LanceCriminal86

I believe some of the B Upgrade stuff included GPS integrations to combine with INS or replace it? There's a training doc draft from 1998 floating around out there that lays out the highlights of the B (Upgrade) programs: https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/docs/ntsp-F14.pdf I've been digging through it a few times to see if perhaps there are training courses or materials that could be somehow requested, or at least redacted copies with only specific portions for the PTID, but I suspect it will be the same issue of either "classified" or "shredded/disposed of". I am curious how much some of the RIOs out there from that 1996-2006 time period could remember. One guy may not have the whole picture but get a bunch of RIOs together with some of the Avionics guys and maybe someone from Honeywell, with some Navy/Grumman approval of some kind, and enough heads might be able to fill in some of the gaps. Another thing, I noticed it's listed elsewhere that the S-3B was LANTIRN capable. Any odd chance it could have used a similar display in the back for the system? Wouldn't that be funny if some critical info were discovered in S-3B documents, in some weird chance the same PTID model was used in it.

It looks like by 1997 VF-103 had Bs with the GPS antenna, but the angles I have for 95/96 don't show it. I swear I saw them listed in one of the detailed studies of LANTIRN feasibility that they were the fleet squadron that did a bunch of the testing and technically got it first, so they'd be the first ones I'd expect to see it on. Do you guys have a listing of the menus on the PTID? I'd guess you have at least partials for the radar and LANTIRN pages but 12 pages seems like a lot of functions. I'd be curious how many of them were even implemented on the jet. Who knows, might find out some of them weren't in use? Also has it ever been determined if the PTID used was the same or similar to any other airframes? -- EDIT: Just found a May 1996 pic from David Brown that shows the GPS dome. I'll keep looking.

True on the D fishbowl, but I think it's been hashed out as being an entirely different animal to the A/B one. I guess the way I look at it, is that if we're representing the "as first tested" from what, 1994-1996 timeframe that VF-103 and whichever other squadrons were involved with LANTIRN tests as the way to have LANTIRN and fishbowl, then I'm still curious if they had to install the GPS antenna at that time or not. I guess the place to look then is VF-103 from about 1995-1999 and see when GPS domes showed up. Because it may be that the initial tests without the PTID were also before they determined the GPS antenna was needed. The various DTIC presentations and training docs I had read about the whole digital bus upgrades, LANTIRN, PTID, etc. indicated that the LANTIRN's onboard GPS is why it could be used without the Tomcat needing to have its own integrated GPS system like other targeting pods did, so I had delineated that from the adding of a GPS antenna. I'd like to ask around a bit more about it in the Tomcat Association, and I'm sure you guys have already done some of that but I'd like to verify as well. There's a decent chance some folks from the program are in there that did the initial testing, I'm fairly sure I've seen some posts from folks that were either with Strike Test or 103, plus the guys with VF-41 that did the first actual combat drop albeit buddy lased. And I'm personally serious that I would be happy with a visual PTID that's incomplete on the back end outside of the menus and functions we currently have. There are some shots of the PTID pages here and there, and while I know we don't have a 100% breakdown of every single menu page, I feel like it may be possible to map out the PTID enough by interviewing some of the various RIOs out there who may be young enough to remember. Guys like the "Tomcat Cockpit POV" and "Air Tales" Youtube channels look to have been RIOs at the time we are talking about, one in the A with 211 the other in a B with VF-11. I guess I'm curious if anyone has mapped out a flow of what exactly is known, what is known to be missing, and what might be unknown to get a functional PTID. It may be that by trying to find out what we don't know, we can figure out what the right questions to ask are. I think some folks would be fine with certain pages being unavailable if they aren't directly critical to the operation of the radar or LANTIRN, and if they are backed up by traditional instruments.

So first, I must ceremoniously insert foot into mouth, if we go off of the ~1999+ timeframe of A models and LANTIRN, then the GPS dome does appear prominently. I was under the impression those domes were tied to the integrated GPS in-cockpit that replaced or supplemented the INS system but it appears it was needed for the LANTIRN's GPS. Around that time RIOs were using store bought GPS units (which might be fun to try and model). I also retract my statements about the ALR-67 blisters by the glove vanes, I went back and did a closer comparison to the F-14D areas and they are pronouncedly different. The D model ones stretch further up to the tips of the intakes, while the A/B ones are closer to the glove vane openings. It doesn't seem like there was a 100% deployment of ALR-67 upgrades to A models though, but rather some jets got it, others did not. Allied force in 1999 shows only a couple out of VF-14 and 41's contingent of A model jets. That said, It looks to me like most A models representing the early half of the 1990s shouldn't have them, so whatever is done with the "early" 135 or whatever Block is chosen to be the earlier US jet, would need that area reworked. I still think a Block 95 would well represent the 80s timeframe of the Libya shootdowns, and into the 90s, right up to LANTIRN adoption and the shift to Air to Ground quite well, before the upgrades that currently make the "late" -135. While older blocks with ALR-45 do appear to have that same area bare/ochre, they are not the pronounced bulges we're seeing on B models and the As that appear to have the full ALR-67 upgrades. On the GPS dome I do see them on some of the 1999 and 2000 A models from Allied Force and VF-211's millennium cruise, in 2002 with VF-154 and VF-103, with LANTIRN pods hung. https://www.airfighters.com/photo/63232/M/USA-Navy/Grumman-F-14A-Tomcat/162696/ The problem is, again, everything I'm reading points to those jets having PTID in order to even use the LANTIRN. At what point is it not better to have a WIP/Incomplete PTID based on as much information as can be gathered from SMEs and NATOPS and documentation, than to have a patently "incorrect" fishbowl? I know it's a loophole to give us LANTIRN, but I'd rather have an incomplete PTID that gets built out as more documentation becomes available.

To be fairrrrr, Block does matter, as certain blocks "must" have certain features and equipment, while earlier Blocks "may" have been upgraded to a similar electronics or system, they also may not have received all of the visual cues or equipment of a later block. Just as the D model has features not seen on the B and A, some blocks and upgraded blocks had features not seen on previous blocks upgraded to the same "Standard". Case in point, presenting a Block 135 in any for means, at a minimum, there were equipment features that MUST be there, the aforementioned ALQ-126 antennas by the intakes and beaver tail, the radome alpha probe. On the other hand, there were earlier block jets that did still serve into the 90s alongside the Block 110+ jets, but never received the same upgrades. One of those is 160396, which had the old beaver tail, no ALQ-126 antenna, and was flown to AMARG in 1998. And the early block jets rebuilt to Block 130 that I always like to mention retained some very early features while also having the Block 130 equipment like the late beaver tail and ALQ-126 ECM package. BUT, it wouldn't be appropriate to have say a Block 85 or 90 with the early 7 port gun vents, just as a Block 135 without ALQ-126 is equally "off". There's nothing wrong or bad with selecting the Block 135, and then having an "as built" 80s version and a representative 90s to late 90s version, it's a logical block choice because many of the A model Tomcats that survived to fight past the late 90s into the 2000s in Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts WERE Block 130s, 135s, etc. Earlier block jets naturally were reaching high hours on their airframes and were not selected for upgrades versus the newer 110+ Blocks of Tomcats that already had the ALQ-126 suite and provisions to receive the ALR-67 RWR. If you look at photos from Allied Force as I mentioned before, you still see a mixture of features but most of them again were the later Blocks or the former VF-201/202 remanufactured 60/65 to 130 jets. All seemed to have ALQ-126 etc but only a few had the ALR-67 RWR features. What I AM saying, is that if that's the goal, it should be done right. The good news is that Cobra doesn't have to rework as much stuff for the "late" or modernized 135 and B model because they did share a good number of features. That said, there are a number of D model features that will need to be trimmed out aside from the obvious ALQ-165 ECM vents, as the existing blisters ahead of the glove vanes are wrong for both our B and modernized A models. The A/B ALR-67 blisters were a different shape and position because the D didn't have glove vanes so they were positioned differently. I also point that out because it might actually make more sense to have the "early" A model be a US Block 95. Why? If the work is to be done to have the Iranian A model exterior be "correct" by backdating the gun vents and beaver tail, then really you've done nearly everything you needed to do instead of also having to take the A model, add Block 135 features, and then backdate that model to Block 135 factory fresh by removing the visual vestiges of the ALR-67 system. With the Block 95, functionally the work done on the "early" 135 with ALR-45/50 can drop right on it, as there did not appear to be significant system differences between the 95 and 135 outside of the addition of the ALQ-126. Keep the TCS, tone down the jamming to represent the lack of the ALQ-126, and voila. A jet that represents the 80s Libya shoot down Tomcats, and made it through at least 1998 or so. Then your modernized 135 gets to represent the 90s upgraded jets that got LANTIRN and soldiered on through the early 00s, minus that pesky little PTID our A and B should have. This probably isn't the most exhaustive breakdown of Block features, but it's a good reference to look for major system changes or at the least visual cues. I've been trying to dig in and see what other more in-depth changes may have been made from the -95 to the -135 that go beyond this list and would actually affect systems coding: https://modelingmadness.com/review/mod/us/usn/fighter/gar14adiff.htm

Not "early", but "As it rolled off the Grumman line in 1983-85 or so". And yes. But also no. Many jets rolled out with the "bullet fairing", and had the TCS installed in their destination squadron as they were available. Some were probably shipped out with the TCS complete. But the 135 should have either a bullet fairing or full TCS. Hell there were still Tomcats rolling around in the late 80s to early 90s with no TCS and just the ALQ-100 in the Reserves. I personally have vested most of my time researching VF-201 and VF-202, who primarily received the early NATC/Pax River test jets that were rebuilt to Block 130 specs, each received 2 of the last 4 A models built, Block 140s right off the showroom floor. Those jets were delivered with bullet fairings and were seen that way for what looks like at least a few years (1986/87 - early 90s). They also had some other older block jets rotate through, including a Block 95 that was 6 jets behind one of the Mig or Sukhoi killers. That one was their last CAG jet in 1998, had no ALQ-126 antennas or the indicators of the ALR-45, the older beaver tail, and a TCS. Many of their jets later went to VF-211, VF-14, and VF-41 where they were mixed in with other As that got the ALR-67 upgrades, and some may have gotten some upgrades as well for LANTIRN, but not the ALR-67 or other RWR/ECM upgrades as the photos from Allied Force and Global War on Terror don't seem to show those features present. If you are digging around and see BuNos in the 1586XX range from around 158612 onwards, very high chance it was a VF-201/202 jet and was a Pax River test jet. Some of them still had the old old 7 vent gun vents into the 90s before 202's jets were upgraded with the NACA style.

I've been digging into this a lot lately. A proper "Block 135" jet from when it was produced is going to have quite a few little visual differences, and the aforementioned system differences. To get to a mid 80s Block 135 as delivered, you'd need to take the existing jet and remove: - The "blisters" just forward of the wing gloves that are part of the ALR-67 RWR. - The blister on the left nose landing gear door. - The GPS antenna on the spine that theoretically none of the represented A or B models should have. - Disable LANTIRN, but potentially keep some / all of the A2G capabilities, even keep ability to carry GBU still as buddy lasing did happen in the first combat drop. You also need to add: - ALQ-126 antenna around engine intakes. - Older gun ports, not the early early 7-port ones but the 2-port vents. NACA style were a 90s update across the board for in-service jets. - Apparently ALR-50 blade antennas, one on the "turtleback" and one on right nose landing gear door. As already said, later in the 90s various upgrades were made to some jets, to include ALR-67, LANTIRN/Digital BUS/PTID, some got DFCS, GPS, and a few other myriad changes. They weren't universal, they weren't fleet wide, but some of them were concentrated into the remaining A model squadrons in the early 00s. I've seen photos from Allied Force that Vflip has been using for his VF-41/14 skins, and there's a mix in there of the different antennas I pointed out above. Whether we are going to get exactly that will be up to Cobra as it's going to require further reworks of the visual model in addition to a number of fixes needed. Some of the above are also related to the B external model, in theory an "updated" 135 as currently presented would be very close to the B that we have, with the same ALR-67 blisters and removed ALR-50 antennas, the same added ALQ-126 antennas, both missing the GPS (unless that was specifically part of the LANTIRN) integration. And to go down another rabbit hole, the Iranian (or US version for that matter) Block 95 has a number of other visual changes, taking the "early" 135 and remove the ALQ-126 (like the current model), change the beaver tail to the older one without the blocky jammer antenna, the older gun vents, remove the small bulges in front of the glove vanes. There's a chance we may only get the "early" 135 with an Iranian paint job and some systems turned off but here's hoping we get the right visual model, as it would also be super useful for proper 80s Tomcat action with the US systems turned back on.

Went back and followed the suggested "-2" thing, and it's working perfectly now. This tool is definitely a big help!

You're in too far to quit.

Gigabytes of my own skins for A and B, no crashes. Only issue I had like yours was tied to VPC ground assets mod and the lighting towers, caused a total lock at 1/61 or whatever.

Not really "early", more like earliER and only by a little. The Block 135s were built in the late 80s and feature wise is not far off where we are now. And the visual model has a lot of things that have to be redone for the A and B, not only to correct errors but add visual features currently missing. It's possible there are slowdowns there in order to just go back and do it once and do it right.

Last I asked it was in the same state as previous released pics.

I mean he does portions of it, but part of it is also over on the modeling side from what I hear. And if a portion of the project is not currently on their team's priority list he's probably not working on it. I don't think one guy is right now simultaneously texturing the pilot body, Intruder, and Forrestal. @Cobra847drives the bus, maybe he can clarify who does what but stop assuming that "rivet counting" fixes are somehow detracting from other features.

Separate employees. Why do people keep thinking these corrections and work are diverting resources?

I've been meaning to ask him if he ever sketched up some art for his fictional VF-104 squadron, I know some folks have taken swings at replicating them but it would be neat to get an "official" design direction and go from there. Maybe he'd even gin up a roster of characters for the different jets too in addition to the main characters.

Regarding the liveries: There's a lot of underlying work that is being done/needs to be done to get the base textures for the B and A adjusted/corrected. The previously mentioned model changes that need to be made are only part of that, but a good portion of the work needs changes in the Roughmets and Normals. Things like corrections to engine nacelle panel lines, relocating the fire punch-in panels, correcting the leading edge of the tails, etc. Some of this has been "crowd sourced" by a few of us, but more needs to be done to get it where HB likes it for quality. Thankfully some folks in the Livery group and Tomcat Assn have helped get photos of a few of the panel changes between A/B/D which has helped a lot. But almost weekly there are little things that we find that could or should be adjusted to be more accurate. The underlying issue there, is that the template does not include any layers for generating RM/Normals, so you have to edit the .dds files directly. Doing so and saving continually introduces grain and artifacts, which reduce the quality each time. To have them done right we are waiting on a PSD we can use to generate fresh RMs and Normals, and also some of the changes need to be done by HB using the Substance Painter tool so that all 3 texture types will line up, otherwise you can end up with misaligned changes which would be un-cool. Obviously @ensamvargand co would need to give an official reply but that's a good portion of the gist of it as a sideline observer. Oh and if you really want proper 1981 and 1989 Mig killers, then we need to keep twisting @Cobra847's various body parts and get a US Block 95 jet with old gun vents, beaver tail, and TCS-less ALQ-100 done, as that represents the 1981 jets and very closely the 1989 jets (1 and 2 blocks earlier than the 95 but very few differences visually).

With the Intruder and Corsair II coming we're getting there, but as said a lot of air wing gaps for 80s plus. We need those older E-2C + Ds, older C-2 maybe even a C-1 Trader since it wasn't retired until 1988. Need the SH-3 obviously, redone S-3A/B, and I think that covers the general period we're trying to cover of 80s+ with the Tomcat modules. By the periods HB is focusing on the A-3 and C-1 were about gone but they were still in service until the late 80s on carriers, which includes the 81 Sidra shoot down as well as some other Persian Gulf ops during that era. The SH-2 would be needed I think for the Destroyers though, so maybe some of this stuff can come with the Supercarrier's supposed rework of assets but they're doing way more modern era than we need. Sadly that puts the weight back on modders, but at least there are folks capable of doing it like the Military Aircraft Mod. Challenge though is finding or creating models good enough for them to convert for DCS usage and having to support it as ED continues to change/break/add features.

I mean there's two planes that could make a Tomcat seem small, the A-5 and the A-3. And EA-3s and/or KA-3s were on carriers through the 80s until VQ-1 stopped deploying carrier based Dets apparently, so there was Tomcat era crossover. Seems like a nice candidate for another AI bird at least, covers having an older carrier based tanker alongside the KA-6, if we ever get EWARish modeling it could be interesting too. Even without that being robustly modeled, planes like the EA-3 can make for fun scenarios for escort missions or even more if you want to make a scenario off how the "spooky" versions of A-3s and P-3s like to fly right on the edge of international borders and do listening ops. Perfect Tomcat scenario to buster in to cover them from being harassed by Sukhois or Migs.

Pfff, too small. Bring on the mighty Whale!

I mainly had been using this shader mod for the color balances, I had found that running this mod meant I had to run less color corrections/contrast tweaks in Reshade. Definitely will continue to use it. I'm personally interested in a version that just helps with color balance and visuals rather than turning off anything for FPS/performance. With all the AI, weapons, etc. issues still present in DCS I spend more time skinning and taking pretty screenshots nowadays. -- Correction, I guess this one doesn't actually turn stuff off like the VR shader mod, but I did want to say I'm all for keeping one the "pretty" shaders mod vs performance based.

I did see that, I'll give 25 a try and 24 after that to see if it changes any. Like I said the printed detents may be getting a bit worn so that could be meaning an inconsistent stop point when I was doing the measuring of box to dot to get the detent number. The throttles seem to be accurately paired as far as axes go. My typical fallback was just to tweak the nearest curve point but I'll see if tweaking the whole curve as said works as well.

If you do it right in a PSD you can actually link external dds files in each layer, so you can then enable/disable them and right click, and hit "update modified content". Photoshop will then go through and read through the current folder and update changes. I think you can actually even drag a DDS file into the photoshop window to accomplish this, but it's been a while.

I had to remove any mods with naval assets until I can pin down what is causing it but same issues. I had to remove the Cuesta CdG, LeClem, all ww2 mods, anything boats or vehicles. I'll try to go in tonight and re-add stuff one by one to figure out what it's hanging up on. A-4E-C and VSN aircraft, Military Aircraft Mod, and other aircraft seemed to be fine.

Hugely helpful, did have to make some tweaks manually though. Following the guide I landed on a 26 curve for the Tomcat with X-56 throttle and 3d printed detents. Only issue was I think the sensitivity plus some mushiness of my detent meant that bumping up against the detent made the AB start to try and light off. I had to manually tweak one of the values closest to the lightoff up to 18 from the 15 the calculator generated in order to be able to bump up against the detent and not light off the ABs. If I mess with the calculator to match the value that I had to change that one data point to (3rd value on curve chart), that would mean a detent location value of 22. Again I may blame it on my printed detents being a wee bit blown out, but I thought it was worth noting. I may go back and just tweak the calculator values up and down, adjust the whole curve, and see if there's another value that gets the same result but adjusts the whole curve instead of it being 0-8-18-24

This was in the patch notes, maybe the fix didn't take or something new got introduced: Fixed JESTER wire call on the SuperCarrier being errant.