Jumper77A

Hello all, So, it appears a lot of us missed the initial call to submit. Not sure what the distribution for that message was initially. I never saw it until after the decision was made (I don't spend a lot of time in the forums). I did note Wags' apology for not checking the user files before the decision. The clarity of the initial message read fairly vague. I would suggest a path forward for such endeavors should include expectation management and left/right limits. Something like: Default Template Usage Required: Yes / No Default Textures Required. (Not creating new engines, pylons, fuel tanks or anything not included in the default template) F-16C Block 50 c. 2007 (or listed timeframe) only: Yes / No Dynamic bort number requirement. Maximum zipped file size allowed. (If different from the 300mb UF restriction) Allowed compression type. (BC7 etc) File type required: (Zip / rar etc) I am also of the opinion that the default liveries should be held to a higher standard. I'm sure there is more stringent stuff there, but that would be a recommended baseline. Something I learned in the military is that instructions must be written for the absolute lowest level. Meaning, the people that need the most direction and step-by-step instructions. Just a suggestion. ***Soap Box time*** I want to address a few things starting with the attitude of "it's just gotta be good enough because details don't matter". If I may add my 2 cents here, I think that is a dangerous attitude to have as a livery creator. If I were going to combat in these jets, I wouldn't care, because I cannot look outside of my cockpit other than stepping to the jet. In DCS however, things like screenshots, external cameras, video creation, and other things exist. In that case, details do matter. Not to make this a "yay me" post, but I have spent over 20 years in the military with the majority of those working in/around/and with all of these aircraft, with the last 7 in the fighter community, I may have a somewhat informed baseline of how things look, feel, smell, etc. I think it's awesome the level of detail some creators put into it. When I show fighter pilots DCS the ones who are into it will immediately start saying things like "Oh, they got that right/that's missing" or "They always had dirt here", "that color isn't quite right", "they were never that dirty/that's a clean jet" or other small details like that. Their external camera was walking on the flightline every day and stepping to their respective aircraft. I would also like to address download count. Download count does not mean quality. I just looked at my own user files list and my worst-quality skins have the most downloads (Including the most downloads of a certain airframe). This was due to either it being some of the first liveries available for a module, a fortunate position on the UF page, being released for a long time, or updates pushing them to the top of the list under the old UF structure. My best, highest-quality, liveries are at the bottom of my download counts for the same reasons. We all know now that great liveries can get buried under 30 spammed "shake n' baked" out liveries in the UF pages, which is fine. There is a large element of "right place, right time". Lastly, I'd like to remind us livery creators why we are here. It shouldn't be for personal glory or ego. We are here to let people live out their dreams of being a fighter/attack/cargo/rotary/warbird etc. pilot/aviator which they may have not been able in real life. We owe it to them to do our best job possible, fully knowing that we will not get compensated with anything more than some recognition or admiration and also fully knowing that the rivet counters of the world will call out our shortcomings. Lest we forget that many of these aircraft are gone forever, or in the case of Marine Hornets and Harriers, soon to be gone forever. Maybe I am a little sentimental, but it's nice to see some of these aircraft preserved if only digitally. They can't all go to museums. We should have the same dedication to the jets that defended and served our respective nations. (Yes, I understand this is a video game). Paint your best jet. I hope this is viewed as an azimuth check for all of us in this thread/community and not as slinging mud or personal insults. This was intended as suggestions and some constructive criticism. Thank you for your time.

Hello all, I recently attended the Falcon Rejoin at Edwards AFB and as a result created the following liveries: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3336176/ And https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3336198/ 91-383 can also be seen here: Enjoy!

Well of course, but being a few meters off by typing in a coord is eons better than dragging stuff around with the mouse. It's like that IRL as well by the way.

@Hawkeye60 thank you for the update!

100% yes. That's where I found my frustration, trying to do some 1:1 Nellis stuff.

I can't get this mod to work presently. Installed via JSGME, everything appears to work, I do have the P-51D installed. However, when I add one to the mission editor, is it not flyable or usable as AI. It just never appears in game as if I didn't have it. Suggestions?

I would 100% pay for an upgrade. In a perfect world there would be a South West US map. I'd love to see Yuma, Luke, Miramar and others. It's a bummer that Edwards (see photo) and Fallon, despite being in the NTTR map confines are not modeled. But, we can dream, it's been made clear that ED won't touch the present NTTR. I still enjoy the map, it is just far below the bar of other maps out there.

Hello, Please consider adding the ability to place/adjust a unit or waypoint in the mission editor by typing in a coordinate vice having to move it with the mouse. Add a "location" property or tab that coordinates can be typed directly into. Thanks! Love the sim!

We've spoke in the LAG group, but gladly working on this one.

Also getting the vibrating clouds in VR. Valve Index. Hopefully there is a hotfix soon.

Is the A-10C II not yet supported? It does not seem to work with my SimShaker. I will try a fresh install.

No thanks. My BMF is fine. I just have to transfer it from my other work.

Haha, no worries. So did the judges!! Kidding. I need to re-do the bare metal finish on it.

I did. Haha. It's back on page 1 or 2 of this thread. https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3310547/

Sydy, Your hunch is absolutely wrong. I am absolutely not referring to your work in any way, shape, or form. I was referring to the fictional "Warchief" which claims over 80 aerial victories. It is a purely fictional skin however. Try to be less trigger happy...