Request: Skins That Fit the Maps and Assets We Have in DCS

[KingKenny04]

First let me say that I hugely appreciate all the hard work and dedication that Heatblur have put in to the Tomcat. It's an extremely high quality product and HB should be proud of their accomplishments. I understand that more skins for aircraft that are already released is a low priority for HB, and priority rightfully goes to upcoming modules like the earlier A model Tomcats, the A-6E, and the Forrestal carriers.

 

Having said that, it's frustrating how rare it is in DCS to get an accurate combination of real world events, assets, maps, and liveries for realistic mission-making. Poking through the available skins for the Hornet, I cannot find a single livery that fits one of the currently available or upcoming carriers and deployed in the areas of the maps available in DCS during some world event that realistic, plausible operations could have happened in (i.e. Lebanese Civil War, Operation Earnest Will, etc). Considering the releases of the Syria and Persian Gulf maps, the Tomcat, and the upcoming Forrestal carriers, I believe Heatblur are in a unique position to help rectify this. What follows is not just another wishlist, but a plea for Heatblur to give mission makers a hand by considering historical events and the available and upcoming assets for DCS when choosing future liveries to add to the Tomcat and Intruder.

 

With that out of the way, here are some liveries that I hope Heatblur will give special consideration to including in future updates, with justifications:

 

ASSETS: Forrestal, F-14A, A-6E, Syria

EVENT: Lebanese Civil War

 

 

 

USS Independence spent the latter half of 1982 in the Mediterranean, at one point joining with Forrestal, Eisenhower, and Kennedy off Lebanon to form the greatest concentration of carrier power the region had ever seen up to that point. On her next deployment between 1983 and 1984, Independence would join with USS John F. Kennedy in launching retaliatory strikes against Syrian targets in the Bekaa Valley.

 

USS Saratoga spent most of 1984 in the Mediterranean. While there weren't any major carrier actions over Lebanon in 1984, there are plenty of events in the early 80s where mission makers could plausibly come up with scenarios and campaigns for US carrier involvement in Lebanon, including the bombing of the U.S. embassy annex in east Beirut in September 1984.

 

 

 

ASSETS: Forrestal, F-14A, A-7E, A-6E, Persian Gulf

EVENT: Operation Earnest Will

 

 

 

USS Ranger was on Gonzo Station when Operation Earnest Will kicked off in 1987. This is probably the combination that is most ripe for plausible missions, and one of the chief selling points of both the Persian Gulf map and the F-14 module. Forrestal also took up Gonzo Station alongside America for the middle of 1988. A-7E's included in case somebody from FlyingIron Simulations sees this and is looking for inspiration

 

 

 

ASSETS: Forrestal, F-14A, A-6E, Persian Gulf

EVENT: Iran Hostage Crisis

 

 

 

USS Ranger was on Gonzo Station for the tail end of the Iran Hostage Crisis. With Ronald Reagan due to enter the White House in 1981, this scenario is primed for alternative history where things escalate between Iran and the US.

 

 

 

ASSETS: Forrestal, Supercarrier, F-14B, F/A-18C, Persian Gulf

EVENT: 1997 Iranian Presidential Election

 

 

 

This one is probably takes the biggest stretch of imagination, but in researching potential historical opportunities for escalation, the 90s in the Persian Gulf are fairly barren when you're forced to exclude Iraq like we are. Mohammad Khatami won the 1997 Iranian presidential election with 70% of the vote among a massive voter turnout, both of which were unexpected. Khatami ran on a heavily reformist platform, and was considered very liberal by Iranian political standards. While historically Khatami's presidency did not include any major military altercations with the US, there is still some room for interesting historical what-ifs. Khatami's liberal (by Iranian standards) often put him at odds with Iran's religious leadership, and this could be used as the basis for destabilization of Iran or even outright civil war, either through election interference by the Iranian religious leadership or conflict later in Khatami's administration.

 

NOTE: I've included Hornet squadrons in these lists. This is not a request for HB to make Hornet skins (that isn't their responsibility), but rather a message to ED that these skins ought to be included in future updates. I also understand that a period correct Diamondbacks skin is already included for the F-14B. I've included the George Washington carrier wing anyways as the various Hornet skins for that wing are not currently included (A version of the VMFA-251 skin with the correct AB tail code is not in-game).

 

 

 

One thing I want to make clear: I'm not at all suggesting that other skins shouldn't be included. Of course there are an infinite number of scenarios one could come up with that could include any number of skins or assets. I'm merely trying to make the argument for why these specific skins are deserving of inclusion in future updates. With these skins, I'm trying to come up with the most easily plausible scenarios for each map. For that reason I haven't bothered to include any Caucuses scenarios since modern aircraft carriers - in addition to being forbidden from entering the Black Sea by the Montreux Convention - are not physically capable of fitting under any of the bridges that span the Bosporus Strait.

 

I appreciate everyone's time in reading this. Keep up the great work, HB!

[Northstar98]

+1 Could not physically agree with you more KingKenny04, especially the part about

...It's frustrating how rare it is in DCS to get an accurate combination of real world events, assets, maps, and liveries for realistic mission-making.

 

Any more consistency we get we other things in DCS World (which at the moment is kinda an inconsistent, incoherent mess that's all over place past WWII) the better :thumbup:

[hughesj2]

Love this idea and not just for the F-14, appreciate there will need to be some concessions but would love to see more of our talented skinners focussing on real world CSG/CVW livery packs as you suggest..Not just the aircraft but the accompanying ships. Would be great to have templates for various CSG made up for various decades, 90s, 00s, 2010, modern day you could plonk into the relevant theatre that had the appropriate lead CVN, appropriate air wings embarked etc..(Airframes not present in DCS aside):thumbup:

[KingKenny04]

Love this idea and not just for the F-14, appreciate there will need to be some concessions but would love to see more of our talented skinners focussing on real world CSG/CVW livery packs as you suggest..Not just the aircraft but the accompanying ships. Would be great to have templates for various CSG made up for various decades, 90s, 00s, 2010, modern day you could plonk into the relevant theatre that had the appropriate lead CVN, appropriate air wings embarked etc..(Airframes not present in DCS aside):thumbup:

 

If we could just have skins for one complete carrier air wing for one carrier in game or coming with Forrestal, for one time period on one of the maps we actually have in DCS, I'd be a very happy dude. Right now we cannot put together a single carrier air wing for any carriers in DCS from any location or time period.

 

I was actually really surprised at the choice of skin for VF-154. That squadron made several deployments aboard Independence (a Forrestal carrier) throughout the 90s, yet it appears the variation HB chose was from VF-154s later deployments aboard Kitty Hawk.

[LanceCriminal86]

If we had the Kennedy we'd have great options since she was always on Med cruises, and for a long time with VF-14 and VF-32. VF-103's final cruise in B models was on her, and the reserve squadrons I'm working did carrier quals off of her. For Syria and Caucuses I'd really expect to see Atlantic squadrons only, especially ones that did Med cruises. PG would probably be East and West depending on choice of scenario. The Guam map will be where the Sundowners, Black Knights, etc. should really fit in. VF-51 as well I think.

 

The skins are going to come, don't worry. Between the few that will come with the jet and the guys that are already furiously painting, you're going to see plenty of time specific packs as best as possible. The problem though is getting good enough reference photos for the time periods in question, because there are subtle stencil differences here and there which can be very tough to get right.

 

Forrestal herself though had VF-11 and VF-31 flying A models in 1991 for a Med cruise, and all the way back through the 70s. In fact the 2 reserve squadrons has carquals off her along with the rest of the whole reserve wing in '87.

 

So, historical 80s to 90s VF-11 and VF-31 are the pick for Forrestal. If we get the rest of the Forrestal class there's good options, but lacking the Constellation class, Kennedy, Enterprise Nimitz, Ike, and Vinson we're going to have most of our A model and even B model squadrons missing their rides.

[Northstar98]

...Not just the aircraft but the accompanying ships...

 

I completely agree, but if you want to go earlier (particularly for assets that fit our Tomcats), we'd probably need those assets before hand. Right now the Nimitz-Roosevelt aircraft carriers we have as part of the Super Carrier represent ships from the mid-to-late 2000s onwards (given that they are fitted with the RIM-116 RAM), the Arleigh-Burke Flt. IIA 5"/62 (late) that we have, represents again 2000s+ ships.

 

The Ticonderoga-class (Mk41) represents a early-to-mid 2000s ship (owing to the Mk38 Mod 2 25mm MGS) and the Oliver Hazard Perry-class (long) is a late 70s and onwards ship (though it has Phalanx Block 1b which is 1999+).

 

It's just more how DCS gets kinda inconsistent, incoherent and non-comprehensive when you try and put together these sorts of missions (i.e with historically consistent assets and aircraft) and find out you basically can't, due to things missing.

[Moorhuhn]

Very good Thread,

I hope Hb will add more liveries for the A and the B soon.

 

I opend such a thread for the Hornet:

https://forums.eagle.ru/forum/english/digital-combat-simulator/dcs-f-a-18c-hornet/7147010-adding-more-liveries-skins-squadrons-to-the-hornet

 

I linked your thread there.

 

Lets hope the best.

[Nealius]

+1

 

I have downloaded 174 USN/USMC Hornet liveries, 152 Tomcat A/B liveries, 33 Viking liveries, and 31 Hawkeye liveries. Plus the default ones we get. Despite all that I can only make one complete CVW. ONE. Even then it's not complete because there's only 3 usable Tomcat modexes. It's absolutely maddening.

 

Why can't I make more?

 

1. Wrong ship name

2. Wrong or missing tail codes

3. Not enough modexes

 

I'm growing tired of being so limited.

[Swordsman422]

You're right Nealius. I had thought we had CVW-1's OEF deployment covered. We have CVN-71, VF-102's complete stable for that cruise, and I thought appropriate skins for VFA-82 and -86, VMFA-251, and VAW-123 but nope. All of those are from separate cruises on different ships.

 

I'm a bit frustrated by the gap we have in our available carriers and surface combatants. A lot of us like 1970s ops and we're missing so much. CVN-65, the Kitty Hawk-class, CV-67, and the early Nimitz class are all absent, as are A-7s and pre-TRAM A-6s. We're getting the Forrestal-class but the first one to operate Tomcats was USS Ranger in 1980. And nevermind the collection of cruisers and destroyers before the Tico and Arleigh Burke...

 

This really should be a community effort. My talents are modest, but I'm willing to help out.

 

 

[Nealius]

And a lot of that could be mitigated if the livery creators simply omitted the ship name from the jet. There are plenty of cruises where the squadrons had the same liveries as the previous cruise, with just a different ship name painted on the side.

[MBot]

I agree, this is something I wish DCS developers in general would pay more attention to.

 

When the Nevada map and the F-5E were released, I was rather confused that the majority of F-5E skins were Navy, while Nellis was the actual home base of a real USAF Aggressor squadron. I think there ever was only a single official USAF Aggressor skin.

 

With the recent F-14A release I noted that the VF-21 skin is from USS Constellation, even though VF-21 actually deployed with exactly the same livery on USS Independence in 1990 (a Forrestal-class). A strange choice.

 

For the F-14A I hope that HB will priorities skins for squadrons that deployed on Forrestal, Saratoga, Ranger and Independence. Of course certain iconic skins can't be missed out, like Nimitz 1979 VF-84, even though we do not have the right ships.

 

As a side note, it is interesting that the Forrestal class carriers didn't deploy with Tomcats all that long, so the number of squadrons is limited. From the supercarriers they kept the Phantom the longest (only Midway and Coral Sea switched their F-4 later) and were decommissioned soon afterwards (being the oldest supercarriers).

 

Forrestal-class deployments with F-14A/B:

USS Forrestal: 1986-1991

USS Saratoga: 1984-1994

USS Ranger: 1980-1993

USS Independence: 1982-1998

[MBot]

Forrestal-class deployments with F-14A/B:

USS Forrestal: 1986-1991

USS Saratoga: 1984-1994

USS Ranger: 1980-1993

USS Independence: 1982-1998

 

Let's break this even further down:

 

USS Forrestal:

F-14A, VF-11

F-14A, VF-31

 

USS Saratoga:

F-14A, VF-74, only low-viz TPS

F-14A, VF-103, only low-viz TPS

F-14B, VF-74, only low-viz TPS (already in game)

F-14B, VF-103, only low-viz TPS (already in game)

 

USS Ranger:

F-14A, VF-1

F-14A, VF-2

F-14A, VF-211

F-14A, VF-24

 

USS Independence:

F-14A, VF-14

F-14A, VF-32

F-14A, VF-21

F-14A, VF-154

 

 

Most squadrons had high-viz and low-viz schemes over the given period, but there are also various other variations (big/small national markings, color/grey national markings, color/grey squadron markings, light grey/TPS baseline color etc.).

[LanceCriminal86]

Sounds like more folks need to download the paint kit and buy a Photoshop CC subscription. There are a lot of demands and expectations for what HB and the skinning community are expected to do on their free time without understanding what goes into it.

[Swordsman422]

I'm looking at the PS CC sub right now. A lot of what has prevented me from doing more is that my CS4 isn't up to spec anymore, so I get a lot of errors in the layers I have to manually repair, which is a tedious pain. But my financial situation is now to the point where I can spare $20/month to upgrade.

[KingKenny04]

Sounds like more folks need to download the paint kit and buy a Photoshop CC subscription. There are a lot of demands and expectations for what HB and the skinning community are expected to do on their free time without understanding what goes into it.

 

I would argue that inclusion of skins that fit the assets and maps we actually have in game is part of the core game experience. We shouldn't be reliant on modders to complete the game experience. HB could choose any skins they want to include in the F-14A release, so it doesn't make any sense to me why they would go out of their way to include skins that we do not have content in game for. For example, they included VF-21 for USS Constellation and VF-154 for USS Kitty Hawk, but to my knowledge there is no Kitty Hawk-class planned for DCS. Why are those art resources not being dedicated to cover the content we actually have in-game? Obviously there are some iconic skins that ought to be in game, for example VF-84, VF-32's Gypsy 207 and Gypsy 202, and VF-41's Fast Eagle 102 and Fast Eagle 107.

 

I think putting the responsibility for completing the in-game experience on the community is a cop-out. This is absolutely HB and ED's responsibility, especially in the cases of skins for Ranger and Independence, where Operation Earnest Will (Ranger) and the Lebanese Civil War (Independence) were large parts of the marketing for both maps.

[LanceCriminal86]

 

I would argue that inclusion of skins that fit the assets and maps we actually have in game is part of the core game experience. We shouldn't be reliant on modders to complete the game experience. HB could choose any skins they want to include in the F-14A release, so it doesn't make any sense to me why they would go out of their way to include skins that we do not have content in game for. For example, they included VF-21 for USS Constellation and VF-154 for USS Kitty Hawk, but to my knowledge there is no Kitty Hawk-class planned for DCS. Why are those art resources not being dedicated to cover the content we actually have in-game? Obviously there are some iconic skins that ought to be in game, for example VF-84, VF-32's Gypsy 207 and Gypsy 202, and VF-41's Fast Eagle 102 and Fast Eagle 107.

 

I think putting the responsibility for completing the in-game experience on the community is a cop-out. This is absolutely HB and ED's responsibility, especially in the cases of skins for Ranger and Independence, where Operation Earnest Will (Ranger) and the Lebanese Civil War (Independence) were large parts of the marketing for both maps.

 

Like I said, pick one of those skins and try to make it to the accuracy expected from Heatblur, and then remember that there's one, maaaybbe two guys making their skins. Track how many hours it takes you and then let some of us pick it apart for errors. Then multiply it by how many skins everyone is demanding be made available for the A and B. THEN go back and make all the changes every time a model correction is done where you spend hours re-exporting textures because a UVW map changed. I'm trying to put perspective on some of the tones in these thread because people do NOT understand how many hours and research go into making just one skin that meets Heatblur's requirements for inclusion.

 

Yes, I agree it makes sense that some of our skins should match the Forrestal class boats. The people that REALLY care about it though are the kind that download skin packs and track BuNO and MODEX, like me. Everyone else just seems to want HiVis and CAG one of Christmas schemes who honestly don't care about it. It makes more sense to me that we wait and see what ships we ACTUALLY get, and then see what skins need to come along for them. There are a bunch of talented skinners working behind the scenes putting together entire cruise packs for the whole boat. But we are also missing half the aircraft that belong in the eras you are discussing, so shouldn't we focus on more recent packs until the A-6 and A-7 actually happen? And we are still missing an EA-6B, the S-3 is still a junk model, and so is the SH-60.

 

I'm making VF-201 and 202 because most folks don't even know or care about the reserve squadrons and they were local to me. And I'm making them to the quality that I'd hope they could eventually be included. It takes a LOT of work to even get one jet right because photos have different color shifts coming from film, sometimes all you get is a far away shot, and almost never do you get a canopy rail with names and callsigns and the MODEX and know exactly what year it was. I had one jet that I thought maybe I could do and immediately had to tear down half of it and start over once HBs guy took a quick peek at some WIP shots.

 

The skins will come. Let's see what jets and boats we ACTUALLY get first.

[KingKenny04]

 

Like I said, pick one of those skins and try to make it to the accuracy expected from Heatblur, and then remember that there's one, maaaybbe two guys making their skins. Track how many hours it takes you and then let some of us pick it apart for errors. Then multiply it by how many skins everyone is demanding be made available for the A and B. THEN go back and make all the changes every time a model correction is done where you spend hours re-exporting textures because a UVW map changed. I'm trying to put perspective on some of the tones in these thread because people do NOT understand how many hours and research go into making just one skin that meets Heatblur's requirements for inclusion.

 

Yes, I agree it makes sense that some of our skins should match the Forrestal class boats. The people that REALLY care about it though are the kind that download skin packs and track BuNO and MODEX, like me. Everyone else just seems to want HiVis and CAG one of Christmas schemes who honestly don't care about it. It makes more sense to me that we wait and see what ships we ACTUALLY get, and then see what skins need to come along for them. There are a bunch of talented skinners working behind the scenes putting together entire cruise packs for the whole boat. But we are also missing half the aircraft that belong in the eras you are discussing, so shouldn't we focus on more recent packs until the A-6 and A-7 actually happen? And we are still missing an EA-6B, the S-3 is still a junk model, and so is the SH-60.

 

I'm making VF-201 and 202 because most folks don't even know or care about the reserve squadrons and they were local to me. And I'm making them to the quality that I'd hope they could eventually be included. It takes a LOT of work to even get one jet right because photos have different color shifts coming from film, sometimes all you get is a far away shot, and almost never do you get a canopy rail with names and callsigns and the MODEX and know exactly what year it was. I had one jet that I thought maybe I could do and immediately had to tear down half of it and start over once HBs guy took a quick peek at some WIP shots.

 

The skins will come. Let's see what jets and boats we ACTUALLY get first.

 

I understand that those skins take time and effort to make, I'm not arguing that HB drop everything and spit out more skins right now. I'm arguing that skins for Independence in '83 and Ranger in '87 should be high priority in whatever work schedule HB has set up for their artists. The fact that high quality skins are so labor-intensive is why I made this thread, I'm trying to argue the case that those limited resources be put towards helping to complete the game experience for the maps and assets available to us going forward. Given that we know Heatblur are going to make and release new skins for the F-14A, B, and A-6, my hope is that I can present a case for why they should prioritize skins that match the content we have right now rather than random skins from carriers we don't have that deployed in regions we don't have maps for (iconic skins being the exception).

 

Please don't try to lecture anybody about "tone". I'm not a millionaire who can put together his own third party dev team, and there's no competition for DCS that I can turn to if I don't like the way things are going. My only alternatives are to stop playing altogether (which I neither want nor need to do), or to come on here and try to advocate for the things I'd like to see in game, which I believe I have done respectfully. Making your desires known is not bad, it's not offensive, and it's certainly not negative tone.

[LanceCriminal86]

Why do they have to be official skins? Heatblur isn't going to give you a 100% every MODEX every BuNO skin pack for one boat for one year (X6 if we are expecting each carrier and each of the 2 Tomcat wings to have full packages), I do not see that happening at all based on 1) how much disk space that will take up, and 2) the broad base of customers that would like to see the other squadrons that operated A and B models up through the late 90s. Maybe when dynamic MODEX comes online a generic line jet skin would happen sure but not to the rivets level of detail for each individual jet.

 

Now, you almost certainly WILL see something like that from the community, because guys like me and Swordsman and Shmoo42 and others are planning exactly that. You also MIGHT see HB willing to have their campaigns optionally use those kinds of skin packs, but I have to refer back to point #1 about the size those skin packs will add to the drive size and that's not a solution all of their customer base will want. They're already stating that they are having to keep an eye on that and full MODEX/BuNO are not very likely due to size. But perhaps they'd provide alternative versions of some of their "official" campaigns for users to download that would take advantage of a community livery pack. That's also again dependant on what ships we get, because it's now sounding like there is uncertainty about whether Ranger and Independence are happening.

 

I think we should have had the JFK instead if we were only getting one boat, but again that comes back to things like opinions and preferences, which everyone has. JFK was there for Sidra incident in '89, and for the Lebanon strikes after the Beruit bombings. Maybe JFK would be an option to go with the A-6E if they decide to do one boat, who knows.

 

Even if we do get the whole Forrestal class we're still left with a swath of missing carriers, which is an issue in DCS not easily or quickly solved, just like the Flanker era assets that still make up a large portion of the non player assets and the FC3 quality REDFOR aircraft, and the lack of accurate contemporary adversaries for 1983 and 1987 era Tomcats like MiG-23s and Su-22s. Oh, and no Libya or proper Iraq map either, nor do we even have a Pacific map for the South China Seas or anywhere that the Pacific squadrons would fit in. And the ubiquitous VF-84 Jolly Rogers don't have the Nimitz, nor for the VF-41 Black Aces from the 1981 Sidra Incident. There's a ton of missing stuff and it's unlikely to happen this decade or at all.

 

TLDR: This should just be a community skin pack because it can be done now without slowing down HB at all in their development, which means their skin and model guys can focus on fixing the existing issues with the A model and B model, updating the templates, skinning the Intruder and Forrestal. There's plenty of folks who'd totally do it even if we don't get the Ranger or Independance. And we can probably collectively do it faster than HB's guy can because again, single/limited resource who may not even be doing this full-time.

 

The VF-154 skin may not have even been made by Heatblur...

[KingKenny04]

Why do they have to be official skins? Heatblur isn't going to give you a 100% every MODEX every BuNO skin pack for one boat for one year (X6 if we are expecting each carrier and each of the 2 Tomcat wings to have full packages), I do not see that happening at all based on 1) how much disk space that will take up, and 2) the broad base of customers that would like to see the other squadrons that operated A and B models up through the late 90s. Maybe when dynamic MODEX comes online a generic line jet skin would happen sure but not to the rivets level of detail for each individual jet.

 

You are inventing an imaginary problem that I never mentioned and pretending like I did. I never said that I expected every single BuNo from every squadron that ever flew off the deck of an in-game carrier to get represented in-game. That's completely ridiculous. I'm not asking for anything different than what's done with the Hornet skins. I don't even care if they add CO's bird skins. Those almost always get repainted to standard grey before deployments anyways.

 

That's also again dependant on what ships we get, because it's now sounding like there is uncertainty about whether Ranger and Independence are happening.

 

Where did you read this? The last thing I've read on this from Heatblur was a couple of weeks before the F-14A release, and that was to say they're coming this winter.

 

Even if we do get the whole Forrestal class we're still left with a swath of missing carriers, which is an issue in DCS not easily or quickly solved, just like the Flanker era assets that still make up a large portion of the non player assets and the FC3 quality REDFOR aircraft, and the lack of accurate contemporary adversaries for 1983 and 1987 era Tomcats like MiG-23s and Su-22s. Oh, and no Libya or proper Iraq map either, nor do we even have a Pacific map for the South China Seas or anywhere that the Pacific squadrons would fit in. And the ubiquitous VF-84 Jolly Rogers don't have the Nimitz, nor for the VF-41 Black Aces from the 1981 Sidra Incident. There's a ton of missing stuff and it's unlikely to happen this decade or at all.

 

Have you misunderstood my original point? I am not trying to advocate for more carriers to get added to the game, I am only trying to advocate that priority for future skins from HB go to skins that cover content and events we can replicate in-game.

 

TLDR: This should just be a community skin pack because it can be done now without slowing down HB at all in their development, which means their skin and model guys can focus on fixing the existing issues with the A model and B model, updating the templates, skinning the Intruder and Forrestal.

 

Why would this slow anything down? If future skins are coming from HB for the A model Tomcat, what I'm trying to advocate for is that these future skins fit the carriers and events we can replicate in-game. If we're getting them anyways, I would rather they be skins from Ranger's '87 cruise or Independence's '83 cruise instead of random skins from some class of carrier we don't have during a deployment where nothing interesting happened. And I get that we can come up with whatever scenarios we want, but right now completely fictional scenarios is all we can do.

 

Why do they have to be official skins?

 

Why do I have to rely on community modders to get the historical experiences that were marketed to me when I bought the maps?

 

I think you are blowing my original point up into some huge issue beyond what I'm actually trying to argue for. All that I'm asking for is that priority be given to skins that would help us replicate real world compositions and events in-game. No extra work, nothing crazy. If there is a "to-do" list of skins for the F-14A sitting on HB's artists' computers, I'm just asking that the skins chosen at random that don't have any specific reason for being listed (i.e. that aren't iconic skins or aren't skins for aircraft that their SMEs flew or some other good reason) be replaced with skins for carriers and regions that we have in-game, for events that we can replicate in-game.

[LanceCriminal86]

It's buried somewhere in either the "What should go in the FAQ" stickied post, the Enter the -A thread, or an older Forrestal question post. It was asked if we were still getting the Forrestal class and the response was something similar to "we may have bit off more that we can chew", or it may simply be that Forrestal will show up and it will be a long while before the other two appear. But I recall the point being brought up about the unanticipated workload of doing even just Forrestal especially in light of the new Supercarrier adding expectations for animated crew etc. and that the added work of having to make all the small changes to superstructure etc. being involved to do the whole class vs just the one ship. But the takeaway is that the other two boats are no longer 100% certain and they almost surely will not be there when Forrestal drops.

 

As to everything else: "to get the historical experiences that were marketed to me when I bought the maps?"

 

I don't recall specific historical experiences being marketed to me when I bought any maps OR the Tomcat, or any Heatblur insinuation that we'd be getting some complete experience around a particular flashpoint or conflict. Only that we'd be getting a 90s B model Tomcat and an A model that was contemporary to our B, the Forrestal (and originally described as -Class but now who knows), and AI A-6E and KA-6.

 

They also promised campaigns, I think one for each variant. The B campaign is releasing maybe today, and the A at some point later. The Iranian Tomcat was originally just going to be the A with some systems disabled but it seems they've caved to the calls to have the external model done correctly and it will have the no-TCS ALQ-100 setup and the internal systems/weapons of the Iranian cats. They ALSO added an early A in with the old ALR-45 and likely locked to the older weapons, plus no LANTIRN.

 

I didn't miss your point, I'm not trying to push them to add carriers into the game (as much as they IMO should be here). But I am saying that they are probably not going to suddenly halt the other skins just because we don't have the ships that match their deployments.

 

I also don't get your line about "why do I have to rely on modders". This isn't like Bethesda "relying on modders" to fix their game and make up for its faults. This is simply an issue of massive amounts of work and demand on a very small number of people doing the skinning. Yet instead of saying "hell yeah let's start a community skin pack", you're saying you'd rather have HB do it. Which basically says middle finger to the skinners because our work isn't good enough. Or maybe you're saying because you want to have it be a default skin, in which case I must again remind you: what makes you think the HB skin you are expecting to happen will come from the HB guy and not from a community skinner? What if that's the winning skin from the competition? What if one of us submits it behind closed doors and just happens to get accepted because they like the idea of a couple historic skins to go with the boat? Do you complain that ED has been integrating community skins in the F-16 and the F/A-18? Do you believe that compromises the quality of the product?

[MBot]

For me only official skins matter because these are the only ones I can use when making missions/campaigns. I don't want to make missions/campaigns that require users to download additional external 3rd party content. As such I would like developers, which will provide a number of skins anyway, to concentrate as far as possible on liveries that tie in with other assets available in the game.

[Jackjack171]

 

I don't even care if they add CO's bird skins. Those almost always get repainted to standard grey before deployments anyways.

 

 

Only in the Marine Corps bro! Navy always keeps the color. :thumbup:

 

As I said in another thread somewhere, ED nor any other Dev has never been too keen on paints. That's just a fact! The community has always made better ones IMO. This is something I agree with alongside @LanceCriminal86. The guys that make the packs are a lifeline and put many hours into their work for all of us, and for free. I think Ed or HB or whomever should put them on the payroll. I've been following Isoko since F-14X.

 

I like BUNO's and the names of former crews on my jets. And MODEX numbers that make sense along with proper tail codes. Isoko, Swordsman Reflected and the others provide that. Maybe we as a community could invent a donationware site or a thread or something to give back to these guys to show support and appreciation. Just a thought!

 

At the very least ED should provide a way that these repainters work can get into MP and such. Or hire these guys. That way, this community still gets what it needs and let's the devs concentrate on the "big parts". That's what's been happening anyway!

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

OP, those are some pretty great scenario ideas.

[LanceCriminal86]

I disagree none with the intent of this effort. Having skins that match the maps and ships we have is a very relevant desire.

 

I disagree with the vehicle by which some want it delivered, and when they want it delivered.

 

Seriously, this kind of stuff should wait to see how dynamic MODEX pans out, because then it becomes a moot point for the most part.

[Swordsman422]

Seriously, this kind of stuff should wait to see how dynamic MODEX pans out, because then it becomes a moot point for the most part.

 

If nothing else, the raw tedium of editing 8 texture files 10-12 times per livery is why I haven't been more prolific. I'm willing to help pull this effort forward, but I think a lot of us are holding up to see how this feature shakes out. If it's handled poorly (which I doubt) I won't have a lot of interest in contributing more.