leading edge reinforcements, plus the A and B needed to be made more distinct as the GE engine nacelles are different. Some D features needed to be removed, and some B features removed from the A like the RIO ladder step reinforcement plate. On the stencil/paint side, the A did have various stencils that were more distinct from the B, namely the intake warnings and the turbine warning stripes at the rear of the jet. Those are some of the more obvious things that were on the existing A skins. All existing skins will need to be brought up to that standard whenever the external model updates are completed. The same work should also include getting the model ready to represent the "earlier" A model, whichever general block or feature set that ends up being (visually). That will also mean the ALQ-126 for the late A and the B, so those textures have to get added or current skins adjusted to include those areas. This could also bring the anticipated TCS pod options, which if the concept being considered works might end up with some pretty exciting options for skinners or folks wanting to do older gen jets or a fake D. We might get the old style gun vents too, maybe an earlier beaver tail design without the ECM. We also might get the changes that represent an ALR-45 jet as opposed to the current one with ALR-67 antenna on the gear door. As to the colors, it's really tough to tell. Photography, scans of old Kodachrome slides, possible changes to paint itself, fading, corrosion control, all add up to making it tough to nailing down one set of values for the TPS scheme, or even the hi-vis. You can look at 3 different websites or supposed references for the Fed 595C colors used in TPS, and get 3 entirely different sets of hex values or samples, and none of the 3 colors laid next to each other match the contrast seen on the TPS Tomcats. It's entirely possible that the existing TPS colors were sampled off of the museum jets but if being referenced indoors versus say outdoors it could have led to the darker shades we have now. Sometimes the colors look fine for some of the later jets, and it could also be that as Cobra described elsewhere they are working at 2.2 Gamma value while they are creating the textures. Either way, it's probably going to slowly transition around as new stuff is added and old stuff is addressed.

Stuff like that's on my to-do list for official liveries at some point. To get the details right we need to have the older block external model which is why some of those aren't really in progress yet. Hopefully after the Viggen update the external model updates will start and the texture overhauls can begin, which means redoing a LOT of skins, custom pilots and helmets for existing defaults, etc. I really want to get some focused skins for existing carriers and conflicts as well, since VF-114 and 213 were on the Lincoln those make sense to start working. Some more late A skins are coming that align with Allied Force and OEF, need to get some more later B skins like VF-11 and 102 as well. Gulf War would be awesome to focus on but we are short so many carriers. And finding names/PCs is extremely tough as well.

Judging by the rest of the AI assets ED has released we won't even get a paintkit. The last few sets of AI overhauled models like the SU-34 have had no paint kits and crickets every year or so that I ask. And yes, paint kits are important. But the reality here is that ED just has their artists paint it in Substance Painter and call it good with a few default paint jobs. I'd like to be proven wrong but I'm not holding my breath.

U to hook up, Shift-U to launch. At night you'd switch on all external lights to launch.