LanceCriminal86

No, the new VR body is in the Mods/aircraft/f14 folders. You can change the textures in there and probably tie them to a livery using the model viewer to generate the LUA lines, but it's only visible in the cockpit. The external body is still the old one.

If you check the thread above it actually isn't, it's a stick from an MI-8? apparently, which itself looks like someone saw a B-8 and then went home to make their own. I've got a Virpil F-14 and love their base/extension, and was originally planning the Warbrd stick myself, but after seeing the thread about a printed one I'm strongly considering that instead.

It's the default texture/skin, of all the ones GA chose for the video versus, I don't know, the pair of beautiful VF-31 jets that were added recently, I have no idea.

D had a Kaiser hud, Sparrowhawk was the B(U) HUD that came very late before the last cruises.

Glowing Amraam's choice of F-14 skins was disappointing to say the least, especially considering the available options.

As someone with a Virpil base and the 200mm extension I am very much interested in this. I've found myself tempted to get a decent resin printer anyways, and I think it might be neat to print it in resin. Do you know if anyone has printed sim grips in resin in the past? I understand for certain applications the printed plastic can be stronger or more durable but would there be specific known downsides in terms of strength? I had also been considering trying to print some F-14 style grips to frankenstein on my X-56 throttle. Another instance where there are nice grips for the F-14, but so far no throttles of consistent, good quality. I'd love to see some more sticks like this, your video was very easy to follow and there are a bunch of modules coming up where printed sticks that work with a Warthog or Virpil base would be appreciated. Specifically I haven't found any WW2 style grips for Virpil, and we have a certain F4U Corsair coming up in the possible near future. And while they are all potentially a good ways off, it would be neat to have ones for the A-7E, Intruder, and F-8 as well. Wasn't the A-6's grip also B-8 style?

1) This is a discussion on liveries for the F-4E 2) Those are bold words for someone who hasn't seen the folks that contribute to HB's testing crew in full swing 3) This is a discussion about F-4E liveries

First thing I look for is APS-107 antenna on the tail, and serial number. If I see 71- or higher I know it's a TISEO/later jet and I leave it alone for now because I'm trying to focus on the earlier jets. A portion of the early Es and then the ones made after '68 lack the APS-107 antenna but for me it's a quick indicator, and as said there are some other tail and antenna differences that the later TISEO/DMAS equipped jets had.

No, they aren't doing any of that. The F-4F wasn't the only jet referenced, they also came over and referenced US Es. German skins only mean exactly that, E's with German/F-4F skins to represent them in DCS, but they are not being modeled full fidelity.

They had around 10 F-4Es that stayed in the US for training German crews, I believe they were at George AFB but I think the Luftwaffe also had some training happening at Holloman.

The later TISEO jet could maybe be stretched, but I have a feeling that some systems are still going to be off because again, we're talking later jets/upgrades that were done after Vietnam.

The actual German F-4Es that stayed in the US for training F-4F crews will definitely be in and they are historic. But the F-4F skins and most other foreign operator/export skins would be considered semi-historical because the plane underneath isn't 100% that export variant. But the skins will be as faithful as possible. Unless everyone suddenly doesn't want any export skins at all provided...

There will be some export country skins but not dedicated export variants as far as systems/weapons.

No, just skins for the export countries. Some of them had Es straight the same USAF specs, but others stayed with hard wings, different electronics, or later frankenjets with new radars. The latter will not be represented outside of as nice of skins as we can get made. I think Egypt, some Greek jets, and some Israeli jets were received basically as-is from the US and should match what we are getting, but don't expect dedicated Fs, E/EJs, or any of the other exported Es in terms of systems/functions.

Heh, you've seen screenshots from the video, I'm talking the full monty renders and better closeups. Nevermind when we really get rolling with the paint jobs.

Not for an F-4 from years after Vietnam

There will probably be a more detailed dev update and some renders or screenies in the future. You have no idea how good the external model looks.

Only one F-14B ever went to NFWS and was only there for 6 months, 162911, from 1992-1993. Other than that, VF-74 were the only aggressor F-14Bs, and they stood down in 1994 which is about the long end of when the HGU-33 were still in use albeit rarely. No idea what you consider "late" F-14D use but I'm going to need some proof/photos of your claims because all photos and references from PR shop folks are that it was 55s and converted 33s, then 68s past that point by 92-93.

Earlier block jet is not going to have the APS-107, should be the APR-25/26 or whichever replaced the APS-107 in the mid-70s. The APS antenna may be modeled visually but that RWR wouldn't be. Air Force actually stopped installing them somewhere mid 68- serials, so first batch Es had no APS antenna, then most 67- and half of 68- production had it, then it disappeared. It looks like they left the antennas but removed the equipment as they are still around in photos from the 90s. Not sure what we will get visually but if the APS-107 antenna is visually modeled, I wouldn't expect that to be implemented. I do believe it's been solidly stated the APR-25/26 or But as I said, be expecting it to represent the 66- to ~ later 69-serials that were updated with the slats in the mid-70s, and had the later gun shroud added, plus some of the capabilities added to those jets, with the APR-25/26 RWR. They may represent more systems/features wise that the jets had moving through the 80s and their sunset in early 90s, as those blocks were still serving with the Guard/Reserves through 91 or so. Separate from them, the later block jet will have the TISEO, factory slats, and all the other bells and whistles like DMAS that the later blocks received again through their retirement. Those should be anything 71- serials and after. Not sure about ARN-101 though. But those could represent up to/including the handful of F-4Es that served in the Gulf War, as they were from the 71- to 73- ranges. The later block might end up with the APR-37, as I think the later blocks also received that RWR upgrade.

No, first is the non-TISEO, airframes up to around the 69- and maybe some 70- serials, which did not get TISEO. Second release will be a TISEO/factory slat/DMAS etc. I have not found any aircraft from the 66- to 69- serials with a TISEO, the jets starting with 71- as hurried out to SEA under Rivet Haste were the first factory jets with slats and TISEO etc. Older jets did get the slat retrofits but not TISEO from any evidence I have seen so far, photos or otherwise.

Just to apply more context to all of this, I've been spending hundreds of hours digging through to find the right helmet designs, flight suits, gear, patches, etc. for as many cruises as possible to not only be able to update all of the default skins on the A and B, but any proposed/ideal skins for the future on cruises that match DCS terrains, Supercarrier boats, all that. Are there exceptions to rules? YES! But they are usually pretty isolated or specific, as opposed to broad sweeping loopholes. Here's my thoughts too re: switching via options in the settings pages, as far as multiplayer. If I'm up front and I have HGU-33s selected, and someone joins in as RIO with HGU-55 selected, how is that going to work out? Are we expecting that to be added to unique values that follow the player around? Is it just going to impact what the player sees like client side skins? Another thought I had re: 55 vs 33 in an option switch, is if skins aren't being produced with both variants of helmet, what happens then? If the helmet goes to a default skin in the base folders that's going to look odd as well. Again, food for thought. I know Cobra and IM's desires are always to provide choice and preferences when possible, that's fair and a very noble goal as seen by the efforts to make the new pilot models more "modular" with patches and such. That said I'm the nerd on the other shoulder who'd like to see things be consistent across the right "eras" the Tomcat module is going to represent. And on the flight suits side, sometimes they'd wear different suits during the cruises. So for ops leading out to the PG they may still use traditional sage green CWU-27 suits, but when they start operations flying over Iraq or PG waters they would wear tan suits, remove patches, and throw on camo covers for their helmets. Other squadrons like VF-213 would sometimes wear their blue CWU-73 suits instead of the sage 27s when not flying Southern/Northern watch missions or combat hops in OEF/OIF. Plus you have VF-114 further back with their orange CWU-28 or orange summer suits from the 60s-70s. In whatever case I definitely haven't spent any money on references trying to get the colors and materials and everything correct. And I definitely don't have folders and folders of reference pics of helmets and gear and jets from specific cruises, including instances of where both HGU-33s and HGU-55s or converted 33s were being used mixed between crew members, which this crew from VF-74 is definitely not doing in 1992.

The IRIAF spinoff is not cancelled, why are you repeating this?

No, those things happened based on DATES, not the model of jet. The 55 was introduced on the Navy side around '87/'88, and due to shortages many 33s were converted to the bungee visor using new edgerolls installed by the PRs, or even without that step and just adding visor bumpers or other leather material to help the visor stay put. From that point onwards, there was a transitional phase where some folks continued to use their HGU-33s as they were still considered serviceable and approved for use by NAVAIR and the newer 55s were still trickling in as the Air Force had been getting the lion's share of the allotments. During ODS there was a mix of them, 55s, converted 33s, and standard 33s all being used. But within a year or two after for most fleet squadrons the fixed-visor 33 had faded out and either full on 55s or converted 33s were in use. The exceptions there were reserve squadrons but they still had to comply with NAVAIR. But past a certain point the 33s would not be seen, somewhere around '94 from what I have seen so far. Aggressor squadrons were just as quick to work on switching over because the bungee visor setup was lighter, meaning less weight and stress on the head during ACM. So, no. Most liveries are being done based on dates, cruises, specific jets or at least airwings from a particular time. And based on those dates, certain helmets and flight suits are quite specifically "right", and some would be directly "wrong". An HGU-55 with the Fast Eagle 102 and 107 skins from 1981 are going to look just as retarded as Jolly Rogers F-14Bs from 2003 with HGU-33s.

I'll take the original intent to tie them to the liveries instead. Right helmets and suits tied to the right timeframes. They might add a switch to change the anim arguments in the sim but it would be silly to have HGU-55s on the hi-vis 70s and early 80s jets.

Client only, unless others have that skin installed, or the server does. It's currently a bit of a mess how they are handled. There's actually a site that covers it: https://www.angelfire.com/extreme/raafphantoms/index.htm