LanceCriminal86

Yeah, Tomcat you paint down in the Livery folders. You can place a base color layer below those, but also note in the livery files there are TCS layers that apply the tactical scheme. Something else to look at, typically you need to drop the brightness of color samples by about 10% so they don't look washed out. Or, up in the topmost Components folder turn off the final adjustments group in each template file.

Question for the VSN folks like @cdpkobra, what is involved in having different pilot models for some of these mods? I've noticed most simply use a modern USAF pilot, and I assume for each you'd have to go back and either have someone model or buy/convert a pilot model and then animate it in the EDM. Is that correct? It'd be great to see more of the community mods have helmets and a base pilot that fits some of these "eras" better, but I fully expect it means time, effort, and money in a new pilot model for each one.

Yep, the A's warning stripe is behind the position slime lights, while on the B I think it runs roughly through the middle of them. An important detail to look out for when doing A/B liveries. My eyes usually go straight to 3 places when folks post liveries: Intake Stencils Turbine Warning Stripe Fire Punch-Ins It's pretty easy to pick those 3 up to see if any changes were made to correct those areas when doing an A model skin.

No, the pilot models are part of the aircraft model and are animated within it.

Not all 68s had the tracks, if you look at more Hornet helmet pics there's a bigger sample size. There was the "TACAIR" visor track like the pic I showed, there's also some newer ones that are on the sides like the older HGU visors. But most often I seem to see neither, just bungee visors and later on with the NVG clips. Another tell may be the location of the comms cord. I think 33s, 55s, and 68s have differences there as well. HGU-55s weren't coming quickly when the Navy adopted them and I guess the Air Force was getting the lion's share, so the Navy approved the conversion of HGU-33/34s to the 55 style. Hence where you see some of the funky elephant ear shapes, black ears, no ears and just bumpers, old style mask receivers, etc.

I was told explicitly that HGU-55s all have the gray edgeroll/elephant ears. If you see black edgeroll/ears it indicates an HGU-68 of some kind or a converted HGU-33. And as said above sometimes you see 68s with the fixed visor track but often you don't. To add another twist the HGU-55s from Gibson and Barnes and Flight Suits Ltd use an ear pattern that mimics the old HGU-48, from which the 55 was born. I'm not sure when those came about but they very well could be in the mix from the 90s. IMO for the Tomcats we have the HGU-68/SV-2B combo is probably the latest I'd want to see, considering our jets just don't accurately represent the ones used during the GWOT. While yes ours should have the PTID there are some additional features and upgrades on the Bs/B Upgrades that fought through 2005, which are the ones we're seeing here with the later CWU survival vests. The good news IMO is that with the HGU-55, despite having not actually seen any previews of it, I'm confident we can get awful close to the HGU-68s used through the late 90s. The visor track can be added in textures and a little fun with normal maps and roughmets ought to be more than enough. The existing faux 55/68 trick Isoko and others have used are pretty convincing from a distance. I've not yet been able to duplicate it on my own, I'm waiting for the 55 to come out so I can drop some proper helmets for VF-201's last Tomcat year. Some of the other squadron members had HGU-55s during that year, but I do also want to reflect the final flight jet eventually. I'd like to see more stuff from the late 80s through late 90s if you have em. Here's a video that has some good cockpit footage from VF-1, shows examples of the converted 33s or possibly even the above mentioned Gibson or Flight Suits versions. Skip to about 9 minutes to start the Navy fun, Tomcat crews around 12 minutes:

Last I saw the Bs didn't have OBOGS, per a 1999 or so dated training document. Only the D was listed with OBOGS, there's a VF-103 guy that was here through their last cruise who worked on B Upgrades and he recalled only the Ds having it. And those extra vents on the jet may be part of the OBOGS as it was further back in the jet and on one side. Like the MODEX I'm seeing a lot of variations over years and squadrons on flight gear. It'd be another really bad rabbit hole to go down for sure, but the SV-2B should still be the main survival harness until more recently, I think GWOT, when the CWU-33 style vests really started coming in. THIS IS NOW A TOMCAT FLIGHT GEAR THREAD UNTIL WE GET NEW BODIES Here's a VF-142 pic showing what we rougly have right now: Last F-14A flight for VF-201 in November 1998. I see MA-2 harness, SV-2B vests, HGU-68 helmets with the fixed visor track. Their patches are somewhat different than the base Tomcat pilots in game. Here's VF-31 in 2003, still looks to be an SV-2B. HGU-68 helmet as well. Maybe newer type flotation collar? Here's 31 again in 2006, Looks like the CWU-33 style survival harness here, but also looks like the guy climbing has a VF-32 helmet? I think this photo of Meagan from Speed and Angels with her RIO shows her with the later CWU-33? survival vest

Because those things are relevant. The existing Stennis model was hot garbage and everyone knew ED wasn't going to actually put effort into it, that's why nobody made a big deal out of it when both the Stennis and Vinson were early 2000s quality looking 3d models. You can't ask for and praise attention to detail about things like flight models and the 'feel' of a module but then laugh when attention to detail is pointed out, or the lack thereof. Some of the big things touted about the Tomcat was laser scanning and using photo scans for the base textures. And they indeed are very detailed. The problem is the scans got all merged together without another step of QC to make sure they were "right" for the jet being portrayed. That's being corrected, which is also the difference between certain developers. Funnily enough folks heap on praise about guys providing really detailed skins, yet we are the ones complaining to HB to do the things like fix the model or give us the right helmets to match the skins we spent months on researching and emailing/phone calling pilots to get photos or descriptions of who was on the canopy rails. Why? Because unlike the masses we've been face deep in Tomcat photos to try and get them looking just right. Looking at panel lines to help get the stencils lined up, that stuff. And that's where you start noticing things are 'off', and then you can't un-see them. I'm just glad that Heatblur has a great team who are willing to look at the various points and try to work them into their product improvement flow, rather than just saying: "Eh, it's good enough as is"

That's not the issue. We are talking about physical features and textures that are either present and shouldn't be, or missing and should be present. There are a number of mirrored vents and such that should only be on As or Ds that were rebuilt As, things that should only be on one side of the jet, the missing ALQ-126 antennas, etc. This is not something explained away by "well a few jets might have", this is well documented and acknowledged by HB. I've laid out these issues elsewhere on the forums under the Skinner's thread as well as when I asked what jets were scanned, which proved out that a D and 2 A models were scanned hence the presence of D only features. Like I said: Good enough vs "right", and attention to detail. For a time I could live with stand-ins as long as the right thing is eventually done, but usually sooner than later.

At the same time, good enough is the enemy of "do it right". Case in point, to many our existing Tomcat model is more than good enough, until you spend some time actually looking at it closely. Which is why there's now a pile of things that are in the pipe to get fixed because the jet is a mashup of 3 different models. Missing B and late A features, includes D features, and features that should only be on As or Ds but not on Bs are again everywhere. Doing it Right is important. Yes, mission builder flexibility is important and I think including one offs of ship classes sucks. I also prefer to have at least one thing done right so I'm not staring at something picking out every single problem because unlike the unwashed masses I actually picked up a book and learned about the subject. And considering how much work HB have yet to do on the Tomcat, the final fixes for the Viggen and the promised Drakken AI jet, the AI Intruder, etc. something is bound to get cut for now. Maybe down the road they make good and expand the ship list. Maybe in the meantime we get repainted Forrestalls to fill in. I don't know. HB may not have decided yet either. But I rather prefer it is done right, whatever it is.

Lol inevitable? How many years has DCS had both an F-86 and Mig-15 and yet Korea is still extremely absent from anyone's, particularly ED's, roadmap? What DCS needs is actual focus, structure around collective modules representing eras and conflicts.

Who made you the forum sheriff kiddo?

Having the decks and fleet filled out with the right ships, aircraft, and helos gives us the depth to have a wide range of missions. Thankfully some mods are filling those gaps in but the S-3, SH-60, and E-2 are still needing reworks or a more period option, plus the need for the SH-3 family. Heck EA-3 Skywarriors were still on the boat sometimes through part of the 80s. And RF-8s until TARPS totally took that role over. The MAM mod adding the P-3 and C-2 are super helpful too. Having the P-3 means perfect part to allow for escort or intercept of threats trying to ward off or attack a P-3. An EP-3 would be even better for that role with how often they get harassed. Perfect mission writer's basis to have something escalate into a hot conflict or incident.

VSN does have an EA-6B you can use for AI already. Lots of work already happening with the paint templates.

From everything I've heard including folks that tested VTAS with VX-4 in the Phantom and Tomcat, there's a reason it went away for another 40 years before coming back in the JHMCS/AIM-9X pairing. VTAS helmets were heavy and cumbersome, and under Gs extremely straining to keep ones head up and tracking the target. And, the Sidewinder itself just wasn't ready for it. Just saying if VTAS were suddenly presented don't expect it to be like the Hornet with 9Xs.

The A's folder name should be F-14A-135-GR

@joojooThis is the thread you seek, Admiral189 has a US supply ship in the pipe along with lots of other goodies and cold war stuff!

Considering how much Tomcat documentation has been shredded, forgotten, etc. I think the Phantom will come down to "whichever variant has the most documentation", no matter the developer. While the E does offer opportunities to use export variants the amounts of modifications made by each of the big export users would be staggering to try and model as one jet. I mean there has to be a point at which some extrapolations are made to fill in gaps, but I know the study sim crowd hate to think of it. Sadly, that means most of what we want will be truly inaccessible at this level of simulation. Case in point the whole PTID situation, our era cats SHOULD have it. But, there just isn't enough out there to backfill all the symbology, sub menus, etc. because they're either in manuals that are not released to the public, they were shredded as Grumman or whoever did the integrations and digital bus stuff closed up shop, or the stuff that is around only covers a small portion of it. I wish we could get to a point where starting from what is available and "filling the blanks" with personal accounts or at least with similar systems could be accepted by developers and consumers until better documents arrive. Hell make it an "unofficial" addon with a big honking disclaimer that it's not up to HB's standards yet. At this point it's no less historical than late 90s Bs and As with lantirns and old fishbowls. But I digress. At the LEAST, hopefully one of these folks who keep teasing Phantom mods can get some AI F-4B or F-4J models in that can be painted up as N/S, to help fill out the 80s feel. Maybe if the A-4E community team starts to release code and documents for their EFM mods can start using that to give flight models with some more feel to them.

@Victory205 Would that be VMFA-112 Cowboys? They were at Carswell JRB in Hornets when I was in high school but I believe they were at NAS Dallas before?

I think if specific eras actually start to solidify in DCS that would help decide which versions to do for USN. The B did much of the VN workload but the J was there as well later, and extended into the Cold War. From there you have the N and S upgrades of the B and J respectively, it makes sense to do a B/N or J/S pairing due to them being reworks/upgrades of the respective airframes adding leading edge slats and making some engine changes, plus electronics/EWAR. If we actually started to see VN being a thing then the B would be the ubiquitous choice, though the N upgrade I think lasted the shortest amount of time as they were retired to retain the S, which in turn left Navy service by 1986 when even the reserves finally moved to Tomcats. What it would come down to, like the Tomcat and the A-6E, is documentation. How many systems can Heatblur get enough manuals and docs for, how many RIOs, pilots, avionics techs can they find and can they remember everything that's needed. It may be that one variant has better documentation than another. I'd be happy with the B and S even though they are from different base airframes. One was peak Vietnam, the other got us through the Cold War on the older carriers like Midway, Coral Sea, etc. that couldn't hold Tomcats. But, HB may want to come back to something Swedish, Euro, or totally different when the Tomcat and Intruder are "done". Perhaps Leatherneck/M3 would tackle Phantoms since they were also USMC jets. We'll have to see how the Crusader turns out.

The Forrestal will be available to all, kind of like the KC-130 that shipped with the Harrier. The AI A-6E will be as well. Cold War ships will always be appreciated. I wish I could shoulder surf the workflow involved in getting a ship model or AI aircraft in-game because I'd love to do it. We all have different interests and won't always want the same things others will.

@Victory205 I'd heard that the F-4s were more forgiving in the carrier landing pattern due to the whole boundary layer thing, did you have time in both F-4s and F-14s? Also, I talked to "P2" from 201 last night on the phone for a while and am expecting a call from "Rug", not sure if they were there when you were. "P2" mentioned he was dual qual'd as RIO on the Phantom and the Tomcat, and apparently "Rug" let him taxi their last VF-201 Tomcat at Davis-Monthan from I guess the transient parking are over to its spot by "the museum" as he called it. He and "Goose" have been filling me in on lots of details about their last year of Tomcats there in 1998.

Something of note, I've found tons of photos as well as 2-3 personal examples of helmets where the strobe is on the pilot's right. So for the OCD maybe shift the velcro patch to that side, and if you want variety shift it around. It's a pain but if you do it right you could have 3-4 different spots and then a set of roughmets/normals for each and just random them up between pilot/RIO And I'll drop this in here again, an EXCELLENT resource for helmets: http://www.salimbeti.com/aviation/helmets3.htm

I think you spelled HGU-55 wrong.... But Forrestal is cool too and Viggen guys deserve the love!

VSN has been dropping a lot of good stuff lately. As more work is done on EFM for the Community A-4E I bet we will see more mods using EFM and having some more features and feeling to them.