LanceCriminal86

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.

You're probably not going to hear anything until the Viggen patch in November is out, and then work on fixing/adding to the F-14 external model is done. Otherwise the groundwork for the earlier A model is missing the right visual model to represent it.

You have missed something, the fact that the next patch has been directly stated as being Viggen focused, and that the additional model work for the early jets has not yet been done and is tied with corrections to the existing models. The guts of the ALR-45 apparently is done but the visual changes to support the early Tomcat are not. And those changes may also be tied with the updated pilot bodies as they would need to be integrated and animated at the same time anyways. The different TCS versions still need to be sorted out as well, since that also relates to the Iranian Tomcats. There will probably be some updates to the roadmap and Trello soon as a couple of major deliverables have just released, so from now to November will likely be bugfixes and the Viggen changes as center of focus.

First is the Viggen patch next month and any hotfixes that come out of this week's patch. After that, the visual models of the A and B need attention to even get things ready for "early" A and IRIAF, executive decisions have to be made as to how much can be changed/added, level of effort, and that will probably dictate what the earlier jets look like. THEN, all the work done on the ALR-45 and any additional changes to reflect not having the ALQ-126 jammers enabled will need to be built on top of branching an early jet off, reworking the loadouts, and any other major backdating changes. It's going to be months, I'd hope within 6 it'd be in testing but that may depend on how much stuff catches fire or gets broken by ED changing the core engine around again, like the cockpit lighting was.

43gb? Those are rookie numbers, you need to get those numbers up!

I mean it sounds like you want a Hornet?

If you check out the Tomcats that tested VTAS there were sensors in the back seat as well. Of course now I can't find the links but it was a Farris painted one that had the AIMVAL/ACEVAL or maybe VX-4 officers posing next to it. It may be that part of the testing was to see if the RIO being able to acquire/maintain the lock would give an edge.

There's quite a bit in there if you watch it very closely.

Attention to detail my dude 1:44 timestamp

I mean work is already underway to boost the numbers of liveries according to the roadmap. If squadrons can have groups of 4 MODEX that are of like years/cruises shouldn't that cover more of what's being asked for from the online folks? It seems most virtual squadrons are running their own skin packs for their own organized operations, so the remainder looking for dynamic MODEX seems to lean on the various multiplayer servers. Having a few batches of 4x MODEX should allow for a number of flights on a server to each have a unique jet. As for campaigns and random generated missions, perhaps ED can provide better control over skin randomization. Allowing for fixed lists to be randomized from would give some more leeway to have randomized missions not have multiples of the same jet in a single flight. That could also let campaign makers supply a package of skins and then have them be randomized within their missions, as usually you wouldn't be flying the same jet every time. The challenge of skin sizes eating up your hard drive isn't an easy solve though, short of ED allowing for heavier compression formats of skin folders. The move to Zip files seems to have helped but even still skins are hitting 500 Mb per. I guess another option would be pic a squadron each for the B, late A, and earlier A and offer a full stack of 10-12 MODEX. That can be the pool for the online folks. But I still think ED needs to find some way to mix up skins within a flight or across flights in a coalition.

There were CGNs as well like the California and Virginia classes, but trying to find cruise books or even details on the contents of specific carrier battle groups is proving pretty ridiculous. A mod to backdate the Ticonderoga to the earlier ships of the class might be useful, to add the hull numbers and names and perhaps edit the armament.

Apparently adding MODEX to an existing model is fairly "destructive" in how faces and such have to be cut out, which in turn may impact the UVW/Texture maps and other things. It doesn't sound like it's a soon thing or even surefire that it can get done without massively chopping the model up to do it.

3d-printed detents for my X56 plus the DCS detent calculator tool available on the forums has worked perfectly for what it's worth. The 3d printed parts have worn down but they give a physical stop, and the aforementioned tool help you adjust your curves so you'll be sitting right at MIL power without needing to use the AB gate key binding. https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3315617/ Definitely get in the thread and follow the directions, and you'll be set in no time.

Does it matter? The only VTAS helmets I know of are at the Smithsonian, Pensacola, or very restricted personal collections. And if you ask folks that did use them they seem to be split into those that were fine with it as you claim, and those that wanted little to do with it (what I've heard along with the owner of this helmet). Compare an APH-6C to a D and you can feel the difference of the dual visor system. You can again feel a difference trying on an HGU-33, and from there an HGU-55 type helmet. Reading through documents about changes to helmets always noted efforts to reduce weight, which in turn reduces fatigue both in normal flight and under high G stress. My VTAS was the HGU-30A with what was essentially a PRK-37 shell so the same as an HGU-33, with the VTAS I system on it. I can't find any details as to what the VTAS I system weighed (alone or total with helmet), but since you seem so versed in them perhaps you can clarify the exact weight difference. And I think the proof of the matter is already laid out: VTAS did not get carried over to the F-14 despite testing it. It died in Phantom squadrons and even there its effectiveness is suspect. With improvements to technology in seekers, missile maneuverability, head tracking technology, and lightweight materials like carbon fiber, the concept has now come into its own.

Instead of the Glove Vanes, I'd like to lobby for Victory205 recording LSO lines to judge all of our traps without mercy. All liveries will be locked except for RAG liveries from VF-101 and VF-124, and they will only be the bland line ones. Once the VictoryAI™ has seen consistent on speed on AOA 3-wires enough to legit qual you, other skins will unlock. Fly bad enough and the F-14 module locks out, and you are forced to use an alternate low-fidelity C-123 module with the only available mission being flying prank dog droppings to and from Kutaisi. If we're going to talk about changes that might actually be impactful though, how about the comments on pulling fuses for the maneuvering flaps to put the jet in a cleaner cruise/loiter configuration? Is there any truth to that in actual fleet usage or would the impact to fuel economy be minimal and we should just stop sucking at refueling?

What the "early" Tomcat is actually going to be like sounds like it's still up in the air. Though I personally want the bullet fairing as I have a love affair with the reserve squadrons that used them for a very long time, it seems that in fleet squadrons on-cruise you either saw the complete lack of the housing and just the ALQ-100/position light, or an actual TCS when they were available. I believe I had even heard sometimes the TCS were traded between squadrons/wings coming back from cruise with those going out on cruise until they were more plentiful. So then squadrons ashore would sport bullet fairings or the ALQ only setup for training, Fallon/Key West detachments, and work-ups before they went on cruise again. It would be great to have lots of options and even room for community modded TCS housings, but that depends on how the TCS pod is handled for the upcoming model reworks. If the TCS got turned into a mountable pod just like the LANTIRN, that could very well be a possibility. Perhaps then early IRST styles could be modeled for those wanting the first blocks of Tomcats, or to "pretend" for a D model use a D TCS modded in. Obviously IRST would not work but at least those really wanting to fly VF-31, VF-2, VF-213 from the 90s-00s could have some way to at least make things look right on the outside.

The most extreme distance LOD model is untextured, that's why you're seeing that. Past the first LOD the A and B share the long distance LODs, with the final being the F-14B_LOD_Distant.edm. Since it's untextured it has a roughly ghost gray color which is what makes it seem to pop. My question is what are you doing that makes you actually notice this? You have to zoom out extremely far to see this, or extremely far in at a very, very distant jet to see that transition. In any practical situation in DCS you aren't going to see that transition.

I'll have to dig it up, but now that I think of it wasn't VTAS or at least the underlying system used for the Apache's helmet tracking system?

The concept certainly was ahead of its time, and the fact they were able to get the head tracking with early IR, which is basically the same exact tech we use for head-trackers in sims now is pretty cool. I found one of the pics, take a look along the canopy rails: Like the HUD and ACLS and a few other technologies, (had it been fully adopted and added to Tomcats) I feel like it's the kind of thing someone like Victory205 would step in and tell us works way better in DCS than the real thing ever did. And then 2-3 people would argue about it with him. And I get that performance charts are important for trying to compare the general performance of aircraft. But it seems that there's more to it than what those charts show as to where the actual performance of the F-4, be it a slatted E or later N/S, in comparison to NATO jets or COMBLOC for that matter of the 70s and 80s. I know we had many secretive programs testing captured/acquired Soviet aircraft against ours, and maybe someday there will be gobs of data that could be gleaned if they ever get to see the light of day. But I think there are plenty of very good reasons the F-4s were relegated to reserve and non front-line postings over the years as Eagles, Tomcats, and Vipers continued to be built. Turn the clock back to Vietnam and wasn't the whole reason TOPGUN was created to learn and teach tactics to combat smaller and more nimble opponents, namely the Mig-17 and Mig-21? Weren't the strategies taught to focus on wingman coordination and using the Phantom's thrust in the vertical rather than turning circle? I recalled that being a big part in the shifts in kill ratios for Navy, Marine, and AF Phantoms, using the other advantages the jet possessed. And I can't recall where the heck I saw it but there was talk about the slats on the later F-4s not necessarily being a 100% win either, trading off turn rate for increased drag and less acceleration as you unload? Lots of back and forth but where are the F-4 J/N/S charts for sustained turn rates? I saw someone try to extrapolate numbers by playing with the weight of the slatted AF E models and he claimed his numbers would have the F-4S turning at the same rate as an F-14. I like the idea of the challenge that fighting newer and more nimble jets would present an F-4J/N/S (or E for those afraid of boats/swimming) pilot during the Cold War, but I also can see where having feckless AI wingmen would kill any notion of fun. So until that gets sorted out and AI start using actual FMs with stall mechanics, maybe it's better if the Phantom in any form stays down the road.

I actually have a VTAS helmet that was converted back to a "regular" helmet, and the gentleman who used it verified the VTAS system was too bulky to be comfortable and effective. It introduced a lot of extra neck strain, which was not ideal in high-g dogfights. The VTAS II didn't improve much over the I in that regard, and a lot of that is why the setup died with the Phantom. It was tested on the Tomcat and this helmet was apparently used in some of those flights with VX-4 both in Phantoms and Tomcats in the early/mid 70s, I believe following AIMVAL/ACEVAL. You can see the VTAS boxes in a few VX-4 photos that I've seen but can't seem to find right now. VTAS also died out because the AIM-9 at the time just wasn't ready for it, I believe missile performance in terms of the seeker and maneuverability just didn't match up to the ability to use the sight to get a lock during a tight circling fight. The JHMCS and AIM-9X though apparently finally brought the concept to fruition, albeit some 30-40 years after it was tested and rolled out in limited use.

But I'm talking about Phantom pilots that transitioned to the Tomcat, who are making the night and day performance statements. Including F-4 Reserve pilots who came back from a joint exercise with the AF wearing a bunch of F-15 kill markers on their old F-4N models. Yes, it's an illustration that a poorly flown Eagle could get its lunch eaten by a Phantom, but a properly flown one should have no problems beating even a very experienced Phantom every time. In this instance the Reserve squadrons happened to be stocked with experienced Navy fleet pilots, many RAG instructors and TOPGUN grads. When they transitioned to the F-14 in 1987 the feedback I have gotten is that the Tomcat changed everything, BVR and BFM. https://www.google.com/amp/s/theaviationgeekclub.com/that-time-us-navy-f-4s-scored-plenty-of-kills-against-then-brand-new-usaf-f-15s-in-mock-air-combat/ I still want an F-4, J or S. But I'm fully aware that it wasn't the tightest turning jet, even with the various slat changes.

Any of you guys also running a Virpil Tomcat stick with the currrent T50 base and 200mm curved extension? If so, how are you mounting to the floor? Not planning a full-on cockpit but I'd like to arrange something with the most important controls, and I've got some Crosswind pedals coming in so I need to find some way to get my stick at the right height but also not be so cumbersome as to keep me from being able to reach the pedals. Current setup is really ghetto and made of wood, and there's no way to get to the pedals. I've looked at some of the pre-configured sim seat frames but none have stood out so far as having a bar or plate to mount it on, plus trying to get it solidly mounted so it won't flex around.