LanceCriminal86

Trying to find the page but the Bye-Bye, Baby...! book has a maintainer mentioning Snort brought a jet with the G-meter pegged at 9+ and leaking from all over the place, so apparently it has happened. Here it is, page 23: "Snort would bring in a bird from a cross-country. He'd give the maintainers a thumbs up: 'Jet's good to go, fellas'. Roger that Sir. Then you'd start looking closer: Over-G'd. Leaking fluids. We're going to be here all weekend on this one." -Rocky Riley

You should see my template folders where I keep all my skins, the templates, and the duplicated templates that I stripped out and dedicated to VF-201 which is now as big if not bigger than the original Heatblur template lol. On top of that my actual DCS directory with the finished skins, with custom roughmets and all that jazz! A while back they said they are intending to represent each of the squadrons, but since I figured the attention would be more on the main fleet squadrons I've been working hard on VF-201 and eventually will do VF-202. Like other devs I believe HB are open to incorporating skins as official ones, they just need to be researched and accurate as possible, and up to their standards of quality. I've made that my goal, and @Ensamvarg has been a great mentor and resource on skinning the Tomcat. I'm certain whatever he's got coming for the A is going to be absolutely awesome!

Is it the limiters they put in place after the initial TF-30 issues? I think I remembered something about that being one of the solutions.

When will you simulate the maintenance shop holding you down in your bunk and beating you with bars of soap in a sock for over-G'ing their jet and breaking the torque tubes for the 3rd time this week? Maybe as a bonus Supercarrier feature?

I'd expect later -A skins than the cool 70s High-vis ones. The problem with the B is that there really weren't a ton of them in use during the time periods HB is representing. Two squadrons only had them for a few years (211 and 24) before transitioning back to A models. So you're basically looking at VF-11, 32, 74, 101, 102, 103 before and after assuming the JR name, 142, 143, and then some test birds with Pacific Missile Test Center and the VX squadrons. And they've already included a decent sample from those squadrons so I'd probably only anticipate seeing a few more "line" jets here and there if we get anything. Maybe someday Camel Smoker and Thief of Baghdad but some more model work needs to be done to make sure the camo patterns look right (various parts here and there mirrored left/right would need to be separated). I spent a whole bunch of time researching what other B model skins we're missing and honestly, it's just more MODEX here and there of the exact same schemes. Most of the squadrons listed went through significant changes of scheme from the early-mid-late 90s. VF-32 basically looked the exact same from 1992 all the way through OEF/OIF. 101 was a RAG squadron. VF-11 basically just stuck with the same getup like VF-32 with some minor changes to the CAG/CO jets. VF-103 and 143 did have a few style changes but again a bunch of those are already represented. The dynamic MODEX issue is what we are waiting for from HB, as they already said it's going to be hard to implement a generic MODEX that works for most squadrons. I've also heard concern that trying to have multiple MODEX styles like the Hornet might be very resource intensive. Once that hits each squadron should be fine with a CAG/CO bird and a generic line jet skin for MOST people, except the rivet counter nerds like me that love having a full 10-12 jets with every MODEX to BuNO correct from a certain period of time, at the expense of 65% of my SSD (only partly joking). If you need a fix for that early look A model, look up YaeSakura's stuff on Userfiles. I've been feeding him research and we've been sharing photos and stencil references, down to correct BuNOs per MODEX. He's been churning out some awesome stuff lately and redoing stuff as his skills increase and we get more research done. I'm personally hoping to knock out some reserve A models, who knows if they might pass muster someday. It's not easy when you can't go out and scan a jet from 1998.

C'mon Mike we got like 42 squadrons that operated A models to paint! Screw flying, I just want to paint high-hour airframe reserve Tomcats and cover them in corrosion control paint and boot marks! Looking forwards to seeing if some of the model adjustments made it in for the B and A, that NACA duct on the right engine nacelle needs to go and that means reworking/re-exporting a bunch of skins to make them correct but it makes for a nice break from school.

Good one! Separate models for the AIM-54 variants both on the jet and once fired, with their own markings and possibility of paint. You can paint the missiles on the jet but it doesn't differentiate between A Mk47, A Mk60, and C Mk47, and once you fire them they go back to the built-in ED projectile model.

You spelled Tomcat wrong.

Do you guys know if there are any plans to introduce missile failure percentages? I know tracking of missiles that fire 100% of the time is already frustrating enough but there seem to be all kinds of anecdotes about rocket motors failing to fire, missiles not linking at all and just going straight off the rails, or in some cases bombs/missiles not dropping due to pylon issues. I'm guessing some of that would be on ED side to create an argument for missile reliability or failure option to tie into.

You are absolutely slaying it with all of the little "quality of life" mods Taz! If only the maps and more aspects of the sim weren't so locked off or encrypted. There's a lot of potential for what the mod community could do to tide us over until the promised major overhauls happen.

Actually, something I just thought of that I think has been asked before: Will the Forrestal class come with any other "period" ships as part of the strike group? While our Tomcats are generally mid/later 90s there were other ship classes that aren't represented in DCS that would have been seen in the battle groups of the late 80s through mid/late 90s. And I guess this would transition to a more off topic question but related to the oft asked about potential for an A-6 module: Is there a chance that IF the A-6E becomes a full module, Heatblur would consider modeling the USS John F Kennedy? The ship is historical both for the Tomcat module's A and B, and would still be an accurate home for the Intruder as well. With the JFK being essentially a separate ship from the rest of the Kitty Hawk class (different smokestack and island, 17 feet shorter length) I can see how it wouldn't fill as much utility as a model that can represent multiple ships of a class, but it was such a cool ship that served all the way through from Vietnam to OEF and OIF, her Tomcats shot down the two Libyan MiGs in 1989, she was the ride for VF-103's last Tomcat cruise. Her A-6s and A-7s performed bombing raids following the Beriut bombing, and both the Syria and Caucuses maps are portions of her main area of assignment for her career (the Med). And, her squadrons performed 2,900 sorties during the Gulf War.

Thanks Mike, I'll keep an eye out. Hoping we can get this renovation finished so my fun money can be a thing again. I gave the phone head tracking app a try the other week and for 10 bucks it definitely does the job, however I still feel like ultimately VR is the way to go for Flight and Racing sims. It'd be great if DCS can get some of the optimizations it needs and better multicore support but at least for now a good GPU upgrade I think would give me some better 2D framerates to enjoy the Cat. That, and a floor mounted Virpil stick with their 200mm curved extension, I think the longer sticks are an important part of being able to fly smoothly with more finesse that the Tomcat needs. And of course rudder pedals. I have a ton of school to focus on before 31 October so here's to hoping the "A" model will be the victory prize at the end to enjoy!

I'm running a 6700k/32gb/970GTX and was looking at upgrade options to get better usable performance. I know to see any CPU improvement I have to go new motherboard and start over since DCS is super CPU bound. Would trying to pick up a 2070 Super be worth it with an OCd 6700k? I pretty much exclusively fly the Tomcat and don't see that changing until the Corsair, Crusader, Corsair II, or A-6 happen.

Is that to be taken that you will not be modeling the removed TCS housing as correctly used on IRIAF and non TCS equipped Cats through the 80s? We're only getting the bullet housing?

*SOME* F-14Ds had a more modern cockpit/RIO position. Many Many did not until other Tomcats were decomissioned and their PTIDs moved over. It's been discussed often that the D was not one, single standard. Some of the final ones did have a culmination of all the upgrades. But as has been also often repeated there's no solid documentation on how the PTID worked, at least not enough for them to confidently model it. You'd have to map all of the MFD buttons, what menus they tied into, all the options on each page, what they actually changed, etc. I'm in the "something is better than nothing" boat and wouldn't mind at least the visual representation of the D until some of those systems could be built out, but it's not happening. If we got a D model there's a good chance they'd have to do the earlier 90s D models with the original fish bowl TID. Still, the big hurdle after that is documenting the new radar, the IRST, DFCS, and a bunch of other systems.

Took some searching, USNS Patuxent? I went looking for a 3d model of the Sacramento, only one I found was VERY expensive and ultra detail. Would still have been neat to see her come back from my USNF '97 days, especially considering she was the fastest of the fleet oilers.

It'd be neat to have but HGU-55 and HGU-33 cover most of the bases. Doesn't mean I don't still want it in stock form for the final flight of VF-201's last Tomcat to AMARG: VF-201 Last F-14 Flight 15 Nov 98-6 by NAS Fort Worth JRB, on Flickr

If time is to be spent working on the exterior model, I think most would rather have the different TCS variants available. No TCS, bullet fairing, TCS, and sneak in the D TCS for AI use or pretending it's a D.

Do you mean adding hardpoints, or additional weapons being allowed on each hardpoint? I believe adding more hardpoints requires the model to have connectors built in. If you look in ModelViewer2 and go to Tools > Connector Tools after loading a model, you will see where on the model these connectors are, their names, etc. These are what the engine then attaches pylons and weapons to as defined in the LUA files.

It was just something that dawned on me while researching some skins and watching Tomcat interviews and such. I was doing a "heritage" livery of ENS Brown and LtJG Hudner's markings from their Corsairs for VF-32 and the thought crossed my mind. If a pilot/RIO template could be released with skin separate in different layers I think that more than handles the situation for most of us.

I was chatting with Isenderen about it. There is a scripts/database/weapons entry for the Hawk missile in the missiles_data.lua as: Name = HAWK_RAKETA, --MIM-23K Hawk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-23_Hawk display_name = _('MIM-23K Hawk'), name = "HAWK_RAKETA", But, if you head over to the missiles_table.lua, nada. Head back up to db_weapons_data.lua and again, no entry for it. It seems to means no clsid to reference when adding it as a carried weapon, etc. So it would seem you'd need to make sure it's present in one or both of those files as well, perhaps referencing the info in the missiles_data.lua as I think that's where the warhead and other data is linked. Obviously something has to reference the shape for the missile itself as well. Digging a little wider if you go to scripts/database/scripts there's a missile.lua, and the M192 launcher in there has the MIM-23 listed as its ammunition: GT_t.LN_t.M192.PL[1].name_ammunition=_("MIM_23"); I may keep digging around to try and find the right references but I have a feeling the route would have to be actually replace an existing weapon's model and data, or, somehow try to add a totally new weapon. Not sure if there's any way to overwrite and tell DCS to load extra weapon table LUAs or anything from mod folders though in case it doesn't want you editing the actual core database files. Probably not possible but I sometimes have fun digging around until I find what I want.

@IronMike I know you guys are probably tired of some of these requests, but regarding the new pilot models: 1) Can the Pilot and Rio have separate textures? The helmets are currently split which is nice, but pilots and RIOs have different wings, and often actual pilots and RIOs wore different patches, say if one was a Top Gun grad. 2) Out of respect for such important Naval Aviators as ENS Jesse Brown and all who followed him, can we at least have the pilot templated in a way to represent all of the Pilots and RIOs who mounted up in Tomcats, if you catch my drift? As well as to help portray the Iranian crews more accurately?

I'll send those pics to you, heck maybe I can hop in that FB group? I'd love to find more helmet references for skinning, since there seems to be a lot of variations each squadron went through over the years and not all the time were they identical. For me I think just having the separate HGU-33 and HGU-55 will more than satisfy me, I hadn't even looked at the masks but I knew some guys have recolored/skinned them to represent the newer versions. It does seem like the broadest coverage would be -33 with MS22001 and -55 with MBU-14

Man I wrote this whole thing up and went off to go do more research, then it dawned on me: It's very possible that HB are working off some helmets either donated or from museum pics they were provided during the research phase, or maybe even one of the SME's helmets. Based on that I can see where it's possible they have HGU 33 or 55 with an MBU-5 for reference, even though the general consensus is that MS22001 and MBU 12 or 14 would have been the most common masks across the late 70s through 1990s. For the TLDR: I think the HGU-55 seems to be more common with the MBU-14/p or maybe the Navy version of the MBU-12/P, and the HGU-33 probably should stick with the MS22001, or if you really feel like changing it, also using an MBU-14/P ______ Interesting, seeing that mostly the HGU-33 and -55 were used with USN version of MBU-12, or MBU-14. It seems helmets and masks were somewhat all over the place for the entire period depicted in the Tomcat module, from the late 70s through the 90s. Lots of the old APH-6 helmets upgraded to HGU-33 style, various types of mask mounting solutions and masks themselves, were used into the 80s. I guess if they still worked and had the same features as the HGU-33, why replace it? There's photos around of VF-84 from the Final Countdown in 1979 with modified APH-6Es. Funnily enough one does have a MBU-5 and another has MS22001. Apparently they were still using them into the 80s. And even into the 80s-90s, there's helmets that look like HGU-55s but they're actually just 33s with the bungee visors and ears added. But, as you pointed out seeing more references to the MBU-12 and 14 family instead of MBU-5, and the MS22001 like you said. I don't know how authoritative this guy's site is, but he seems to have done quite a bit of work. I like to reference it mainly for helmet designs, but also when looking for options when finding various helmets online to buy/goof off with, or even restore. I have an old APH-6D I think that needs quite a bit of work. No idea what squadron it came from but hoping I can find out someday. http://www.salimbeti.com/aviation/helmets3.htm

On the topic of adding or changing the guidance of weapons: Is it possible to create a copy of the MIM-23 Hawk SAM, give it the guidance of the AIM-7, and make it air launchable? At the minimum considering it for AI usage to represent Hawk armed Iranian F-14s, but if the underlying guts of the missile are that of the AIM-7 could the Tomcat module be fooled into firing them? I've heard you can do all kinds of stuff to AI aircraft as they don't fully model the systems and guidance.