F14 Skinners thread (Paintkit in 1st post)

[Moorhuhn]

ISOKO, please submit your absolutely awsome VF103 2000 Santa Cat to the Livery Contest for the F-14B Category.

And please submit also one of your skins for the A and one for the Viggen.

You're doing an absolutely amazing job.

 

[Uxi]

ISOKO, please submit your absolutely awsome VF103 2000 Santa Cat to the Livery Contest for the F-14B Category.

And please submit also one of your skins for the A and one for the Viggen.

You're doing an absolutely amazing job.

 

That VF-103 set is one of my current favorites. Try to get the whole set. A couple more line birds would be nice bonus. Dynamic modex on one or two would rock.

[Nealius]

Is there a layered pilot suit template somewhere? Overwriting the existing patches can get hairy without pre-existing layers.

[ShinyMikey]

Finally got around to making an ED Forums account. I'd like to share my more recent work, after building(still building) a 1970s Hi-Vis Template for the F-14.

F-14A BuNO 158989, VF-302 Stallions ND 200.

 

 

Really nice! When will those be available for download?

[_YaeSakura_]

Finally got around to making an ED Forums account. I'd like to share my more recent work, after building(still building) a 1970s Hi-Vis Template for the F-14.

F-14A BuNO 158989, VF-302 Stallions ND 200.

 

 

Really nice! When will those be available for download?

Hoping to get them out soon, I still have to make it into a package.

[Moorhuhn]

 

That VF-103 set is one of my current favorites. Try to get the whole set. A couple more line birds would be nice bonus. Dynamic modex on one or two would rock.

 

Its just possible to submit only one skin per category.

So just one of those four of the set for the contest.

 

I would really love to see the santa cat out of these four as submission to the skin contest.

[LanceCriminal86]

Why does Santa Cat matter so much to be included as an official skins than filling out other historical squadrons who only have a single skin each? Was it even in the time period the Heatblur B model represents, aka before 1999?

 

Honestly, stop pushing it. It's your prerogative to do so but there are a ton more deserving and missing skins that should be made official than yet ANOTHER Jolly Rogers skin where the B already has a few. There are a ton of A model skin possibilities, Viggens, and other actual B models that could be done to fill in some gaps. VF-24, VF-74, VF-211 don't even have a color jet of any kind, nor do we have a Sluggers CO/CAG jet.

[Uxi]

Is a pretty cool scheme though I prefer line birds myself. I can imagine myself as a line driver more than a CO or CAG.

 

VF-84 should definitely have an official skin, though. Way too popular a squadron.

[_YaeSakura_]

I do plan to attempt an early VF-24 Red Checkertails/Renegades package at some point down the line. Hoping that I can finish redoing all my older F-14As before that, though. My current list after remastering, although not concrete, consists of VF-24, VF-124, VF-101, VF-14, VF-213, and VF-301.

[LanceCriminal86]

I'm sure they will, but we also don't have the Nimitz which kind of sucks. Same problem for the Enterprise, Eisenhower, a new Vinson, and all the other conventional carriers we aren't getting. But the other problem is are we doing 1-2 skins for each squadron for each version of the jet? If we're talking official skins thats 2x of each for the old block Tomcat AND another for the 135 block Tomcat, multiply by how many squadrons operated in both eras and we're looking at a lot of skins, aka a lot of hard drive space.

 

I have a feeling with the drive space concern HB is going to have to be strategic about how many official skins they include. The good thing though is we have a very active pile of solid folks making skins and quite detailed ones at that, so I don't think anyone is getting left out in the cold. Once some of us are done with the ones we personally want to do, naturally we'll probably start picking up on the ones that get requested here and elsewhere. And ultimately ones to go with the ships available in DCS for campaign usage.

[Nealius]

Easy solution: Omit the ship names from the liveries.

 

VF-84, for example, did not change paint schemes between '86 and '91, across three ships: Nimitz, Roosevelt, Lincoln.

 

So, omitting the ship names would be less work for texture artists and more practical for users, because then we could recreate 3 different deployments with the exact same liveries.

 

The perfectionism that's tunnel-visioning on correct modex style/placement and details like the ship names is costing the users both harddrive space and a lack of usability in creating missions. We have to sacrifice something, and usability is not an acceptable sacrifice.

 

If HB and/or the texture artists are unwilling to sacrifice rivet-counting authenticity, then they must decide on a couple specific deployments and make livery packs for those limited deployments, and omit all others. Or we can just keep the disorganized mess we have now.....the latter of which I don't particularly enjoy.

 

As it is now, with the default liveries and hundreds of Tomcat/Hornet liveries available on the User Files, we are still only able to create one deployment with our selection of carriers; that single deployment being CVW-3 on the Truman. And even then you're limited to only three Tomcats....unless you omitted the ship names from HB's VF-32 birds in which case you get a grand total of, wait for it, four Tomcats.

[Steve Gee]

Any plans to release an updated template after all the different models and their tweaks have been done?

[LanceCriminal86]

Easy solution: Omit the ship names from the liveries.

 

VF-84, for example, did not change paint schemes between '86 and '91, across three ships: Nimitz, Roosevelt, Lincoln.

 

So, omitting the ship names would be less work for texture artists and more practical for users, because then we could recreate 3 different deployments with the exact same liveries.

 

The perfectionism that's tunnel-visioning on correct modex style/placement and details like the ship names is costing the users both harddrive space and a lack of usability in creating missions. We have to sacrifice something, and usability is not an acceptable sacrifice.

 

If HB and/or the texture artists are unwilling to sacrifice rivet-counting authenticity, then they must decide on a couple specific deployments and make livery packs for those limited deployments, and omit all others. Or we can just keep the disorganized mess we have now.....the latter of which I don't particularly enjoy.

 

As it is now, with the default liveries and hundreds of Tomcat/Hornet liveries available on the User Files, we are still only able to create one deployment with our selection of carriers; that single deployment being CVW-3 on the Truman. And even then you're limited to only three Tomcats....unless you omitted the ship names from HB's VF-32 birds in which case you get a grand total of, wait for it, four Tomcats.

 

So, do something about it. This is the skinning thread after all and there's a competition on.

[Nealius]

A) I don't have the money to spend on Photoshop

B) I tried GIMP and it works, but not well enough and can't work with BC7

C) I don't have the artistic skills to do it

 

Telling someone to fix someone else's deficiencies themselves is a load of crap. Just because some people are talented enough doesn't mean everyone in the community is too.

[LanceCriminal86]

Then maybe restructure your comments. Less "this is a load of crap" and disorganised mess comments and perhaps ask nicely and dudes might actually put their efforts towards a common goal. I've already tagged one or two guys in this thread who actively are either filling out full packs of jets with MODEX and BuNOs all lined up for particular eras and cruises, one of whom is creating a full pack for the whole Millenium cruise on the Stennis. The skins will come. The packs will come. They might even get integrated into the module if they're good enough and fit what HB would like to present or given enough palpable demand.

 

Or, we could just tee everyone off who are doing this for fun and they'll just keep painting whatever the hell they want. Surely none of them have actually spent money purchasing digital books and hours digging around trying to find photos to reference and get the skins right.

 

At this point it sounds like between this thread and the other one about skins needing to match the ships and maps we have, y'all just should wait for the dynamic MODEX thing to get solved, because between now and then what you seek probably isn't going to happen.

[Nealius]

"This is a load of crap" is in response to being told "do it yourself, it's 'easy.'" Don't conflate that with saying the liveries/creators are a "load of crap," which I never said.

 

I've asked politely for half a year, with no real response. At some point everyone is going to get fed up with that.

[DD_Fenrir]

"This is a load of crap" is in response to being told "do it yourself, it's 'easy.'" Don't conflate that with saying the liveries/creators are a "load of crap," which I never said.

 

I've asked politely for half a year, with no real response. At some point everyone is going to get fed up with that.

 

Firstly, your idea is not necessarily a bad one, but it certainly isn't "The Way" and not everyone is going to share your vision.

 

Secondly no-one is obliged to do a damn thing for you. You've been asking for a year? Great. What difference does that make? You could ask for 100, doesn't entitle you to a thing. Skinning takes dedication, many hours and - I find at least - a requirement to be in the right frame of mind. And more importantly it takes away from what I enjoy most - spending time in the virtual cockpit.

 

Is it any surprise then that skinners will do their passion projects before all others? And considering the complexity of the F-14 template might wanna take a break and actually 'fly' the skins they have made after spending many hours in their construction.

 

So, the question really is: What have you done to earn those man-hours from a skinner?

 

[Nealius]

So, the question really is: What have you done to earn those man-hours from a skinner?

 

Any request is for the community, not for me. Do you think I'm the only person that will be privy to the skin? That premise alone makes your quip invalid. Those liveries are for everyone, and many people want them. I'm just the one asking for them while everyone else remains silent. I'm reiterating sentiment from many others in other threads lamenting the lack of liveries that work with our assets. Threads that don't seem to be on the radar of anyone in this thread. But no, gang up on the guy who takes offense to "just do it yourself" as if it's easy, then backpedal by talking about how difficult it is (which it in fact is) after getting called out on it.

 

And speaking of man-hours, have you any idea the man hours I spent researching deployments, downloading hundreds of liveries, and trying to build realistic CVW templates for the community only to be forced to give up because there aren't the liveries available to do it? Equal to or more than some of you have in making liveries. So don't talk to me about man hours or what I've done or tried to do to "earn" something that isn't even an earnable entity. This is a game we pay for, and much of this should be out-of-the box; something that is not the fault of of skinners and I am not blaming them for that.

 

I'm trying to improve the user experience of naval aviation missions here. That is my passion project, and I'm finding passion to be more of a curse than a blessing at this point.

[DD_Fenrir]

 

I'm trying to improve the user experience of naval aviation missions here. That is my passion project, and I'm finding passion to be more of a curse than a blessing at this point.

 

I'm not trying to be your enemy here, Nealius; but you should know that you appear to others to be coming across embittered and not a little entitled.

 

And trust me when I tell you that this last paragraph of yours strikes a chord I understand only too well; I cannot begin to tell you the hours I've spent across many years and many different simulators (mainly WW2) attempting to recreate historical fact as closely as possible. It's a frustrating thing hitting hurdles, those limitations of the engine, the architecture, the topography or the AI, all or any those things that prevent us achieving the level of authenticity we desire - I know it only too well and have experienced it more times than I can count.

 

The trouble is we are a small sub-set; the vast majority won't mind that the name on the jet isn't right, or that every plane has the same modex - we do because we like to do a job right to that last 99.99%, because for us the Devil is in the details, and it sticks in our craw. But a greater majority will enjoy the content for what it is because they either don't mind or don't care.

 

You can only do so much: after you've highlighted the issues to those who have the power to change things then you have no further control. If things change for the better, great, but that is rare. Otherwise you just have to carry on, accept the limitations for what they are and do your best to mitigate/obviate/obscure them and recognise that there are some that will just have to stand - and they will stand; stand out like the proverbial sore thumb to you...

 

Others, however, if they are decent will understand what you are fighting and appreciate what work you do for the effort you go to and enjoy it anyway. Most will enjoy it without much heed to the errors. Some - not so descent - will point out the very issues you can do nothing about and lay criticism. Ignore them. They boost their own ego by pointing out flaws in others work whilst bringing nothing to the table themselves and are therefore worthless of time, energy or regard.

 

I'd love to see the level of cohesiveness pervade across the DCS eras that you aspire to; I have been and still am fighting for it in the DCS WW2 assets. I'd like to see an SH3 and a Spruance to make '80s Tomcat scenarios a bit more so, plus Nimitz, Enterprise and JFK so we could put the right cats, from the right sqaudrons on the right carriers for the right mission on the right map. But in the near term these things are just not going to be achievable without investment in either time, money or both.

 

Heatblur are not obliged to present every possible variation of an F-14 skin - ED do not for their modules, why should HB be demanded to go further? ED put a handful of liveries in and then leave the community to full the gaps. HB do what they can to provide an interesting subset, a cross section of examples that - let's face it - at the end of the day provide eye-candy for the general user, and then do the same. Going to the lengths you desire would require 100s of man-hours of work, for the research alone and then doing the skins on top? It's just not cost effective for an $80 module based on all the content we are already getting.

 

They're looking at the modex issue further down the line but as we know it is highly complex and furthermore there are limits as to how flexible the core code is to the level of desired variance that could be achieved.

[catchforusthefoxes]

I was looking forward to F-14A!

Thanks for HB's great work!

 

[ATTACH=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","title":"8stStb1.jpg","data-attachmentid":7146207}[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","title":"Du8ru47.jpg","data-attachmentid":7146208}[/ATTACH]

 

you make the best skins!!! I'm excited about these!!!

[SgtPappy]

Heatblur and you all really nailed the classic Tomcat look. Good work!

[WolfHound009]

I do plan to attempt an early VF-24 Red Checkertails/Renegades package at some point down the line. Hoping that I can finish redoing all my older F-14As before that, though. My current list after remastering, although not concrete, consists of VF-24, VF-124, VF-101, VF-14, VF-213, and VF-301.

 

I cannot wait!!! your liveries are my favourite to use.

[isoko]

These are already mentioned information, but the skins I plan to have are

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

VF-154 Black Knights 50th Anniversary 1996 PACK

VF-154 Black Knights Millennium PACK

VF-154 Black Knights Operation Iraqi Freedom 2003 PACK - WIP

 

VF-21 Freelancers 1996

 

VF-103 Jolly Rogers 2000-2001 PACK - Completed

VF-103 Jolly Rogers Final Tomcat Cruise 2004 PACK

VF-31 TOMCATTERS LAST TOMCAT CRUISE 2006 PACK - WIP

VF-31 TOMCATTERS "SUNSET" 2006 PACK

VF-32 Swordsmen Operation Iraqi Freedom 2003 PACK - Completed

VF-32 Final Gypsy Roll 2005

 

*The darker the font color, the higher the priority.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

These appointments also include the porting of my Aerosoft F-14 skin series.

(However, all new painting work is required.)

 

I am encouraged by the happy words from everyone. Thank you very much.

I have no intention of submitting my work to this skin contest at this time.

I just want to enjoy these painting tasks.:thumbup:​​​​​​​

 

[Uxi]

Easy solution: Omit the ship names from the liveries.

 

VF-84, for example, did not change paint schemes between '86 and '91, across three ships: Nimitz, Roosevelt, Lincoln.

 

So, omitting the ship names would be less work for texture artists and more practical for users, because then we could recreate 3 different deployments with the exact same liveries.

 

Not a bad idea! Best solution would be to have the ship name be dynamic (as well as the modex) with a set default but changing to the carrier it's placed on/near in mission editor, starting with a default skin (say Checkmates) and expanding to at least selected others since there appear to be many different styles and schemas for it to be universal.

[Uxi]

These are already mentioned information, but the skins I plan to have are

VF-103 Jolly Rogers Final Tomcat Cruise 2004 PACK

 

Can't wait for these. Your VF-32 and VF-103 sets are my mainstays for the F-14B right now, though also enjoying the VF-143 by Swordsman422.