LanceCriminal86

And what good will those dynamic campaigns be while things like splash damage and the whole damage model for ground units is borked. Or the AI that defies physics, notches perfectly, etc. Or how about having to run 3rd party scripts so the carrier behaves like a real one and steams into the wind for launch cycles and resumes course until the next launch/recovery window? Or how about trying to have a proper rescue chopper follow said carrier when it turns dynamically? Or the 200 polygon S-3 and SH-60 models, and all the other BLUFOR/REDFOR AI models. Last year there was a whole forum kerfluffle about users wanting more focus on core engine issues. In response, they slowed the patch cycle for "better quality patches" and avowed that the core would take more focus. We don't seem to have had a lot of core fixes, and the patches were just as broken but with more time in-between while you waited for the next cycle. Yeah, we're getting pretty new clouds which helps with screenshots, but what good is that when if I barely scoot forwards in my jet on the supercarrier and my AI wingman immediately sets off and turns right into me? The Hornet and Viper have gotten pretty hefty updates even though they are behind the original promised delivery on some bits, but what about the Supercarrier? We got a few extra boats but no changes to the number of parking slots. You have to use creative mission building to spawn anywhere but the front of the boat or on the cats. You only see complaining. But when folks have limited amounts of time to plop down and enjoy their investment (because let's be honest, this isn't the same as picking up the Game of the Year edition on summer sale for 10 bucks), they want their investment to work and feel good. Eventually the euphoria wears off.

It's not necessarily the BuNOs it's the skins presented. Most of them are totally that mid/late 90s B model, but a few are definitely the 00s and GWOT era B Upgrade jets. The BuNO for VF-103 HiVis is for a B Upgrade (161435), which we decidedly do not have feature wise. And it looks like from 1998 around the assumed period our B is, that jet had the black and white JR scheme as 103. Later around 2002 it had the black and yellow scheme we have in the module. And the VF-102 '102' skin is also shown as a B Upgrade. Looking at photos of around '97-'99 it looks like the B Upgrade markings showed up for VF-103, so heck even a 1998 skin might be right, but our jet quite likely didn't have the right features. But that's splitting hairs. And the "last ride" skin would be even later and has the wrong MODEX (should be 1xx). I'm pretty sure it's been said our A and Bs don't represent the Global War on Terror era jets, maybe to some degree the late As. In the same way the last cruise VF-31 skins are cool, but they still belong on the "D", or the VF-2 and VF-213 skins. While PTID was done before then Sparrowhawk was around 2003+, so the late VF-32 and VF-103 skins for example would have all that. In a similar way, an early A model test jet from the -60 or -65 blocks rebuilt to Block 130 or 135 in an NATC or Grumman test skin would be "out of timeline" for late 135, even though it's the same BuNO. Same concept just other direction. All I'm saying is going off the BuNo from the Intruder vid probably isn't going to tell us 100% what build they're doing until they actually get there and tell us. Which after the Tomcat I think they'll want to get good and clear about what variant or variants they want to offer. I don't think there's any doubt it would be a TRAM, but only doing the super late and super few SWIF is less "flexible" for those wanting to do more historical scenarios from the 80s and 90s. Maaaaybe we'll get both like the A/B we have now, but it sounds like there's a significant systems difference as well as cockpit differences. Essentially sounds like 2 different jets to have to model and research.

Something to consider on that skin analysis: That doesn't mean that's the version we are getting. From what I understand the textures are still WIP. Whether we get SWIP and whether that gets confirmed will have to come once HB actually does their research to assemble documentation. It's quite possible that we get some compromises behind the scenes in similar fashion to the F-14B, where we get an 80s/90s TRAM but not SWIP. Or hey, maybe the Intruder is less tough to get a hold of docs since nobody else used them. It could be the opposite too where everything got chucked like the PTID manuals. And case-in-point on the skin, the F-14B includes skins of B models well past the timeframe of the modeled Bs we have. The VF-103 JR skins and some of the others are B Upgrades, which our jet is decidedly not. So it may be that they made their model off a jet they had access to but one that won't be 100% representative of the jet they are able to model the most accurately.

So many good carrier options to do, but I do foresee HB, if they did do another carrier, picking a one-off instead of committing to a whole class. If that's the case, I'd think the Kennedy or Enterprise would have to be two very important choices. If we ever get an F-4J/S combo, then the Midway might be another cool addition. I guess now the new guy on the block or maybe Leatherneck/Magnitude 3 will have to do the Kitty Hawk, Constellation, and America. Then we circle back with pitchforks to get ED to just go back and add the first 3 Nimitz class to the Supercarrier pack, because Nimitz, Vinson, and Eisenhower are very important. All this really signals, to me, that the Supercarrier needs to be made into a template of sorts that 3rd parties can drop their model onto a framework and easily adapt them. This then applies to non-US carriers, like the Ark Royal or the French Clemenceau or Foch.

It was a joy getting to watch and work with both @Shmoo42 and @_YaeSakura_ behind the scenes, each pushing each other's skins further and further. They both put a ton of attention to detail into their skins, and we all collectively re-worked major portions every time one of us stumbled across something important. What's even better, this is only the tip of the iceberg. Yae has a ton of great hi-viz late 70s skins, prototypes, and other works that are all right there with his VF-32 in terms of workmanship and detail, and he has entire squadron packs with the right MODEX and BuNOs. And Shmoo has an awesome pack brewing in the background, plus his other skins again that weren't in the competition. And if we take off the history blinders, the fictional and what-if skins were works of art, all of them deserving recognition as the Tomcat and even more the Viggen can be a bear to work with on complicated patterns. Getting those designs to blend across the sides, wings, and tails is a major feat to the uninitiated. The only problem we have now, is that @Cobra847 will now have to make some kind of F-14D model for Jack's wonderful VF-31 skin...

The clearer -95 and 135 differences visually should be wrapped up in: - Beavertail - ALQ-126 antenna by intakes - Both the -95 and "early" 135 will need the older gun vents [not NACA] @IronMike If the Iranian -95GR is going to essentially take the -135 Early and then turn things off, why can't there also be the -95 using the same resources for the US that just doesn't have them turned off? Can the disabling of systems on the Iranian jet and restricting of munitions not be handled with configs in some way to allow both to coexist? For the 80s and into the 90s it seems to me the US -95 would for our purposes of what DCS models basically be the as-built -135 without the ALQ-126 ECM antennas. If all those did was enhance ECM capabilities, and DCS apparently doesn't really do ECM beyond on or off, it seems that there shouldn't really be anything under the hood stopping a US -95 with the same config you planned for the early -135. I'm certainly digging around to try and find more solid details of what was changed between blocks -95 and -135, and while I'm sure there isn't a perfect timeline showing incremental updates done to older blocks by 1981 or 1989, it sure seems like a missed chance to provide a proper analogue of the 1981 Sidra Tomcats. I get it, lots of this wasn't originally planned, but we also thought we were getting more Forrestal-class ships and now that's up in limbo. So I guess my core question is: Can DCS currently or maybe in the near future use date filters and country to turn systems and available weapons on and off? If so, why not leave the door open for the -95 to be useable by the US, or rather have the -95 be US and then turn stuff off for Iran? I mean the Lantirn stick appears/disappears in the cockpit when you equip/unequip the Lantirn, can a similar function be used for what I described? And I suppose my follow-on ask then is can Cobra and co explore using the description.lua to load the -95 external model on the -135? If we can't have it as its own dedicated block then at least finagle a way to drop the -95 on top of the -135 via skins/lua since, by what I'm seeing, they should be the same underneath short maybe some reduced ECM capability on the -95.

The 95 had a different beavertail from the 135, that's what I was referring to. I wasn't asking about the early -75 or prototype jets, there's something like 4 different beaver tails, the ones in question here being the production ones on 75+ and the late As that got the ALR-67 style one. When I said "Early" it was in comparison to the current B/135, which in itself is still missing the ALQ-126 antennas and some other changes to make those "right". Since the model needs work anyways, why not lay a little groundwork that gives us more options? A -95 gives us: -Accurate representation of the 1981 shootdown jets from VF-41, and within a block or two of the two 1989 shootdown jets (Blocks 85 and 90). The time period where Tomcats actually saw some A2A combat, in the Med. Maybe not Syria but they were patrolling there and Lebanon during the same era, and in the PG. It's a more correct flavor of A model for that time period. -Accurate model for the Iranian Tomcats. -Accurate enough model to use in late 70s scenarios with the ALQ-100 only option or even with the TCS housing but TCS disabled. Also of note, Block 95s, 135s, even the last As, 140s, came with the older gun vents, not the later NACA style we have now. Many still had the older vents through the 90s. Honestly I'm not sure what even denotes an early vs late -135, they were some of the last built/upgraded in the mid 80s between 84/85 and 85 is when the 140s were built, aka the last As. So far all I'm really seeing is gun vents and switching Lantirn off? I guess that's a 135 in say 1987 vs a 135 in 2000? I'm not sure if the As had ALR-67, I know they had the beaver tail with the hump in there but trying to find actual info on As having it seems spotty. Bs and Ds definitely did from what I've read but there seems to be some info that the -67 was planned for As but was cut. Or, it may be that an upgrade to the -67s was cut and never made it to the A, not sure. But what I do know is making the -95 proper and having it for both US and Iranian usage gives us a better "early" jet without the hassle of all the crap that comes with Block 75s, original IRST, or any of that. Keep the underlying systems of the "early" Block 135 they were planning and just use the -95 visual model. Set it not to allow for Lantirn or anything as an option until a certain date if you want, as they did serve on into the 90s and I'd bet some did get the 135 upgrades maybe Lantirn. I'd think the jets that got those upgrades should have been the newer As with less hours on them I do know a lot of the 135s/140 from VF-201 and 202 made their way to VF-211, 41, 14, and 154 and dropped bombs in Afghanistan and Iraq. So far it seems like the block 90s and such didn't have the same fate and either went to the RAG or got written off pretty quick.

How much of the visual model can be handled by the Description.lua and via loadout screens? I ask because the desire to represent the earlier Tomcats it seems would have to rely on the Iranian Block-95 visual model, but some of the US systems we'd still want present ala the early or even late 135. Example, even late in the game old Block 90 jets like BuNO 160396 were flying in 1998 without a lot of the later upgrades. It did have TCS at some point during the year but also was seen with a bullet fairing near the end of the year. If the late 135 has the upgraded beaver tail and RWR blisters I won't be able to accurately depict that jet and some of the other old workhorses that survived through the 90s into the 2000s. But if on the Block 135 we can use some animation args and in-game flags to use the older beaver tail, a bullet fairing, and disable TCS it should be a decent representation of a Block 90 that survived. Otherwise I guess I have to use the Block 95 and live without some of the features the jet should have had.

I think we need to get a clear reply on exactly what HB are doing before we get our hopes up. If TCS, ALR 45/67 bits, etc are going to be controlled by animation arguments, that would be ideal, then one base Tomcat A and one base B model with the details controlled at will. But if they're going with specific configs for the external model that's going to alter plans. Right now the A/B external model obviously has a lot of mixed features. It sounds to me like visually we need: 1) Early A external model with old style beaver tail, no extra RWR blisters by intakes. This should be okay for both the early USN Tomcats and Iranian ones. 2) Late A external, with the ALR-67 bits, newer beaver tail, RWR blisters/antenna by intakes. This should represent any of the upgraded jets to Block 135/140 final A models, of which I've got a good amount of photos from VF-201 and VF-202 who had both the early Block 60/65 rebuilt to 135s and the last 4 140s. 3) B model external with GE engines, RWR antenna for ALR-67s and all the other visual cues the B had like external RWR blisters by the intake. Mostly same to the late A external but would need to check for subtle differences. If the TCS can be controlled by animation arguments though, that means we can easily represent all the weirdness that was the F-14 fleet. Late cats with bullet fairings, old jets mixed in squadrons with Block 135s, all kinds of stuff that happened. My personal concern is the fact that DCS doesn't allow mixed formations. To accurately represent some squadrons, a single formation might need to have both an early block and Block 135s. They should have the same flight performance but DCS only allows for homogenous, single type formations.

She's not a "fleet" jet, she didn't serve during any of the crises or interventions in the 80s, never was near Libya or Syria or the PG, but a lesser known element of the F-14A's history is submitted. No, you can't download it yet because I have to completely redo the tails and get them to Ensamvarg at some point, but at least she's here. I'll probably do a few other line jets showing the different schemes the tails went through, and whenever we get the proper Block 135/140 visual model look for their fresh off the factory floor jets. I'll also do VF-202, I know one version of AF200 was submitted but I've been working off some different photos and have been able to find some stencils that were missing in most of the references out there thanks to the F-14 Tomcat Association.

Posting the screenshots so they are at least in, files will be provided directly to HB, and when I'm happy with final changes added to user files. Presenting almost a year's worth of work: VF-201 The Hunter's final CAG jet ca. 1998, just prior to their transition to the F/A-18A Hornet VF-201 was one of the two Atlantic US Naval Air Reserve squadrons, which operated the F-14A Tomcat from 1986 to 1999 when they transitioned to the F/A-14A Hornet. While they never deployed to combat with Tomcats, the Hunters deployed to Iraq in 2003 and demonstrated exactly why the Navy kept reserve squadrons. The Hunters excelled with experienced fleet pilots, and after some time getting their sea legs, their reservist maintainers and support personnel had their jets in high working order, putting warheads on foreheads. Of note, the Hunters had been home to two Mig killers: CDR Lawrence "Music" Muczynski of the 1981 shootdown of two Libyan Fitters, and CDR Herman Cook III from VF-32 in the 1989 shootdown of two Libyan Mig-23s. And, notable for us DCS folks, our own @Victory205! BuNO 160390, a Block 95 jet that came over from VF-14 in the last year VF-201 operated Tomcats. It's an older jet lacking the Block 135 upgrades the rest of the squadron had, missing the RWR blisters under the glove vanes and a number of other features. Photos of the jet in detail were very difficult to find, many art prints and model decals were inaccurate and photos of the jet spanned different times throughout the year of paint wear, grime, and other changes. I've done my best to enhance photos, ask squadron members, and fill in the gaps from grainy pics here and there to have the best representation possible of their last CAG jet, which really was the only colorful jet they had aside from the original two late hi-vis Block 140s. Many changes to the base textures have been made to remove features only present on B and D model Tomcats, particularly around the engine nacelles. Most stencils were redone to match photographs, and some additions were made courtesy of YaeSakura and his masks/roughmets/normals to correct the shape of the leading edge reinforcements on the vertical and horizontal stabilizers. http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-photo-vf201-19.jpg http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-photo-vf201-09xl.jpg Mothballed at Davis-Monthan: https://www.airfighters.com/photo/106912/M/USA-Navy/Grumman-F-14A-Tomcat/160396/ ______

Because priorities, and things ED controls, plus how do you control which scheme will be used? By year of the mission? What mechanic is in place to make that happen?

No clue, but it was implied they were doing a really early Tomcat in some form that potentially could also have the ALQ-100 only, but I don't work for them. Only Cobra or IronMike can talk to how they plan to approach it. In my mind, a combination of animation arguments and in-editor flags/options would allow for the most flexibility. Then you can tie the TCS housing to a skin, and use some kind of <disable TCS> option in the mission editor if for example you wanted to use an early ALQ-100 jet or even a later jet but with the bullet fairing. I'm not sure how deep they have explored the whole animation argument thing as far as model options, I know the C-101 thing heavily uses it for things like strakes, HUDs, all kinds of configurations that you can set with animation arguments. If the TCS and ALR-45/67, beaver tail, and fuel tank pylons could all somehow be controlled in the same manner along with pilot models (particularly helmets), it would be ideal for mixing and matching eras without having to make a switch in the game options between missions for example. Select skin, select flags in mission editor, and go.

Once the missile leaves the plane, it reverts to the ED core weapon texture. To do it ED would need to add the weapons as separate models/entries with separate skins for each, and then you have to decide early vs later to have white vs gray. That's 6 different missiles/schemes to handle, and then how do you decide which is used? The skin description file doesn't affect the actual weapon when it leaves the jet, so it has to be a hard coded function, so now you need more loadouts and entries to have early and late Phoenix. Then what about Sparrows? Sidewinders? How about the Navy versions of bombs with different colored ablative coatings? It's not a small thing.

Notice how the brace from the landing gear properly inserts into the black tombstone shaped cutout here, which is technically correct. But also notice the cutout and the panel to the lower left, which are technically where that needs to be. So, either the landing gear has to come slightly back and down, OR, the whole panel line needs to shift up and to the right, where the strut/brace itself is. Here's some closeups of the left gear, same thing but from different angles showing how that cutout aligns with the corner of that panel: A whole album of the F-14A / NF-14D at Patuxent River, only seems to have one of the external D model tells, the double vents on the right side above the Navy that may have been for the OBOGS, otherwise she was an A externally but with D model guts inside (And retained TF-30s), https://www.flickr.com/photos/108510743@N05/albums/72157637643948734/with/14461898269/ Bonus pics of that area, A model that was with VF-41 OEF/OIF It looks to be a combination of the process to create and skin the model that was missed, but then again it was noticed because they moved the black cutout texture to match the model. I'm not sure if shifting the UVWs would fix it or not because then everything has to shift, and it also brings various proportions into question as well.

I've tried to explain before the bump map is not misaligned, the entire nacelle texture is or the landing gear modeling is. This thing about mixed features too though is not authentic. There are distinct patterns and reasons for the differences, not because 2 different variants were scanned. The differences should be correctly matched to the blocks, upgrades, and versions of the jet. That's what we're helping work towards, identifying features that shouldn't be present.

The HGU-55 helmets are coming at some point with an improved pilot body. The ones in your screenshot are tweaks done by Isoko to imitate the -55 on the -33 shell we currently have. There's a helmet template available somewhere in the HEatblur template folder, but it's very DIY.

Myself and a few other have spent an absurd amount of time counting rivets and trying to get these skins right, so at this point it's second nature to go find stuff. The current model has A, B, and D features due to scans of different jets being combined, but thankfully at least some of it can all be "fixed" in the textures, roughmets, and diffuse. I'm trying to get mine done but every photo I look at and work with I find other things to change, so it has taken quite a while longer than just dropping the colors into the template and rolling with it. In addition, there were changes between the blocks of As, different Bs got different upgrade packages, and some Ds were A rebuilds and retained some A features. Long story short between about 3 of us hopefully a lot of the texture work is already done for the corrections to the A, and they can be combined into new base textures and a new template at some point. This way Ensamvarg, Cobra, etc. can spend more time on other projects like Forrestal and AI A-6, and actual model changes that can't be handled with a tweak to the roughmets. So far I think the model tweaks is limited to: - Fix to UVWs on right wing - Adjust the UVWs or entire nacelle texture so the panels and main gear brace leg thingy line up with the port - Remove outside NACA on right nacelle and move it to inside of right nacelle - Remove D model "vents" that are apparently related to Onboard Oxygen Generation System (OBOGS) exclusive to the D as of 2001 [https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/navy/ntsp/f-14-a_2002.pdf] - Add RWR humps around the intakes for the ALR-45, have the no-fairing versions for the early blocks (Maybe custom anim argument and in-game flags to select which RWR). - Apparently revise the insides of the GE engine nozzles to be more similar to the Viper's - Differing TCS options: full TCS, Bullet fairing, ALQ-100 nub only (and having them tied to maybe custom animation arguments, and an in-game flag to disable TCS as needed) - Gun vents, early vs late. - Dynamic modex? The rest of the things I've been seeing can be done in textures, stuff like: - the nacelle having a different panel layout on the A vs the B, - the A model's vents that are on the outside right and inside of left nacelles, - the little nub vents that are just below the above vents, - the leading edge reinforcement of the vertical stabilizers. After THAT, it's wishlist stuff like a D model TCS for AI usage (or pretending), removable refueling probe covers, things like that. Heck, maybe even start carts or huffers like the A-4E-C team added that appear and disappear based on your radio commands. Hopefully it will be beneficial to the community. Guys that don't care about it can continue to not care, guys that do hopefully will enjoy it. And hopefully it helps push skins to get better and better. There are some great skins in the contest, and I think they'd look even better dropped in with the revised textures whenever that's ready, but some tweaks will still have to be done by the individual skinners on the stencils themselves. And yes, I actually am doing stuff lol, need a proper roughmet and weathering pass now that I thiiiink I'm done doing B to A revisions. Shmoo42 and YaeSakura's versions of the roughmet and normal alterations are probably better, I'm just trying to get it done in time:

I'd love a static like this too, maybe with reduced polys and just using the LOD texture file:

The VF-103 Jolly Rogers had the Sparrowhawk upgrade and B Upgrades done in 2003-2004 for their last cruise. That HUD was an extremely late addition, just as the Tomcat and Bs were sunsetting. The Digital bus and PTID stuff though it seems should have been present for our LANTIRN birds, but alas they just don't have enough paperwork for it. A few jets, for a time, did have LANTIRN working with the old display apparently but it's one of those narrow windows where we can have a LANTIRN without the full PTID and digital back seat. I'm happy with what we have. Sure, I'd love to have the whole enchilada, but we've got a great thing going. If we had a proper Afghanistan and Iraq map then maybe the push to have the upgraded jets would be stronger. For now though, we've got some good 80s-90s action and hopefully will have more as the A-7, A-6, and some of the various AI assets come online, the Forrestal, etc. Hopefully some more REDFOR like the SU-22 or MiG-23 will help balance that out as well, would love to see missing Russian bombers, updated TU-95 models, all kinds of stuff to fill the cold war out. And of course the S-3 and SH-60 getting reworked, if that ever happens with that Supercarrier many of us bought and have seen very little from since.

HB_F14_REFUELING_PROBE.dds Look under F14 > Textures > Diffuse_Roughmet You'll also need to dig up the correct material string for the LUA file, early on in the thread there should have been a full listing of all of them. Alternately in the modelviewer2 window there should be a button to generate a livery file, it may include it in there.

Because some of the photographers make a living off their photos, put them in books, etc. and they've gotten really edgy about people grabbing photos and heading off with them, then using them in articles, publications, etc. without any credits. I know of at least 2-3 that are extrememly strict and you have to attribute any photos you post or they won't allow the post, they block photos from airfighters, airliners.net, etc. because they think they will get sued. The photo in question is actually of Vance Moon at VX-4 and was posted just the other day in the Tomcat Association.

It's among the model fixes submitted to them a while back including the NACA duct change, some UVW map tweaks, and a few other things that were already addressed. With them working on further early A and late A, plus Iran A changes I expect we will see the fixes rolled in when those model updates are complete. Temporary water based camo, usually used for adversary stuff at NAS Fallon, sometimes for TARPS stuff like the Reconnaissance Air Meet, might have been used in the Gulf War as well. There's pics around, VF-24 had a few jets that way, VF-211 has, VF-124, and a few other squadrons as well. You can see a second jet waaaay back there in brown. Also I guess that pic didn't take long to get scraped from the Tomcat Association group, I know some folks frown on that. One group threatens to ban anyone for reposting them on Pinterest etc. if they find out who did it.

BC7 is what Heatblur used, I usually use Linear BC7 myself.