LanceCriminal86

Sometimes it's fun to set your graphics settings to "slideshow" for taking screenshots of skins you've worked really hard on. I'd love to see an alternate GPU melter config just for taking screenshots, wallpapers, loading screens, etc.

Wow, the EFM is MUCH different from what I remember, bravo! Honestly aside from the radio issue due to no SDK, the only thing I picked up on was an external cyclic "booming" sound. It sounds like a looped general engine sound but it reminds me of the caterpillar sound from Hunt for Red October. I downloaded the latest beta release and then the dev build and dropped it in, could there be a conflict of old engine sounds and new? I noticed there was a set of engine_disabled folders and such.

Further inspection, the TCS we have incorporates the ALQ-100. Not seeing what is missing here. There's a small fin antenna I see in some photos but that's not the -100 itself. The lower portion of our TCS has the correct red position light then the alq-100 housing with a bare front area, just like on 161134. This looks to be the same shape of B models I'm seeing from the late 90s.

Reference jet for the TCS is 99% 161134 at Valiant Air: http://www.primeportal.net/hangar/howard_mason/f-14a_161134/index.php?Page=2 Displayed with a bullet fairing, probably swapped the TCS out when it was stricken. Block 110 jet so it should have ALQ-100 in the housing but it may have had a different housing switched in when it went for loan to the museum. Interestingly that jet has the older beaver tail we'd need for the -95 and also lacks the -126 ECM antennas. It's one of the 3 reference jets, another A and a D were used. It looks like there were a number of TCS housings used on later As, challenge is finding the right ones for the B and separately for a -95 or -135. And many jets shipped with bullet fairings.

Take the current feature set of the "early" -135 we are slated for, and swap the visual model. There's your systems difference as long as ECM in DCS continues to be on/off. Otherwise the -95 would have a slightly different, maybe less effective ECM suite, as they lack the ALQ-126. Past that, the -95 model would need to optionally have TCS or TCS with the bullet fairing instead of the ALQ-100 only like the Iranian cats. No LANTIRN and probably restrict A2G based on dates until early 90s when Bombcat testing started in earnest. Skin would not be an accurate term as the -95 has some slight visual model changes, as mentioned previously the ALQ-126 antennas by the intakes and the older beaver tail that lacks the ALR-67 housing. You can paint on earlier markings but to some it's just not right seeing late features on what's supposed to be an older jet. As didn't get the -67 apparently until later 90s or 00s, if at all. Some stuff slated for upgrades on 1998/99 training docs may never have been deployed. B's had them and the D I think had a different RWR. I personally would rather have the -135 just be the late A, and drop the early work into the -95. Easier to pretend a late 135 is a late 80s one than to take a 135 and pretend it's a -95.

If you're on the Livery Art Group shoot me a message, we got a log of good Tomcat stuff to share like stencils and layers. Hopefully with some pics of the Pima F-14 we can finalize the areas under the nacelles for the A and get some permanent -A textures sent through the pipe. You can do the changes yourself, it takes a little work but the final textures shouldn't change a ton.

Couple notes for folks doing A model skins: - The turbine stripes along the rear fuselage are in a different location vs the B, and need to be shifted to behind the rear slime strips along the vertical bulkhead panel. Varies between jets/squadrons but this general location: - Fire punch-in stencils need to shift downwards to right about on the top edge of the NACA duct. You'll have to make adjustments in the weathering, base, component layers of diffuse and of course the roughmet & normal maps but it's a worthwhile touch. - Intake warning stencils: Typically the As seemed to have a different style of stencil from the default Heatblur ones, with a narrower angle, different starting points, and not coming up as high on the intakes. They're a PITA to get right, but some strategic use of the line tool and making reference points from photos and in the model viewer can get you really close. I've been using a 40px line I believe on mine. Note the distance from the top of the intake to the stencil, how it relates to the landing gear door angle as well: Versus some of the stencils on B models: And D stencils because at least one D was scanned, and its stencils may have been used as the basis for our B: That all's not including the panels and bits that need to be deleted from the roughmet/normal/diffuse but working on trying to get some of that done for updated templates and such. Trying to see if someone can get really good pictures of the underside of a specific engine panel that has to be modified from B to A. A couple of us did it by hand but hoping to get some better reference material that could be used for a permanent solution. There's a few tweaks that can be done to the B as well to remove D and A bits from it. At this point I have like 3 separate copies of the template and now 30-40 gigs of my hard drives are gone trying to keep all the changes and skins separated.

We're not getting "early" Cats, we're getting the second to last batch of As somewhat as they rolled off the line in 84/85. I tried to see if they'd swap the "early" 135 for a US -95 but we're basically just getting the exact same thing we already have but with a different RWR and maybe LANTIRN turned off. Not that a -95 is a super early jet but it at least better represents the 80s jets and can pretend to be an older one if they solve the TCS swapping puzzle.

The Block 135 has the ALR-126 antennas, so that would not be right. The B has the antennas as well, and as mentioned above back to Block 120 the ALR-126 blisters were added around the intakes. But the Block 135 did have the ALR-67 style beavertail even though it appears they weren't shipped with the ALR-67 itself. The reason ours doesn't have the antennas is because an F-14D is among the 3 jets they scanned, none of which were B models. The other two may have been older block jets or the antenna were overlooked when compiling the model. But the -135 and B should both have them and be externally the same aside from the engines.

Based on a few replies here and there from HB, I'd be betting on March's major patch for the next major content drop.

We absolutely had Block 95 Tomcats, they just weren't specc'd with the same systems. Block 95 Tomcats are what shot down the Libyan SU-22s in 1981. A US Block 95 would be different from the planned early Block 135 in having the ALR-67 housing-less beavertail and no ALQ-126 blisters by the intakes. These are the only visual or system changes I can find between the two. The ALR-67 beavertail appears to have been added in Block 110 and the ALQ-126 antennas in Block 120. The 1989 shoot-down jets were an 80 and 85, which had minor differences from the 95. I'm in the process of cross referencing this guy's breakdown here but so far it seems accurate for showing the production block changes: https://modelingmadness.com/review/mod/us/usn/fighter/gar14adiff.htm F-14A-80 (BuNo 159430 - 159468) Gypsy 202: BuNO 159437 F-14A -85 (BuNo BuNo 159588 - 159637) Gypsy 207: BuNO 159610 F-14A-95 (BuNo 160379 - 160414) Fast Eagle 102: BuNO 160403 Fast Eagle 107: BuNO 160390

Blind protection and failure to provide any criticism doesn't improve anything either. I have already stated elsewhere that due to the many issues above, I don't actually fly DCS anymore. I do my best to provide skins for the community so at least those that can look past them, for now, can enjoy their time. F-14 module users have been clamoring for historic skins to go with the various carrier airwings that served on the Supercarriers we have, and on the forthcoming Forrestal/class as well, so I'm putting my time towards helping make that happen. A community manager's JOB is to take gripes, moans, and complaints and keep tabs on them. People being active and complaining means they're at least still here, and still engaged in the product. When it's too quiet, it usually means either everyone is too engrossed to play, or, they've all left. It's not too quiet around here so, at least that means people are still playing, checking in, and buying modules. Why don't YOU sit back, conserve YOUR energy, and let ED address our concerns while you happily look past issues that others can't.

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?