More default Skins for the B?

[Jackjack171]

That's very kind of you to say. Thank you.

 

Just so you know, the F-14A doesn't require a second purchase. It's a planned part of the module, so you'll automatically have it when it's released.

More better news! Thanks!

[Nealius]

RE: Modexes being different among squadrons.

 

Is that not the case for Legacy Hornets as well? Yet we have dynamic modex numbers on those. Furthermore, in other modules like the MiG-21 the placement and style of dynamic modex numbers can be tailored to each livery, so why would differing position/style even matter?

 

There are two solutions for dynamic modexes:

 

1. Find a happy medium. A one-size-fits-all approach like the Hornet. I'd rather have a minor inaccuracy in modex placement/style than having the egregious immersion-breaker of 12 pilots all flying bird 112 at the same time. Objectively, that's a much larger issue than the anal-retentive focus on modex placment and font.

 

2. Have unique modex fonts for the different liveries just like the MiG-21 and other modules.

[Swordsman422]

RE: Modexes being different among squadrons.

 

Is that not the case for Legacy Hornets as well?

 

 

Not to the degree of the F-14 community. The F/A-18s basically had two modex locations: Above the slime lights or below them, and that's covered by the model.

 

 

 

Yet we have dynamic modex numbers on those. Furthermore, in other modules like the MiG-21 the placement and style of dynamic modex numbers can be tailored to each livery, so why would differing position/style even matter?

 

 

Not owning or doing any skinning for the MiG-21, I found this statement to be interesting, so I went digging in the files for the MiG-21.

 

On pretty much every DCS aircraft, there is a set of optional placement areas on the model for the number decals and you basically feed the description.lua a texture file that it can pick numbers from. These numbers can be any font or size you like, so long as the number doesn't overflow the placement area, but their placement is preprogrammed on the model, basically. You can't really adjust the position. From what I see on the MiG-21 liveries, it behaves exactly the same way. You can give the .lua a font to work with. Each tac number has 4 programmed positions for each digit, and can accept a texture file with the digits on it, but you can't reposition the whole tac number someplace else on the nose unless there was a programmed position for it that the description file could reference. Below is a data block for just one 4-digit tac number in one location on the MiG-21:

 

Tac Number Nose Set 1

{"MIG21BIS_SER_NOSE_0001", 0, "MiG21Bis_Fuse_F", false};

{"MIG21BIS_SER_NOSE_0001", 1, "MiG21Bis_Fuse_F_NMp", true};

{"MIG21BIS_SER_NOSE_0001", 13, "MiG21Bis_Fuse_F_RoughMet", true};

{"MIG21BIS_SER_NOSE_0001", 3, "empty_ser", true};

--{"MIG21BIS_SER_NOSE_0001", 3, "MiG21Bis_Ser_Nose", true};

 

{"MIG21BIS_SER_NOSE_0010", 0, "MiG21Bis_Fuse_F", false};

{"MIG21BIS_SER_NOSE_0010", 1, "MiG21Bis_Fuse_F_NMp", true};

{"MIG21BIS_SER_NOSE_0010", 13, "MiG21Bis_Fuse_F_RoughMet", true};

{"MIG21BIS_SER_NOSE_0010", 3, "empty_ser", true};

--{"MIG21BIS_SER_NOSE_0010", 3, "MiG21Bis_Ser_Nose", true};

 

{"MIG21BIS_SER_NOSE_0100", 0, "MiG21Bis_Fuse_F", false};

{"MIG21BIS_SER_NOSE_0100", 1, "MiG21Bis_Fuse_F_NMp", true};

{"MIG21BIS_SER_NOSE_0100", 13, "MiG21Bis_Fuse_F_RoughMet", true};

{"MIG21BIS_SER_NOSE_0100", 3, "empty_ser", true};

--{"MIG21BIS_SER_NOSE_0100", 3, "MiG21Bis_Ser_Nose", true};

 

{"MIG21BIS_SER_NOSE_1000", 0, "MiG21Bis_Fuse_F", false};

{"MIG21BIS_SER_NOSE_1000", 1, "MiG21Bis_Fuse_F_NMp", true};

{"MIG21BIS_SER_NOSE_1000", 13, "MiG21Bis_Fuse_F_RoughMet", true};

{"MIG21BIS_SER_NOSE_1000", 3, "empty_ser", true};

--{"MIG21BIS_SER_NOSE_1000", 3, "MiG21Bis_Ser_Nose", true};

 

 

Pretty big hunk of text for a single location for a 4-digit number. Subtracting one digit for the F-14 would decrease the size of this block, but then multiply that by 8 locations per aircraft where the modex appears. Still not bad for an aircraft where some of these numbers have one or two variations. On the Su-27, the bort number for the tail can be in high or low positions, for example. But those are preprogrammed. If I wanted to place a dynamic number in the middle, or on the rudder, it's not possible.

 

The F/A-18 does a decent job of considering dynamic numbers. They have positions programmed for all the major using nations, and that's pretty good. But it's also a huge block of text.

 

The F-14 modexes were even more widely varied in placement than that. You had the one on the nose, which might be above the slime light or straddling it. The numbers on the gear bay door might be the entire width of the door or just inches tall, absent, or removed to the smaller subdoors aft. The modex on the flaps might be 2 digits, 3 digits, tucked into the corner of the innermost flaps or outboard on the maneuvering flaps. The number on the rudders might be Up at the top, or on the inboard side, or down at the bottom, or off the rudder completely on the non-moving portion of the tail. And they'd have to account for a majority of these locations, because:

 

 

There are two solutions for dynamic modexes:

 

1. Find a happy medium. A one-size-fits-all approach like the Hornet.

 

There are some pretty famous liveries that people will want that fall WAY outside this approach. VF-1's 1975 cruise, for example. First deployment of the F-14. The livery had a big, red racing stripe on the nose that integrated the Modex number. The stripe filled more or less of the front fuselage depending on the modex of the aircraft. 100 requires a different gap in the stripe than 111. This placement was pretty much limited to this particular livery, but it still happened, and it's a popular livery, and people are going to want it and want it right.

 

It also brings us to the issue of kearning and size limits. If you look at the F/A-18, give it the modex, say 111. You'll notice some pretty wide gaps in the digits to the point that, depending on your font, might make the modex number just look like three widely spaced lines. Taking this issue back to the F-14, what happens when the numbers are half the size of the chosen standard, as with VF-21 or VF-154 in the mid 1990's? What if they're larger, like VF-124 pretty much all the time? What if they're extremely italicized beyond the normal, like VF-2 or VF-301? You're going to get similar large gaps or numbers are going to get cut off as they exceed their allotted placement area. OR they're going to have to account for these variations and add more placement options, which will just eat up more data space.

 

I'd rather have a minor inaccuracy in modex placement/style

 

Others with just as much right to their own opinions rather wouldn't.

 

Subjectively, that's a much larger issue than the anal-retentive focus on modex placment and font.

 

Fixed that for you, because as The Dude would say "that's just, like, your opinion, man." It may seem AR to you, but this whole debate about how to solve the dynamic modex issue might seem AR and tedious to others, who aren't bothered in the slightest that the modex numbers on ever jet in the flight are the same. HB is working on it, and I trust that their solution will be satisfactory to the majority of us. It's just not a high-priority item yet, because even though occasionally realizing that both you and your wingman are flying 112 might crack the illusion a little, it doesn't break or subtract from the functionality of the aircraft or fail to deliver a promised product.

[Northstar98]

While I'm okay with the current set of liveries (I would like a "default" livery that we get with the Hornet, which is just the base colour and side-numbers with no squadron or other insignia, apart from maybe the roundel.

 

Other than that I'm fairly satisfied, the only thing that's really missing is the dynamic side-numbers, which unlike every other aircraft, are hard baked, it's the same story with the Viggen.

Edited June 25, 2020 by Northstar98

[Nealius]

even though occasionally realizing that modexes are in a slightly different position than they were in 1980 might crack the illusion a little, it doesn't break or subtract from the functionality of the aircraft or fail to deliver a promised product.

 

And I fixed that one for you.

[Swordsman422]

And I fixed that one for you.

 

A clever attempt, but it doesn't detract from the point made in the back half of that sentence. You also assume that I'll be in the group coming with torches and pitchforks if it doesn't get resolved to my satisfaction, to which I can only offer a hearty shrug. But I'm pretty sure Heatblur's gonna gie it laldy instead of doing it by the half measure you're asking. Broken immersion from the numbers being wrong is no less the result as broken immersion from the numbers all being the same, which is exactly the point your correction helped make.

[Uxi]

While I'm okay with the current set of liveries (I would like a "default" livery that we get with the Hornet, which is just the base colour and side-numbers with no squadron or other insignia, apart from maybe the roundel.

 

Yes, this right here.

[IronMike]

Yeah, modex is a whole can of worms and anything but easy, if at all possible. At the moment we are thinking about adding 4 liveries per skin. So you get 101 through 104. But no promise yet.

[Swordsman422]

Yeah, modex is a whole can of worms and anything but easy, if at all possible...

 

That's what I figured, given the limits of ED's dynamic numbering system, which hearkens back to Flanker 2.0. It's a 20+ year old way of doing things that doesn't really work anymore. The whole system of dynamic numbers needs an upgrade, but I doubt we'll see a result soon because it doesn't really affect the way the sim functions. It's only an immersion feature.

 

Frankly, the best way I have ever seen modex numbers handled is in the Strike Fighters series. The decal placement for each skin is programmed in a text file. Each decal has its own block of data that shows the program what the decal is called, what the name of the mesh is that it'll be added to, it's size, orientation, X and Y coordinates on the mesh, priority, and a numerical code that determines if the decal shows up all the time, only on specific squadrons, or only on specific aircraft. The drawback was that you could not select your modex number by typing it in. You had to select the modex number from a drop down menu in the mission planner, so if a skin represented a squadron of only 10 airplanes, you couldn't have 12 in the mission with different numbers. But some skinners were talented enough that all of the squadron's markings were rendered as decals and were different from one plane to the next. It's difficult to explain properly without screen shots, but it was fantastic and I doubt we'll ever see anything like it in DCS.

[Moorhuhn]

Yeah, modex is a whole can of worms and anything but easy, if at all possible. At the moment we are thinking about adding 4 liveries per skin. So you get 101 through 104. But no promise yet.

Thanks for feedback :)

That would be a good start into right direction.

Is this the plan for both, A and B or just for upcoming A?

 

 

Are there plans to add more liveries (maybe HiViz) to the B?

Or is it possible to do a liveries contest where the community create those liveries. 4 liveries -101 through 104- per skin, of couse and add them after a quality check to the default official game?

Like ED did that for the Anton?

[Father Cool]

On 6/25/2020 at 8:37 PM, Swordsman422 said:

 

A clever attempt, but it doesn't detract from the point made in the back half of that sentence. You also assume that I'll be in the group coming with torches and pitchforks if it doesn't get resolved to my satisfaction, to which I can only offer a hearty shrug. But I'm pretty sure Heatblur's gonna gie it laldy instead of doing it by the half measure you're asking. Broken immersion from the numbers being wrong is no less the result as broken immersion from the numbers all being the same, which is exactly the point your correction helped make.

A bit of a necro but relevant to my frustrations reskinning our squadron currently. I see what you are saying but tbh if you are flying in a group, and as we do in our squadron, with a fixed modex for each pilot i.e. I am 531 when in the cat, it is very important that we can see who is who when taxying around deck etc, or at an airbase for that matter, at a glance so the correct modex number is essential, whereas the font being correct and placed 100% correctly for a specific livery is of no consequence at all for us. We also run custom skins for our squadron but that bares no relevance to the issue at hand as even if we used prototype liveries then being able to dynamically change the modex is 1000% more preferable than having to have a completely separate skin set for every modex number of everyone in our squadron, which is the current state of affairs. I would take slightly incorrect modex position (fonts can be changed) over baked in modexes all day long.

Edited August 16, 2022 by Father Cool

[Swordsman422]

3 minutes ago, Father Cool said:

A bit of a necro but relevant to my frustrations reskinning our squadron currently. I see what you are saying but tbh if you are flying in a group, and as we do in our squadron, with a fixed modex for each pilot i.e. I am 531 when in the cat, it is very important that we can see who is who when taxying around deck etc, or at an airbase for that matter, at a glance so the correct modex number is essential, whereas the font being correct and placed 100% correctly for a specific livery is of no consequence at all for us. We also run custom skins for our squadron but that bares no relevance to the issue at hand as even if we used prototype liveries then being able to dynamically change the modex is 1000% more preferable than having to have a completely separate skin set for every modex number of everyone in our squadron, which is the current state of affairs. I would take slightly incorrect modex position (fonts can be changed) over baked in modexes all day long.

 

Sure. But Heatblur isn't going to solve it half way, because there are an equal number of people to whom it does matter getting typeface, size, and positioning correct, including Heatblur. It's just gonna take far more effort than can be given priority yet.

[Father Cool]

I get that but in the meantime surely allowing dynamic, as currently works with all other aircraft, with the option to not display one so that the baked in one shows through would be the best solution until they can crack the problem to their desired standard? Keeping something worse because you can't do it how you want is an odd way to think. I own a model manufacturing business where our products are aimed at being the most accurate and detailed models that you can buy however there are hundreds of things that we would like to be even more accurate but not possible with the current technology available, does that mean we don't bother making things? Of course not, we have to compromise where we have to until the solution presents itself later down the line. When that happens we will improve the models accordingly. HB can absolutely do this with the F-14 Modex.

Edited August 16, 2022 by Father Cool

[LanceCriminal86]

3 hours ago, Father Cool said:

I get that but in the meantime surely allowing dynamic, as currently works with all other aircraft, with the option to not display one so that the baked in one shows through would be the best solution until they can crack the problem to their desired standard? Keeping something worse because you can't do it how you want is an odd way to think. I own a model manufacturing business where our products are aimed at being the most accurate and detailed models that you can buy however there are hundreds of things that we would like to be even more accurate but not possible with the current technology available, does that mean we don't bother making things? Of course not, we have to compromise where we have to until the solution presents itself later down the line. When that happens we will improve the models accordingly. HB can absolutely do this with the F-14 Modex.

 

Because the solution to enable dynamic MODEX in the first place requires a model rework, not just flipping on an argument in LUA as had been stated many times before. It means pulling the model apart, cutting faces, potentially reworking UVW maps, and other time-intensive and destructive methods if the model wasn't built with them to begin with. And even the Hornet and Viper numbers have some oddities themselves viewing from certain angles.

It's not off the table, it was mentioned in the interview video from the other week and it will probably be a generic position or two. That's also going to mean having to go back through each livery/squadron to create "blank" jets to please the online folks so effectively double the work creating blank and historic skins. I also would not expect that every single livery added to the F-14 is going to have both a dynamic and fixed/historic version. I'd anticipate a dynamic jet for the main fleet squadrons, and that would be that.

Edited August 16, 2022 by LanceCriminal86

[Father Cool]

36 minutes ago, LanceCriminal86 said:

Because the solution to enable dynamic MODEX in the first place requires a model rework, not just flipping on an argument in LUA as had been stated many times before. It means pulling the model apart, cutting faces, potentially reworking UVW maps, and other time-intensive and destructive methods if the model wasn't built with them to begin with. And even the Hornet and Viper numbers have some oddities themselves viewing from certain angles.

It's not off the table, it was mentioned in the interview video from the other week and it will probably be a generic position or two. That's also going to mean having to go back through each livery/squadron to create "blank" jets to please the online folks so effectively double the work creating blank and historic skins. I also would not expect that every single livery added to the F-14 is going to have both a dynamic and fixed/historic version. I'd anticipate a dynamic jet for the main fleet squadrons, and that would be that.

 

Yep and that's fine, I'm not expecting a fixed and dynamic for every livery. However the option of a dynamic modex skin that can be used as a basis for customs skins is better than none. The implication of a dynamic modex wouldn't be a major tweak of the model as it stands, its trying to get that to work with custom modex fonts and positions is the issue that HB currently have which, yes, is difficult to solve. A fixed universal location dynamic modex is not.

[LanceCriminal86]

The hard part isn't just the positioning, but the raked numbers and kerning in trying to size/position that to match most squadrons. It was rare for the MODEX to just be straight vertical numbers like you see on the Hornet. The MODEX cutouts would have to be oversized to fit raked numbers, but then on the flaps and tails they may not be. And that's just trying to get the 98% solution if you average out where squadrons had their numbers and how they did them. VF-301 had super raked numbers for example, and I think another squadron had them almost vertical at one point. But for that 98% of scenarios the nose numbers were usually raked about 15 degrees or so, the wings were usually only two digits, and same with the tails with them either on the upper rudders or the fin caps.

In whatever case we'll have to see what iteration is chosen and how it's going to work out. But in the meantime there are some more F-14B skins coming down the pipe while we wait for the earlier F-14A external model, the new helmets and pilot bodies, and the fixes/additions for the model in general like the ALQ-126 blisters. The challenge right now is finding good references for some of those late 90s cruises that align with not only the current F-14B's configuration, but the carriers they were operating on. I was researching VF-11 from 1998 but just haven't been able to nail down jets with names. Almost zero photos out there, and the cruise videos are just too grainy to make out some of the names. A lot of cruises were like that, while the more available photos are pre- or post-cruise with different names, paint, etc.

[Nealius]

Positioning aside, the font issue, italic vs. standard, etc. can be solved the same way it was in the MiG-21, which has over 7 different fonts (I stopped counting after 7, it seems there are more variations) including Arabic. The sim itself is perfectly capable of handling multiple different fonts as dynamic modexes. 

 

 

[RustBelt]

True. Each livery simply has it’s own “animation” strip of numbers. So each livery has it’s own individual “font”. 
 

But, that’s a model animation built into the plane model. Which HB didn’t do, meaning like some other “why don’t they just” requests would mean complete rework.

[Nealius]

It's built into the model? Before the livery file structure changed it was just an alpha layer on the .dds files, with the fonts being (IIRC) .tga files. Now that the default liveries are all zipped I can't find the font .tga files.

Edited August 24, 2022 by Nealius

[LanceCriminal86]

The Tomcat doesn't have dynamic MODEX, I think he's referring to other ED/party aircraft that do have them.

In the existing ED system a material/face for each number array is cut into the model, and then assigned an arg. They then use TGA or PNG with alpha and coordinates within the image to display the number based on the assigned BORT/MODEX in the mission. To do the larger/heavily raked numbers Tomcats typically wore you're going to need a lot of real estate around each number to have the skewed MODEX display. And with the geometry of the Tomcat in that area it's a heavily complex set of curves. It sounds like something is coming down the pipe in the future but the assumptions that it's ezpz to just slap them on there seems flawed to me.

[Nealius]

I didn't know they were linked to the model due to lack of "arg" callbacks in the default.lua files. When I messed with livery creation I saw the alpha layers for the dynamic numbers and thought it was purely a texture thing since there was nothing stating or showing otherwise.

The assumption that we are arguing that it's "ezpz" is itself flawed, being an overly simplified misrepresentation of what we are saying (which tends to be more common on these forums than in other communities for some frustrating reason). We are saying that it is not an impossible task given precedent set by other modules, while the tone in response is that it is so difficult that it is unlikely or impossible to happen.

Edited August 24, 2022 by Nealius

[Uxi]

Seems much more standardized for line birds in the time period of our cats with TPS, etc. CAG and CO birds could be one offs as it is now while the mid-late 90s line birds to early 00s could be dynamic. Anything earlier than 92 or 93 or after 2002 are out of scope of our configuration. 

Generic line bird probably easiest low hanging fruit. Maybe Grumman test livery and add popular squadrons to demand as HB's copious free time allows.  

[LanceCriminal86]

25 minutes ago, Uxi said:

Anything earlier than 92 or 93 or after 2002 are out of scope of our configuration. 

Oh? What other changes to the B preclude including the A+ back through '87-88 besides not mounting the LANTIRN and ignoring the GPS dome? 

[Baco]

Really? that hard?

Even fictitious numbers on the nose tail fins and flaps or ailerons would do fine. its better than nothing.

At least you can do 1 skin for your squad and change the numbers dynamically.

[RustBelt]

Look, I’m sure Heatblur wouldn’t mind if you felt like footing the build costs for a Tomcat 2.0 where they could go back and do all this stuff over differently for you. 
 

Folks just need to accept that when the project was started, certain decisions in the planning phases mean some things just can’t be changed without a full rework from scratch.