LanceCriminal86

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.

As we were discussing it, I figured maybe somewhere in the laser scanning or building up photo based textures something got misaligned or stretched, resulting in that locking port being off, and the simple fix being just to move the port texture. And seeing that none of them have a right side NACA, I figure better to point it out now before the A model ships so base textures and templates wouldn't have to be redone, right?

I may end up getting murdered by @ensamvarg and the other art guys, but the NACA ducts are still white/glowy/weird, and it turns out the Tomcat shouldn't have any NACA duct on the right engine nacelle. I threw a bug thread up in case y'all want to review the pics, but basically go look for F-14 walkarounds and pay close attention to the area where the main gear locks into the fuselage, and the area immediately behind it, then look at the model and textures in game. The port for the locking bar things doesn't align with the little panel "cutout" on the textures, and there's no NACA on any photos I can see of the right engine. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=4421787#post4421787

I feel like the art guys might shank me at this point, but a few more things a fellow skinner and myself found while discussing the F-14B First, it appears the NACA duct issue persists as of this patch despite the patch notes: Secondly and mainly, it appears the existing model is incorrect for both the B model and forthcoming A model as well. After looking at the textures on the EXT 3 and 4, we noticed the black headstone shaped port where the landing gear locks into the fuselage when deployed, but noticed it seemed the black port was not aligned with the nacelle texture where that port should be. So, I booted it up in the model viewer and was surprised to see that the port does align with the landing gear locking bar, but does not seem to line up with the textures. I don't know if this was an issue of the model not aligning to textures first, or the textures made from photos not matching the model, but here's my screenshots and reference pics of some 14Bs, and a 14A to see if corrections to that panel need to be made. And before I get into the screenshots, the 3rd thing is that there appears to be no NACA duct on the right engine nacelle on the F-14A, B, or D models. While my current sample size is small, I looked at photos taken of a VF-74 B model, VF-11 B model, VF-2 D model, and an A model in a museum and none of them show a NACA duct on the right behind the landing gear port. All of them however did show the left engine having one, almost directly behind the landing gear locking port thing. I also did notice the fire panel location looked to be different on the A model versus the B and D, for reference for the upcoming A model release: Onto the screenshots and photos, I'll provide the links to where they were posted as they are naturally the property of their photographers respectively: This is the EXT_3 texture, so the right engine nacelle: We first noticed how that black shape seems to have an exactly shaped area below it, so I assumed it was an accidental bump in the base texture folder. However, the model viewer showed that was not the case: There's the gear fitting into that black shape. So, naturally I went looking for real F-14B gear area pics, and here's what I found. These are first a B model from VF-74, and then some from a VF-11 B model (BuNO 162911) at what looks like an airshow, and also a VF-101 B model: And just for cross reference, here's an A model in a museum, BuNO 161134: And additional cross reference, a F-14D from VF-2: Notice that with all of those being right landing gear, I didn't see any NACA ducts on the panel behind the gear locking doohickey. Now, here are some pics of the left gear side, same general order of reference pics: VF-74 VF-11 F-14A from museum: VF-2 F-14D Left side on all models clearly shows the NACA duct, B/D sharing the same fire panel spot while the A's is different. Basically, the right engine nacelle's NACA duct should go away, and the textures may need to be re-adjusted so the landing gear locking port thing aligns correctly with the panels on the engine. Please don't stab me. References: Squadron Walk Around F-14 Tomcat, by Lou Drendel (VF-2 F-14D photos) Lock On No 18 Grumman F-14A/B Tomcat, by Willy Peeters (VF-74 B model) http://www.primeportal.net/hangar/bill_spidle2/f-14b_162911/ https://www.cybermodeler.com/aircraft/f-14/f-14b_walk2.shtml http://www.primeportal.net/hangar/bill_spidle2/f-14b_163218/ http://www.primeportal.net/hangar/howard_mason/f-14a_161134/index.php?Page=3

Honestly, even if the VSN mods end up broken I'd still very much appreciate them if they can stay as AI aircraft. I have used them quite a bit as such and would be a shame if they completely fall out of use.

I hadn't heard the F-18 HGU-68 had issues, in fact I thought they recently updated it or redid it? I was just mentioning it because the HGU-55 differs from the 68 in a number of ways and it would have been cool to have 3 options rather that one. But realistically, most of the squadrons from what I understand that would have had the 68s may have been after the time period of the A models we are supposed to be receiving and of the B model we have now, with the exception of VF-201. The Hunters transitioned to F/-18As at the beginning of 1999 officially, so their last flight pic I showed above it seems they already had their HGU-68s on hand seeing as some had already begun the transition and had been to the F/A-18 RAG and they had some Hornets on deck for the official last flight and changeover ceremony. But for the remainder of line squadrons before that and after it looks like they either completely stood down prior to the ~1997 date of our Tomcats (VF-111, 114, 21, 33, etc.) or they didn't transition to Super Hornets until the GWOT in the early 2000s and thus after the timeframe of our A and B models. Basically I'd just like to have the -68 TACAIR so I can do those last flight VF-201 skins from 1998, specifically The JimBob Express.

Would be neat if they could "borrow" the Hornet pilot head/helmet without the JHMCS to give us a 3rd option.

I was debating whether these were 55 or 68s, because there were tacair 55s with the same visor. But, being this was their final Tomcat flight as they took the bird out to AMARC as they transitioned to Hornets, it could be 68s. VF-201 in 1998 VF-201 Last F-14 Flight 15 Nov 98-6 by NAS Fort Worth JRB, on Flickr

I remember when all those mods broke, why weren't they updated after that? Were the source models gone or the author just gave up?

I'll have to dig everything back up. I do remember trying to write down as many character names as possible at one point to fill out the squadron some. One place I kept coming back to was using Artemis or a similar goddess of the hunt and a Greek bow. I really wanted to do the 6 arrow symbology because the whole 6 targets, 6 Phoenixes thing but it's just not symmetrical as 5 arrows. It's also about damn time we had Afghanistan and Iraq maps, but we're also not getting GWOT era Tomcats so I guess that's somewhat moot. I really wanted to find a way to do some of the missions from the books, even the more boring ones to make a very real feeling campaign. Like the night mission where you've been patrolling for hours, almost out of fuel, the tanker breaks, and you try to make for UAE.

Oh shoot, I never did do those. I had sketched out a few ideas for the tails and such but never followed through with it. I had been thinking of something akin to a drawn bow with 6 arrows (Phoenix/Tomcat symbology) but never quite got exactly what I wanted.

Sometime in the last few patches, I noticed a change in the NACA ducts along the sides of the engine nacelles. It's almost as though there's an issue with the normals or a material. In some lighting these ducts "glow", even though the light is on the opposite side of the aircraft. Sometimes they almost seem see-through or hyper reflective. It's the same on the stock skins and on custom skins. I mentioned this in the skinner's thread but hadn't heard anything and wanted to make sure it was here in the log. In the model viewer, here's the "Albedo" render mode, note issue doesn't seem to appear Normals mode shows it (but doesn't seem to be present in the actual Normal map?) Roughness Metallic "Diffuse Light" mode shows it: There was nothing in the AO map or any of the other render options so I didn't capture them. Trying to add AO shadows in that spot did not fix or abate the issue at all. Still magical glowiness.

I don't think the RIO suit is a separately identified texture, like the Pilot and RIO helmets. Turn back a few pages and look for ensamvarg's replies on that question. They may look at enabling the RIO body to have a separate LUA callout.

If I remember I had the same problems with the modded French carriers, or at least on one of them. One I think they didn't have arresting wires at the time, the other like mentioned Jester bailed as I trapped. If a Carrier is a Carrier and a Runway is a Runway, why does Jester not recognize them as the same? I just seems to me he should only be told it's a carrier or runway, or neither. I mean, since you guys aren't doing the JFK what if someone mods one in? If Jester isn't Carrier agnostic then basically you're saying anything but SC, existing poopy Stennis/Vinson, and Forrestal will cause Jester to punch out?