LanceCriminal86

I believe a British firm made some Frigates for Iran before the revolution, 3/4 of which are still around. Those could be useful on the PG map.

I see the CdG hiding back there!

Can't wait to see what other ships you decide to do. WW2, Korea, 80s-90s USN, some Iranian stuff to sink, any of that would be a welcome addition. Maybe someday, the JFK will doable up to near Supercarrier features.

Well hell, it looks like some of them into the 80s still didn't have TCS pods. Here's VF-11 from apparently 1981, and right after it on the guy's Flickr gallery were some VF-101 from 1982 with again no TCS. VF-11 F-14A Tomcat BuNo 159025, AC-106 by G. Verver, on Flickr

Here's the VX-4 bird in question with the same type of non-TCS setup as an Iranian Tomcat: VX-4 Grumman F-14A Tomcat 159828 by Wing attack Plan R, on Flickr Seeing as a number of the really early Tomcats had the same setup it could be a way for those wanting to do mid 70s Tomcat things, but as already said, probably not coming.

They've said in other posts that I don't believe they were planning on fully doing a separate Iran visual model, that it would probably end up with the bullet fairing. Hence my offering of bribery for grownup beverages and probably tylenol to make up for the headache involved in setting that up. The B and probably A need to have a minor tweak to make them accurate anyways, so I figured why not ask again. What I'm alluding to is that various parts can be tied to custom arguments, such as the Phoenix pylons or eventually the fuel tank pylons as an animation. Thus, you can assign different external model bits to the animation ranges allowing you to trade out parts by simply defining another value. The C-101 uses this to an extreme degree, but the Hornet and a few others use it to change the pilot helmet version between JHMCS, bungee visor, and no visor. In practice for the Tomcat, it could be used to do things like add/remove various antennas to help represent older and newer RWR, GPS, radios, the TCS as mentioned, fuel and phoenix pylons, bomb racks, some of the ECM gear that was carried with TARPS pods, helmet swapping between HGU-33 and HGU-55 (maybe even the -68 if their model guy has nothing better to do since they were also used), it could be used to add/remove the yaw string in front of the canopy, all kinds of stuff. Hell, maybe even a huffer could be added like the Community A-4, having the ladders extend when shut down and the canopy is open, stuff like that. BUT, with everything Heatblur is probably trying to prioritize both between fixing bugs, getting the new features out the door that have been held up by the DCS engine flux, and new stuff we're anticipating like the "A" and Forrestal, the A-6, the one time promised AI plane for the Viggen owners (Drakken?), so I figure a heavy rework of the model to add more use of custom animation arguments is unlikely. But if it were to happen, it would offer quite a bit of flexibility to the folks making skins like myself, and could at least help populate an AI F-14D for those doing GWOT era scenarios where Ds were flying alongside Hornets in the Gulf. An AI D model shouldn't have any real hitches adding JDAMs and some of the other weapons not supported by our B and A models from the late 90s.

What's the best way to bribe your modeler into doing the non-TCS model of the "A"? I think VX-4 even had one bird with the Iran style having only the light bump and no TCS housing. Have you guys considered using custom animation arguments tied to the TCS to allow switching of the TCS model? Then it could just be a line in the livery LUA to select which TCS to use, the full TCS, TCS with bullet fairing, the "nub", or, maybe even sneak the -D TCS in there to at least allow for an AI usable -D model.

If we're bored and don't want to wait and have photoshop, what needs to be done to the normals to fix them? Open and re-save with channels flipped or what?

We could use a lot of things. Actual focus between ED and 3rd parties on specific eras or conflicts, actual terrains to fly Korean War jets in, an engine with believable clouds and weather, and spotting, the list goes on. Korea era jets should be perfectly doable from a mod perspective, just a few problems: ED has withheld the code or capability to integrate said aircraft from using essential things like the radio, or properly being able to use Carriers. The A-4 mod still doesn't have radio and has to use a temporary flight model in order to launch off of a carrier.

Parts are absolutely difficult to source, our State Department has seen to that (to the point even Americans don't get to enjoy Tomcats anymore). The other thing here is the Iranian Tomcats are probably lighter than our current B model, possibly by a decent margin. Lighter plane should mean easier to hold the nose right? Last thought, are we trying to do Eagle stuff in Tomcats again?

The challenge with the Bs at this point is limited references for many skins to be truly "accurate". Trying to go through B model squadrons found a lot of gaps on photos of each BuNO/MODEX across VF-211, VF-24, and VF-74. I haven't even gotten to VF-11, VF-32, or VF-103. Heatblur likes to ensure their skins are as correct as possible, down to the stencils. Another thing is timeframe. For Heatblur, they're not really covering the GWOT period B model, which I believe included JDAM capability, so the skins Isoko has done technically don't fit the included B model. In that regard, theoretically neither do the VF-24 and VF-211 ones because they only had them for a couple of years around I think 89-92? There's also the test squadrons, like VX-4, VX-9, VX-30, the NAWC Weapons Division, and Weapons Test Squadron at Pt Mugu. Those cover a few Bs but those were not deployed/line birds. Certainly usable for fun on Vegas if you want to pretend it's Fallon. Really the big thing right now is size. Adding full MODEX options to cover a single squadron means anywhere from 8-12 or so skins, which take up space using the BC7 compression Heatblur is using. While dynamic MODEX would work for most folks, it would mean using blank BuNOs and MODEX that may not reflect how squadrons did their numbering. I get this is not a deal breaker for some, but it's one of the known holdups from HB using the dynamic MODEX right now. At this point, the folks wanting more default skins should hold until dynamic MODEX happens, that way you can have maybe 3 skins per squadron. A CAG bird, CO color bird, and line skin with dynamic MODEX setup. That's going to be the most efficient for multiplayer servers. Most squadrons doing RP would supply and support a custom skinpack of individual MODEX and pilots for their squadron so no real issue there, it sounds like this is more a concern for those who like to be on Hoggit or elsewhere and have more options. I mean the other option is, get a Adobe CC subscription and take a whack at it. There's a whole ton of us on Discord doing this skinning stuff, the Tomcat certainly has a learning curve but it can be a really fun hobby just painting jets.

I too have seen some references to Mil power catshots for As, and I'm wondering if the increasing weight of the A models maybe had to do with it? It may also have to do with the weight at launch and the loadout of the jet.

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3309482/ YaeSakura has been hammering lots of early squadrons and test squadrons lately.

I don't believe the pylon is there, no. The pod is, but no pylon.

Definitely can't wait for the Corsair, if only we had a Korea map!

Yes. And to go with it, F4U-4 and/or -5 Corsair. Maybe smuggle the F2H Banshee in because that's the actual aircraft that was used in the action Toko-Ri was based off of. Korea makes so much sense, less technical aircraft, dwindling SMEs, some aircraft airworthy in private hands, re-use of WW2 assets to include tanks, vehicles, and ships. It just makes SENSE. Already have two modules, and nowhere for them to realistically clash in the conflict that made them famous.

If you're back in the game, there's a skinning discord that's got a lot of folks in it. I know some of your work has come up in there before regarding the S-3, E-2, and some of the other AI aircraft you were working with in the past. I can PM you an invite link if you're interested. And for reference a few of us have been trying to track down specific C-2 Greyhounds to go with various skin packs, so yes y'alls templates are getting use and will be pretty important for representing whole air wings that were deployed during the 80s-2000s

Agreed, is there not a way to use ED's date system to simply restrict the loadouts by dates in the mission editor if desired? Many of us would still like the late As as used in the GWOT and want to do as much of that as we can since we are not getting the later JDAM capable Tomcats. It seems allowing for restricting the pod itself in the ME or servers allows us more flexibility for historical periods.

Why do you think the A or the A we are getting can't drop bombs? The B model we have is mid-late 90s vintage apparently, and the impression was the A will be similar vintage. They were absolutely dropping bombs and even LGBs at the time.

Would really love to see more Recon aircraft, like RF-4s and the RA-5C, maybe RF-8s too. RF-8s and RF-4s I think did serve into the 90s with the Marines and Navy, though the TARPS Tomcats took the Navy out of the RF-4/RF-8 usage. But having some around for missions as AI assets and on carrier decks would be great for those doing earlier Tomcat style missions. Oh, and of course the Skywhale! We need the A-3, KA-3, EA-3, whichever versions you can cram in or find if possible.

Was the glideslope itself supposed to be different for the Tomcat, or just the approach speeds and AOA?

You missed MY point. The issue with the NACA ducts was the canary in the mine. If THAT didn't make it into the patch for some reason, WHAT ELSE DIDN'T. Post patch the engine is still busted, more new Tomcat bugs, and there's now the question of if stuff Heatblur submitted didn't make it into the patch as we apparently get to wait another month for a patch now. Back to letting DCS collect dust on the drive.

No, your argument doesn't. The issue here is it appears the 3rd party, Heatblur, had provided items to be included in the release branch. The NACA ducts are the easiest thing for me to see because I spend a lot of time in model viewer and game working on skins and screenshots. Priority has nothing to do with it. The question here is whether the updates HB submitted for the current build made it into the patch or not.

The hold up is that the core engine is on fire, and they keep having to fix/patch their product to keep up with all the new fires. They've had various features "ready" that just keep breaking or now working in the builds ED would whip up. Case in point, new Phoenix guidance modeling that wouldn't work in multiplayer but was working fine for SP, and got pulled back out of a pending update what, late last year? 1st Quarter?

I'm starting to suspect some things that were supposed to be in the patch did not actually get put in the patch. The NACA ducts were called out as being fixed in this one and yet they are still glowy and weird with messed up shading. Wondering if we're seeing *another* round where what a 3rd party submitted for the build did not get included or wrong branch, etc.