LanceCriminal86

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.

As I churn through VF-201 and VF-202, I might could take a look at it. Got a lot on my plate but I may also drop this in the DCS Livery group Discord and see if anyone is interested.

I think the Tomcat being heavily analog really nails down the need for headtracking or VR in DCS, because you need to be able to look at a few things all at the same time. I especially notice this on carrier approaches, I'm still pretty bad at getting the timings of the turns, altitude, and speed on point because I don't have a good consistent head tracker solution nor the horsepower for VR, but being able to monitor speed, altitude, and sink rate while rapidly looking over your shoulder to check where you are near the boat seems like an absolute must, and Hat switches just aren't cutting it.

There are some oddities in the actual UVW mapping that might have led to this. Typically, the EXT 1 and 3 textures, which represent the Starboard side of the jet (jet's right from the cockpit). In the textures, these sides are "mirrored" or reversed in terms of text, numbers, etc. The EXT 1 and 4 representing the Port side are regular in the textures. HOWEVER For whatever reason, the leading edges where the glove vanes are are somehow flipped. On the EXT 3 you have to put the text regular, and on EXT 4 you have to reverse the text! So, I have a feeling that if those antenna are in the same portion of the model's UVWs as the glove vanes, that's probably why those are backwards. Or, rather the EXT 3 portion of the texture was not "flipped" like the rest of the Starboard side of the jet, and when @ensamvarg or his team did the stencils backwards as they normally would have on that side, they stayed backwards because the UVWs were not flipped. But somehow the UVWs for the wing vanes got reversed, or are drawing from the wrong sides of the jet, I don't know. Further back there was an issue with the UVWs of one of those areas being incorrectly mirrored for both sides, so maybe this got caught up in that fix.

@Victory205 does it perhaps involve an airshow?

Because, depending on what details you want, a Pilot and RIO have different patches, firstly the Pilot and NFO patches/wings are different, and quite often the ones on their suits were as well. For the 99% of users here, totally irrelevant. But for folks looking to put together specific jets and crews, or recreating specific photos, it can matter. Not every pilot might have a Top Gun Patch, or their RIO might not. Sometimes pilots flying with HGU-55 helmet but RIO using an HGU-33, weird stuff like that. Even RIOs from a different squadron, I believe "Bio" has mentioned pilots and RIOs sometimes flying their sister squadron's jets. Recently he mentioned in a photo he posted that the CAG riding backseat in the photo had his helmet taped half VF-1 and half VF-2! I'd post some pics but many were nabbed from closed Facebook groups so not sure I really have permission to share them. But, here's an example of VF-201's final flight crew as they took their last Tomcat "JIMBOB EXPRESS" to AMARG: A separate photo shows LCDR Burns on the left not wearing a Top Gun patch, while the RIO/CO CDR Paine does. This is also relevant if you want to include ranks for pilot/RIO, as often they were not the same. Again not important for folks just here flying jets. But most folks in the skinning groups/threads are into details, so putting it out there.

*Sigh* You can have separate Pilot and RIO helmets. You cannot have separate Pilot and RIO bodies at this time. The LOD only has one helmet slot and it will apply it to both helmets. There are no "implications", we've been able to have the separate helmets since the beginning. Heatblur has to actually define a separate area for the RIO helmet in the LOD, and they would need to do the same with the pilot body to the RIO body and give it a separate reference ID for the LUA so it can use a separate file. Heatblur is in the process of redoing the pilot bodies to include the HGU-55 helmets, I'd expect when that is done and the new pilot bodies implemented, we might see the split between pilot and RIO bodies and they may re-address the LOD files.

The file does not allow for separate helmets, nor is the Tomcat currently set up for separate Pilot and RIO bodies.

Somewhere in the mix there will be a TCS bullet fairing for when the housing is there but no TCS inside. And they also have mentioned doing the TCS-less style with just the ECM ALQ-100 nub under there, like the Iranian cats and jets that lacked the housing entirely. The question will be can we use those options on each A model separately because there were even later As that had no TCS but all the other later features.

I saw that, and saw something of that when I was getting the paint template for the EA-6B. DCS could really use a F9F Panther, and with ED adding that little change so we can make anything carrier capable, that might actually be almost possible now. Add that to the EFM work that the A-4E-C team have done and perhaps a "template" of sorts could be created for WW2 and Korea era jets to get more of them in game. If only we actually had a Korea map, yet constantly crickets from ED whenever asked why we have 2 Korea jets and no map.

A quick heads up to those working on submissions: The B model stencils as provided in the skinning templates are not exactly right for A models. A number of changes need to be made to correctly represent the A model, most glaringly the intake stencils and fire punch-ins on the engine nacelles. Some of the various warning stencils as well are in locations different from the B models we have as well as the actual wording in some cases.

I love these kinds of things, perfect excuse to do a Santa escort mission in the Tomcat! What's his top speed? I think realistically he needs to be going fast enough that the heat and sonic boom would destroy the planet but I don't think DCS currently models that.

As a Tomcat guy I'd love to see the Viggen dudes get their love too!

To be fair, I'm usually only counting rivets when I'm trying to align a stencil so it matches a photo. Sometimes counting the rivets past a panel line is the best method. But it's also that process where I picked up on a few things that just seemed out of place, and that opened up a rabbit hole.

Not every guy I talked to could remember who made their barrel, what twist rate it used, which chamber dimensions it used (was it cut for M855 or Mk262), how many turns until the suppressor locked up, or what all was included in the kit. But considering they are still alive and by many accounts had plenty of opportunities not to be if they couldn't figure out which end of their rifle was which, I guess it all worked out. As I knew this was likely the case, I instead asked them about their experiences, did the rifle fill the role it was built for, what would they have changed, etc. For the technical minutea I tracked down armorers and folks at AMU or 5th SFG who built and originally configured them. In the same vein, I'd be more surprised if a Grumman engineer who worked on aerodynamics didn't know about or notice the anhedral of the HStabs than a pilot, but I still wouldn't try to publicly diss them for it. This is precisely what I was driving at while you were trying to have a jab at Victory because he didn't pay attention to it. Within the various US Special Operations groups yes, some guys are very switched on about the technical details of the weapons they used. Usually it's because they already were predisposed to it, guys like Larry Vickers. Some former Tomcat pilots and RIOs have done things like write books, do seminars, interviews, and appeared to really be into the minutea of the jet's designs. Others naturally did not. They focused on flying, doing their jobs, got out of the Navy, and went on with their lives. Some got out of aviation completely. Thank you for totally derailing the thread. What I suspected seems to be verified, though I was hoping perhaps others could provide some documentation that perhaps would show that, in fact, some of the B models did have those small vents. Like Mike said yes there are some small differences between blocks, but this seems to be a feature on D model cats and not the A and B airframes we have or will have.

You mean the one they fixed? No, we tangoed because YOU were criticizing a Tomcat pilot and module SME for not noticing it on his walkarounds. I pointed out that there are tons of bearded SF dudes who know almost nothing about the specs and details of their rifles, because they are too busy putting rounds on foreheads. I never said you were wrong about the missing anhedral, did I?

Maybe because the livery and model guys probably aren't working on the issues with radar coding, missile API, or flight model values? Yeah, the A-6 and Forrestal are on their plates too but we haven't seen those in an eternity. For all we know the model/texture work could be done and they're on the coding queue. Or maybe they're not, it's up to HB to prioritize their time. People who spend time painting Tomcats notice things. People who spend a LOT of time painting Tomcats notice a lot more things. Painting talent does not equate to attention to detail, there are a ton of very talented skinners who have stepped right past these issues, and I know some of them are waiting on final corrections and template updates to fix their skins. With the ongoing state of turn rates, missile behavior, EDs lack of any real updates to the Supercarrier, the continual existence of FC or Flanker era assets, and the litany of other core issues with DCS I find my time better spent on trying to at least get accurate, correct Tomcat liveries. And in doing so some issues have become apparent when comparing the models we have side by side with high quality photos that are readily available with a Google search. People can't talk about how a module's attention to detail sells them on it and then get mad if someone applies attention to detail and finds issues. The difference is Heatblur have generally shown a strong desire to embrace making corrections even if they were minor. If they told me to pound sand, at this point I'd probably hang up on DCS and go do something better with my time. The HB Tomcat is the entire reason I finally got DCS, pardon me if I want it to be *right*. This isn't a thing like glove vanes or PTID, or a feature. It's the model/product being accurate.

So, that actually is not an easy fix. The black square is in the right spot for the model. It's the rest of the panel textures that are misaligned, OR the whole landing gear assembly is off. One of the two. I can see how that would happen if you modeled it off plans and then scanned the jet and tried to overlay the scans. Obviously the modeler noticed the issue and adjusted the locking port location so at least the arms will go in there on the model, but now the whole rest of the nacelle is off. In turn that probably impacts the front textures too. Can anyone find a B model with those little vents? The HQ walk-around photos I reviewed from books and websites were VF-11 and 74 B models, and I didn't see them on the 101 B model walk-around either. But they are definitely on D models. If they don't belong then that's at least one less difference between the A and B visual model.

I ask this out of constructive criticism, because there are features present in the model that should not have been there for any variant of the Tomcat, and there are also features there correct for the D model that I can't seem to find photos of on B models, or at least from VF-74 and VF-11 B models. Can you guys provide which jets were used for the scans and references to build the models and textures? Perhaps only certain builds of A+/B models retained certain visual features? The items have already been added in the bug tracker in the past, but they included the NACA duct that does not belong on the right engine, the small "vents" above the NAVY stencil aft that I can only find in photos of D models so far, a misalignment of the model and textures where the landing gear reinforcement struts lock into the nacelle, the leading edges of the vertical stabilizers having the wrong reinforcement shapes, and a few other issues. What I'm trying to understand is how some of this stuff showed up without being compared to mountains and mountains of photos of Tomcats which should have perhaps shown they weren't right?

Just do the schemes now, you're going to need the time to get them right. There's a TON that has to be redone to get A model skins right. Stencils, stencils, stencils gentlemen. There are some glaring differences and attention to detail there will go a long way.

I thought that was what I had read as well, but wanted to be clear in my question. I recall that being a point of contention for some because it was extrapolating a small circumstance vs the reality. BUT, it makes sense why PTID can't be done because as you said, you'd have to know what every menu option did, symbology, and any other rear cockpit changes that came along with it. You guys could always just say hey, since you want "historically correct" and take LANTIRN away entirely and just say the cutoff is mid-90s pre-LANTIRN lol. Keep the GBUs but force everyone to have a buddy lase when the Intruder comes out... And hey, that solves the JESTER LANTIRN problem! Two birds with one stone!

IF we ever got the D model's TCS added as a model argument, then AI D models at least would be feasible. Or you can pretend it's a D in the meantime. That would also make the B model prototype possible as well. But, HB would need to make all the TCS as animation arguments across the models to make that feasible. There are photos of the B prototype/test/D model tester with no TCS whatsover, bullet fairing, and with D TCS housing.