LanceCriminal86

The only guys that actually get all itchy about it anymore are boots. *cough*.

Oh my. I thought I'd heard there was an A-7E around but it seemed there was a reason it wasn't mentioned openly here. But would definitely love to see it since they were in use right up to the Gulf War alongside the F-14B and F/A-18.

Any idea of other models you might be planning if you can find them? There's a few more birds that don't appear to be on anyone's development radar that would help fill out the carrier environment back to the 80s: A-7E Corsair II F-4N or F-4S Phantom SH-3 Sea King I think the C-1 Provider maybe was still around in the 80s? With the Forrestal family and the A-6 and KA-6 coming down the pipe the 80s and onwards USN would be pretty well represented if we could get some more of the above.

Did you build that whole setup? Got a thread on how you went about it? Been strongly thinking about building a pit that I can still do all my regular games in, something like yours with an adjustable mouse tray and allowing the keyboard to flip out would be pretty neato. Also was thinking of using a cheap aluminum drag racing seat to get closer to that ejection seat feel.

With HB working on the Forrestal family, I'm now kind of sad nobody is doing Big John. Kennedy had -14s from 1974 with the Swordsmen and Tophatters for a really long time, hell the Swordsmen flew from her when they slapped those Libyan Mig-23s down. She was still around to be VF-103's last Tomcat cruise in 2004, on her final cruise. My old man also got his senior cruise on her in mid '72, even got a backseat ride with the Tophatters in an F-4B.

If I understand the TARPS correctly, something more "realistic" maybe after the TARPS bird lands and completes its sortie, the units "seen" in the visible area of the TARPS pod while active could be marked on the F10 map. You wouldn't want anything but static objects to be "live" icons because fog of war. You could probably simulate that right now with just scripts having an aircraft flyover a certain narrow zone over a target, and then just leave icons that classify the ground targets only after the recon bird has landed and then a timer. Obviously the cooler and more immersive way is tie actual screenshots in and have the data also populate to the F10 map or briefing screen, or even kneeboard.

That's why I think we should have both functionalities, something that integrates into a dynamic campaign and scripted campaigns or even standalone missions, but also a tool that can take that output so it can be used in dynamic missions as well, online OR offline.

I was adding that for servers that are running dynamic missions and/or had someone in a ZEUS type role, so you could have someone run a TARPS mission against an emplacement, airbase, objective, etc. and then assign a strike mission to players. Those players could then use or at least view the TARPS imagery for immersion and planning on what they need to bring along. For non-dynamic mission servers or campaigns, as long as the images are put somewhere the engine can grab and pull them from that would be nice. I figure this is the time to build the ideal case wishlist, and then we'll see how it pans out and what can even be done in the 2.x engine.

IronMike, is it possible even just to have a function where if the "target" unit or coordinate is in the viewfinder of the TARPS cameras you can have a mission objective flag? I guess the question is, did the TARPS pod provide live feed to the cockpit at all like a LANTIRN, or was it just an on/off trigger the RIO would engage when over the target? If it's the latter (or I guess even the former) then perhaps the model to propose to ED is that TARPS is given its own viewpoint or at least the same framework as a LANTIRN, but tie a screenshot function into it, which it then drops into a folder. Then ED would need to find a way to have the DCS client be able to access and display those images in-game under the mission briefing window. I figure you guys already have concepts as to how you'd like it to work and naturally ED is going to have to make moves to do it, I'm just spitballing. Maybe stage 1 is something that can just work for single player missions or campaigns to take screenshots from the TARPS pod's "view", and later as ED continues to work, a multiplayer function that can integrate with a live server is implemented. The Singleplayer one can still be used in MP for situations where a virtual squadron makes a new mission based off the success of each mission they do in a campaign, it just wouldn't work for live MP with dynamic missions until some additional integration is done.

[Released] V1.0 VF-32 : ENS Jesse Brown, F4U-4 of USS Leyte, October 1950 in action at Chosin https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3307191/

VF-32 skin is released and I've revamped the 1st post.

FYI, for any waiting for these I had a complete HD failure and the skins and templates in any form that I'd feel happy releasing are gone for now. I will re-do them with what I learned in the process, however I think I'd rather do Century of Naval Aviation ones for squadrons that flew F-14B. I will eventually do the squadrons that had D models, and A-equipped squadrons who if around by the Century of Naval Aviation might have upgraded to B/D in an alternate universe. Lastly, I do want to re-do the full set of "throwback" ones in case you'd like a whole squadron's worth of plane numbers to use in missions. So far here's what I am thinking: F-14B Operators: VF-11: Aircraft 100 or 101, flew F2H Banshees in Korea in 1952-1953, with tail code "T". Lineage goes back to 1927 and through WW2 with various designations to include VF-4 & VF-41 to pull from as well in action during Operation Torch, and later in the Pacific in the Philippines and beyond: VF-24 Renegades flew F8s in Vietnam and were one of the first "Ace" Squadrons of the war with 5 MiG kills in the squadron during their 1967 tour. VF-32: USS Leyte 1950, Aircraft 203. Ens Jesse Brown flew Corsairs off the Leyte with Fighting 32 as the first Black US Naval Aviator, and was killed in action after crash-landing his Corsair due to engine failure. His wingman, LTJG Hudner in 205 crash-landed his aircraft alongside Brown's aircraft to try and extract him for rescue after he was not seen leaving the aircraft. Sadly ENS Brown would perish in his aircaft due to wounds incurred in the landing and was pinned in the cockpit. LTJG Hudner would be awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor for his selfless actions. VF-74: Flew Corsairs in 1952 and later transitioned to F4D Skyrays. Korea scheme and maybe a later F4D style one. VF-101: Throwback to VF-10, the original Grim Reapers, with either a Wildcat or Hellcat style scheme. Could do one of CDR James Flatley, whose family lineage would include no less than 3 other Grim Reaper pilots. VF-102 flew F2H Banshees on their establishment. I may do an F2H scheme or their later Phantom style scheme somehow grafted onto a Tomcat: VF-103 Sluggers: Established flying FG-1 Corsairs, later F9F Cougars and eventually Crusaders. VF-142: Originally VF-193 in Korea, flew Corsairs and later transitioned to F2H Banshees, then F3 Demons before eventually being redesignated VF-142 after transitioning to F-4Bs in 1963. Korea skin is simpler, F3 Demon type scheme is dificult as fuselage flash doesn't transfer itself well to the F-14's shape. Vietnam scheme is similar to their high-vis F-14A scheme which has already been done (but would have also been a realistic option for a CoNA scheme) but an F-4J style might be neat to see. VF-143 - Flew Corsairs as VF-871, a reserve squadron. Later designated VF-123 with Panthers and returned to Korea. VF-53 with F-3 Demons, and finally as VF-143 in '62 when they went to Phantoms. As with VF-142 their F-4 scheme doesn't transfer well to the Tomcat and wouldn't look too dissimilar to their later Tomcat schemes.

So, digging around on seaforces.org I found the same pic in B&W, and on the site it says courtesy of the National Naval Aviation Museum. Specific notes were VF-32 off the Kennedy in 1981. My bet is if you contact the NNAM in Pensacola, they can help you with a print request or digital copy if they have it in color that can be blown up to poster size. http://www.seaforces.org/usnair/VF/Fighter-Squadron-32.htm

I believe they deferred to next week as it's going to be a big update on the Cat. I know I saw a reply from Cobra on Reddit with this week's first OB patch. Then Razbam crammed a bunch in on a second OB patch the next day, and IIRC Friday ED was gunning for a stable release maybe?

A Heatblur Navy/USMC F-4 family would be mind-bogglingly cool. I think there was enough similarity between the variants that it could be done, like the F-14 A and B. F-4B, choose a common Vietnam production block to implement, something that would go perfectly if HB went ahead and threw an A-6A in. From the F-4B you can then do the J model, with some minor performance improvements and newer radar, the wing bulges for the larger wheels, stabilator slat (not leading edge wing slats like F-4E), and delete the IRST under the nose, and model the aileron "droop" with gear/flaps down. The external engine model would have the longer afterburner section. The J also added an improved bombing system and could use the Bullpup ASM. Also 1-way datalink for automatic carrier landing system. From the B model, you can then model the improved N model, with "smokeless" J-79s and some of the F-4J's airframe upgrades (stabilator slats, etc.) Finally from the J model you can implement the F-4S, which served well into the 80s and even 90s right alongside the Tomcat. You'd just take the F-4J model and give it the "smokeless" J79s and leading-edge slats. Obviously each one will still have various external visual cues like antennas and their varied locations, but choosing either the F-4B or F-4J to model gives you a Vietnam era aircraft so that era can finally get the love it deserves, AND you would have the basis for taking that work as well as some of the work previously done to the F-14 in order to also offer a modernized version to complement the F-14 through the 80s or even into 90s scenario if the J/S pair were chosen. Let ED come back to the F-4E, I'd rather have a Heatblur carrier Phantom instead.

Well in that case, I'm sure it's only a matter of time before Thrustmaster and Logitech have some kind of offering again. I'm sure there'd be R&D time needed, cost analysis, etc. for them to decide if it's worth it and what tiers to offer it at. Probably a longer effort for smaller shops.

In my mind I was thinking you'd need something like how a cassette tape deck works, only allowing you to have one button pressed at a time (yes I know they also allow more than one but you get the idea). The rotation you just do like those A6 ones you have there, cylindrical button body, a slot that wraps around like a "screw" that would probably interface with a pin or some kind of guide, and then copy how cassette tape players push other buttons up when you press another. Something like that should be printable right? Cassette players should be cheap enough to find at goodwill or other old electronics stores.

My understanding, licensing cost. Basically one company is squatting on the patents/copyrights that include FFB under a "haptic feedback" patent/copyright, and they mercilessly pursue anyone that doesn't pay to play. And if you're doing smaller, niche market sticks and bases like VKB/Virpil the cost to volume they sell would probably put a huge hole in their sales. So in cases like Fanatecs (racing wheels) or the above mentioned super spendy FFB stick bases, they just bank on low volume high pricing. And Fanatecs seems to have a pretty hefty following so I'd bet they move more than enough volume to cover it. A larger company like Thrustmaster or Logitech *should* be able to license it and have a lower impact on their bottom line, but for whatever reason it seems they've decided not to pursue it. Other comparison is Apple, Samsung, Sony, Microsoft including haptic feedback to include rumble and vibrations in their smartphones and console controllers. That's who the patent squatters are targeting because they can easily absorb the cost compared to how much they will make per device.

I mean, with time and effort a full squadron skin pack with each MODEX could be done. You'd just need to at least cross check the BuNOs to the MODEX when you can, probably via anft.net, and you could at least have planes with line skins and differing MODEX. Then if size is a concern you could bump the DDS down to DXT5 or use other compressions to at least have passable line birds. Downside, obviously, having to sscccrrrooollllll through every time in order to set up your missions. But if your're doing a lot of LUA mission writing I suppose that can be eased by standardizing your skins file format and some copy/pasta action. As an example, the 8 "Korea" VF-31 Tomcat skins I made take up about 2 Gigs, high compression zipped, when I used the BC7 compression in DDS tool. Super high quality but very fat. But I plan to do a DXT5 pack that's a lot smaller, so something like a more compressed pack to flesh out the rest of a squadron/wing and not have clones should be helpful no? The Heatblur templates should make it easy enough. It's just a time/effort/accuracy question, and everyone has different desires as to what they think they want. Accurate MODEX and BuNO but not having the right pilot names, or any pilot names, might be a no-go for some of you guys. Spending time to custom wear each plane so the paint has different variances. All that jazz adds up in terms of time spent but if it's really something desired, it should be doable.

Not going to lie, if I get my VF-31 1950 package ever finished up I'm just going to tell everyone to steal your pilot textures. Yours turned out way better than anything I've come up with to try and replicate the old yellow vests and 50s gear.

From what I'm getting it's proprietary to their base, and they only at one point offered an adapter to add a Warthog stick to their base, but not the other way around. They also don't offer the base separately, so you have to get it in one go and per their FAQ.

Is the stick only compatible with VKB bases? I know the Virpil works with Warthog base but two of the axes would only work as buttons with that base.

This may be more outside the scope here, but some way to capture and end-of-mission state and import that into a following campaign mission. Less asking for dynamic campaign, but allowing for continuity between a set of missions. Example: Let's say in Mission 5 of a user-made campaign, I decide to hit a SAM site with unexpended ordnance. I'd like the mission to be able to read an end-stat file where if the unit name or "pilot" matches one that was destroyed or damaged in the previous mission, that unit is now damaged/out of comission in the next one. This probably is more on the dynamic campaign roadmap but it would still be useful for scripted campaigns where you can spend a whole bunch of time building up the whole theatre of units, and allowing attrition to happen.

- Allow setting of available fuel for a tanker aircraft to give - Allow scripted or random failures of tanker aircraft fuel delivery - Random or scripted failures for AI aircraft - Display visual model of loadout in loadout/livery window - Allow for groups/formations of large bombers (ie B-52, B-1, TU-22 etc.) - Allow for larger formation sizes - Allow assigning of BORT/Aircraft tail # for static aircraft - Easier changing or adding of factions/countries and modifying coalitions inside mission

Usually HB is pretty on top of a reported CTD like this, my guess is ED really changed something and it has borked more than just a quick code tweak can fix. I wonder if there's some autopilot logic added or modified by the Viper that shifted or entirely replaced a value or function the auto throttles relied on?