LanceCriminal86

There's also this option, using a sister squadron jet for an airshow or demo, potentially if your jet was down. Yeovilton 1976 and Greenham Common, VF-142 jet but clearly VF-143 pilots Versus VF-142 crew flying the same jet at Greenham Other combinations include: - One crew wearing previous cruise helmet and other with newer decoration - Once crew with HGU-33 and the other with HGU-55/converted 33-to-55 - Carrier Air Wing staff (ie Leo the RIO in 1989 Sidra incident) - Captain of the carrier with his old squadron helmet or one decorated/setup for them - Fighter Wing staff/Commodore (think Snort in the 90s) - FAM or incentive hops (if their helmet/gear is compatible with comms and O2 mask config) - Fleet helmets when assigned to a T&E or Reserve squadron

If you review Tomcast episodes and articles/books written by folks like "Bio" Baranek, or stories in the Tomcat Association Facebook page, pilots/RIOs did do hops with their sister squadrons. While it might not have been a daily occurrence it was not uncommon. And in some cases the CAG would be on flights, or even the ship's CO If you're seeing things in skins that have been added by the "Rivet Counting Squad", I can assure you that there are either photos to back up the details or solid deductions from aircrew/maintainer interviews, messages, or other correspondence. In some cases they may be personal or private photos that can't be shared but anything being done on the skins that have been or will be added are at a "no stone left unturned" level. In some cases photos are missing of all sides of the jet or names are difficult to read, so where possible cruise books are used to fill the gaps or identify the names, plus other searches to help identify missing callsigns or nicknames. As the F-14A's exterior and pilots are updated skins will of course be updated in turn to ensure they are as accurate as possible, and likely migrated to the appropriate F-14 variant's livery folder. While the latter may break some mission skin setups, it would need to be done so the older Hi-Vis and 80s Tomcat skins are on the right airframes with the right features. *And should alternative/official livery management tools be created or offered, they will absolutely be explored to help reduce the drive load for folks that would like to do so. Revisions to the base textures of the F-14A and F-14B should also help reduce some of the livery sizes*

They're slated to be replaced by HGU-55s anyways once the new pilot bodies are added. And it may have been to represent where the CAG or someone did a hop in the jet, I vaguely recall there was a photo even showing different squadron helmets.

If anything the Marines are just as likely to have had them, based on the chatter and groups I've been through. On the flight gear side I've seen at least one Marine pilot mention he still had his somewhere in the attic years back, and the Phantom group chatter included Marine pilots and maintainers that had discussed the above mentioned issues of reliability. The photos again definitely show the boxes in a lot of jets, but how long the system was maintained is the question. There are periods where the Marines were not completely bereft of funding, but often yes, highly expensive/maintenance heavy systems were not retained. I will try to find the few active use VTAS photos out there from Phantoms but it's a pretty small list/number from last time I asked some of the big hitters in the gear collector circle. It's extremely likely the helmets or at least the VTAS hardware were more tightly controlled and in most cases found they way back to Honeywell, as when all the helmets and stuff were getting DRMOd out of Pt Mugu, my helmet included, VTAS hardware was not among the various things showing up at auction. Or if it did, someone's sitting on it or it got scrapped. Here's the mentioned VF-51 helmet, my helmet shows the same hole locations filled in/taped over. Without the VTAS bits on there, it just looks like a regular APH or HGU family helmet as they shared the base shell anyways: Ah, found some of the pics I was looking for, VMFA-323 apparently 79-80 including on cruise with Coral Sea and VMFA-531 from the same: No idea on the squadron 100%, maybe 154? A visor housing (by itself) Another Marine helmet, VMFA-314: VF-111 Group photo with a few VTAS II in the mix, makes sense with VF-51 also being a known Navy squadron that used them: Going through the comments as I was digging up helmets it sounded like Marines/Navy were receiving the VTAS II around 1975, so it looks like '75-'79 is about the range to look at F-4J and N cruises. Actually sounds like VTAS was not retained in the F-4S, that everything but the boxes were removed. Lots of trails to try and follow, but consistently seeing it as a pain to maintain.

I know VF-51 were one of the squadrons that used them, I've seen a VTAS converted back to APH/HGU style like mine from them. I've been again seeing the VTAS boxes in canopies with VF-31 and 103 on Sara, but no helmets. One of the docs said 500 sets of VTAS were acquired between Navy and Marines, starting to wonder if maybe more West Coast squadrons had them. People have asked the Reserve squadrons, and at least 201 and 202 pilots and crews said they didn't have them in their Ns and Ss.

Stories are one thing, evidence is another. I'd need specific cruises, squadrons that used them into the 80s because by then fewer Navy squadrons had Phantoms. Marines maybe held onto them longer, but a few F-4 group discussions indicated VTAS were a headache to maintain and didn't stay around long. And other references indicated the Navy effectively divesting by '79. VTAS helmets stick out, I'm just not seeing them in cruise books, pre-/post cruise photos. Yes, the boxes are still in the jets but it doesn't work without the helmets.

Okay, for a moment I thought you were still trying to overwrite stuff in the Ordnance folder. Makes sense now. Yeah you can name the texture whatever you want you just have to make sure it matches the LUA and that the material name is right. For those curious early in the paint kit thread there was a dumpout of all the LUA options for the various external parts. There may be parts in there that even the model viewer tool wouldn't dump out. I believe it was a few pages in.

You missed what I said then: In each line of the LUA for a livery, there are a few components: {"HB_F14_EXT_BRU-34", 0 ,"HB_F14_EXT_BRU_34",false}; "HB_F14_EXT_BRU-34" The first portion is the material in the model. This is what I was telling you, it is not the same as what the texture file was, it's where the texture file is going to get slapped on the model. In your case, it doesn't work because the MATERIAL in the model is not called BRU_34, it's BRU-34. 0 This is telling it which material type the texture is, in this case it's the diffuse, or the color/paint. "HB_F14_EXT_BRU_34" This is telling it the name of the TEXTURE file that's in your custom livery folder. You can actually name that whatever you wanted technically, as long as it's in your livery's folder and has the same name. Note that it doesn't contain .DDS or anything. false This is telling DCS to load the file that's in your livery folder instead of the default texture inside the module in F14/Textures/Diffuse_Roughmet or whatever the folder is. Why are you overwriting the defaults in the ordnance folder?

Feedback I'm seeing from Phantom pilots was VTAS again being potentially great, WHEN it worked, which from the maintainer and crew inputs often it wasn't. Feedback about it adding a whole new list of things to down a jet before the flight or the system being INOP. The trackers in the cockpit often had issues and required protective coatings and such to frequently be replaced, wiring hassles, the helmet sensors being somewhat fragile. Basically by the end of the 70s the Navy crews weren't using it anymore on Ns/Js/Ss, maybe the Marines did a little longer but it sounded like they ditched it too due to upkeep vs benefits. A paper on head tracking helmets, particularly Honeywell systems like VTAS, mirror the Navy divesting interest by 1979. So whoever said VTAS was getting use well into the 80s, cruise photos and personal accounts seem to show that not to be the case. VTAS boxes were left in the jets as you can see them on the canopy rails, but no VTAS helmets present at all in the 80s cruises. They either converted the helmets back to a traditional configuration or went with replacement APH-6s or HGU-33s. One of my two helmets from the PMTC/Pt. Mugu is a VTAS I with a standard single visor APH-6 housing fitted. The guy that wore it in the backseat said it was noticeably more difficult to keep his head up during maneuvers when he rode with VX-4, and very fatiguing. VTAS II are exceedingly rare to find on the collector side, and stand out pretty sharply in photos due to their offset visor housing knobs. I did find out that there is a "manual" of sorts out there for use of the VTAS in the Phantom II, but it appears to be exceedingly rare and not looking good to be able to find a copy. It might be able to fill in some of the blanks that would be missing from any F-4J/N/S manuals, but have to actually acquire one first to get it scanned. As to ACEVAL/AIMVAL, nothing I can share openly but "Roger, ball!.." covers a lot of the pre-event training and then lessons learned from the event. It sounds like somewhere out there is a report from one of the big T&E departments in the DoD that discusses the major flaws of the test itself being the scenarios and ROEs. It essentially forced a slanted result because of how the scenarios were being run, allowing the pilots to "game" the system to get wins because they didn't actually have to defend an objective or deny the enemy, not to mention the numbers of aircraft involved didn't really reflect realistic scenarios. Plus they were all seasoned pilots, and they also had full knowledge about their adversaries as they had trained together. And probably because the takeaway that was chosen from ACEVAL/AIMVAL was "we need longer range fire/forget missiles" due to high attrition and 1:1 kill exchanges in the testing, which also killed AGILE (that could actually have made VTAS worth it), it seems to be why VTAS was skipped on the F-14 and phased out of F-4 use.

These are what I have from an old skin for the BRU-42 and BRU-34 {"HB_F14_EXT_BRU-34", 0 ,"HB_F14_EXT_BRU_34",false}; {"HB_F14_EXT_BRU42", 0 ,"HB_F14_EXT_BRU42",false}; Just verified again, this does work. Like I said, some material names don't match the texture name. The material on the jet is BRU-34 but the texture is BRU_34. I'm looking at a painted BRU-34 on my jet in Model Viewer right now from an old skin I made. In Model Viewer you can use the Connector Tool to mount the BRU-34, you then have to select the BRU-34 in the "Scene" dialogue by clicking the loaded BRU-34 model, then using the livery tool to again select your skin.

The name of the texture may not be the name of the material on the jet. It's not always 1:1. You'd need to do the LUA export in model viewer but that function may have been broken recently.

You skipped right over the core of my list, and that's the "how it works" details. That's the stuff HB needs/wants before they will implement something, for the same reasons things like PTID or "filling in the blanks" of later Tomcats isn't being done. They are not going to copy/paste ED's HMD code and throw some angle restrictions in, they want to know HOW VTAS works from the ground up, its limitations, how it is handled/managed in the cockpit, how it communicates to the AWG-10 and Sidewinder, all that jazz.

Folks, things being "optional" isn't the problem here, it's the level of effort to implement in the first place whether you think you want to turn it off and on. VTAS presents a good number of hurdles, many of which I've already run into as a collector, namely being: 1) Preserved examples for scanning/fitting/modeling/weighing 2) Photos of the helmet in use for skins, timeframe of use 3) Photos/diagrams of the complete setup including where all the wires and plugs run, where the IR boxes are and what they look like, processes for starting up/enabling VTAS, actual limitations of use, reticle, troubleshooting.

Yes, they did test it in ACEVAL/AIMVAL and ultimately wasn't worth the cost, weight, or complication when compared to the available acquisition modes like VSL-HI. It was a bit of acquisition gain traded for a decent bit more weight and neck strain. The lessons taken from ACEVAL/AIMVAL seemed to be more focused on killing the enemy further away with a launch and leave missile, naturally that became the AIM-120. If VTAS does somehow get modeled, it better have neck strain also modeled in prolonged fights.

Interesting, those don't look at all like F-4Es

As a reminder export Es will be limited to liveries only. They're staying in front of the scope creep that happened with the F-14, the most you will see for the F-4E anytime in the near or mid-term would be some special pilot equipment for some of the ones that had more unique helmets or survival gear, namely Germany and Japan. They're not adding on the ICE, Kurnass 2000, Greek upgrades, EJ/EJ Kai, any of that jazz.

Unless it's been updated, in the past you couldn't keep liveries zipped in the savedgames folders. I stopped keeping most of my liveries in core mods only because test builds meant having to completely remove all those folders and copy them back later. Eventually I'll probably move them back over and zip them. Another thing being some folks have a smaller C drive where SavedGames usually is, and liveries add up. So there can be some reasons to stick to coremods or the DCS main Liveries folder. It's only a risk if you decide to do a repair and tell it to remove all non-original files. Other option, move your whole Saved Games folder to the same drive as DCS, which is what I did.

The desire for Vietnam is logical, but the modules with very few exceptions just aren't going to accurately fit that conflict. A late-70s to 80s version of a jet isn't going to provide the same experience as one properly configured from '64 to '74/'75 or so, namely RHAW and RWR. The harrowing experiences from the earlier years as the SA-2 arrived on the scene and radar guided/assisted AA/AAA aren't going to play out the same way with a newer RWR system like the APR-36 and APR-37 that the Es received later. To really get the full on Vietnam vibes it's going to take older versions of the modules, otherwise it's just a jungle map with 80s Cold War jets. So far I believe only the F-100D and A-1H that have been announced would be actually accurate to Vietnam. I was under the impression the MiG-21 and even MiG-19 were both post-war setups, as are the upcoming F-4E, A-7E, and eventual A-6E. And the Huey is a whole other ball of wax. On the other hand, Marianas can work for having F-4Es from say Clark AFB or Seymour-Johnson, or even Osan/Korea plus excuses to have Korean and Japanese Es out there for exercises or some other fictional combat scenario. Syria as mentioned has use for Israeli, Turkish, even Greek F-4Es and US F-4Es if you strike the northern parts of Iraq from Turkey. PG covers IRIAF F-4Es. Nevada covers the USAF Weapons School. South Atlantic, completely fictional or just pretend it's Ace Combat I guess and do whatever you want. Caucuses you can mix in whatever I guess. For upcoming maps, the Kola Peninsula works great for Cold War, with an excuse to bring the Air Defense Command F-4Es from Iceland into the picture. And the Sinai adds all the possibilities in for again Israeli and Egyptian Phantoms.

It's a demo jet

It's pretty doubtful an EJ would be pursued with the already large/growing list of modules and variants that are being supported by HB. With the differences in systems, slats, and other changes from the USAF blocks it seems it would be like developing a whole standalone module. Adding some altered pilots with Japanese flight gear and as detailed skins as possible should be the limits of expectations.

The problem with the TF-30 replacement was that it was tied with the Air Force's F100 program, which itself was having issues. When reliability couldn't meet what was specified the Air Force apparently lowered the required hours, but the Navy wouldn't accept it. So the Air Force pressed on with the F100 in the F-15A which had its own issues, and the Navy kept the TF-30 as the Tomcat program was already under heavy scrutiny and embattled and I guess the Navy wasn't about to start over again trying to get a new engine. The proposed F100 based engines (F401) would, on paper, have had almost the same uninstalled numbers as the GE F110 at 16.5K dry in Mil and 28k in AB. But looking at how much the Air Force had to deal with before their F100s were improved by the 80s in the F-100-PW-200 and later 220 updates. It's funny how much <profanity> is talked about the F-14s engines while the Air Force was dealing with almost the same issues in the Eagle, including the afterburners stalling the engine out, and didn't have a "fix" until the early-mid 80s themselves. But in that light had we gotten the F401s for the F-14, there's a decent chance it would have had the same problems. However, the same remedies for the Air Force could likely have been applied as those updates to the F100 could be applied to existing engines, and the Navy would have been updating F401s instead of having to find another motor.

The only acceptable response. I need to build up a financial warchest to hire someone like Meteor to remaster/re-record the cheesy music from those old Great Planes tapes.

And to be clear, there will not be an "early" Vietnam E like those that started showing up in 66-67. "Early" in this case is still effectively post-war, but are those "early" serial jets (66- to ~70-) after they received the mentioned modifications. So don't expect to see the original short gun muzzle, hard-wings, missing/terrible APS-107 RHAW, etc. Like with the F-14A, "early" is a relative term and doesn't include those original F-14As with the IRST from Block 70 that deployed during Frequent Wind in '74.

Time to dust off old faithful