Slight inaccuracy in the Oxygen Indicator?

[Salty Buckets]

As Heatblur recently released pictures of the long awaited oxygen gauge for the F-14, I've noticed and also consulted with others that it seems that the one Heatblur modeled is slightly off. It seems that in real pictures of the oxygen gauge that it was slightly tilted to make it easier for the pilot to read. Is there any supporting evidence that the oxygen indicator was not tilted like it was in the irl picture I've posted? I know this is a VERY minor thing and is very... Rivet count-y, but was just wondering if this was intentional or not.

 

[draconus]

Here's one that is evenly mounted:

NATOPS foldouts also show it like that, so I guess both are realistic.

 

Edited July 19, 2022 by draconus

[IronMike]

13 hours ago, Salty Buckets said:

As Heatblur recently released pictures of the long awaited oxygen gauge for the F-14, I've noticed and also consulted with others that it seems that the one Heatblur modeled is slightly off. It seems that in real pictures of the oxygen gauge that it was slightly tilted to make it easier for the pilot to read. Is there any supporting evidence that the oxygen indicator was not tilted like it was in the irl picture I've posted? I know this is a VERY minor thing and is very... Rivet count-y, but was just wondering if this was intentional or not.

 

This is a picture of a museum aircraft, and could very well be owed to the fact that the museum put it in wrongly. We went by the standard as was in most jets, and that most certainly was not tilted.

Edited July 19, 2022 by IronMike

[Naquaii]

While not being 100% that that is indeed a museum aircraft the thing that makes me believe that is the absence of the spoiler override panel. Museum aircraft are notorious for missing panels and having them in the wrong location. Tilting the oxygen indicator fits that description like IronMike says.

[DSplayer]

Source for the original image btw (from Uncovering the F-14A/B/D Tomcat by Dave Coreman):

[Naquaii]

41 minutes ago, DSplayer said:

Source for the original image btw (from Uncovering the F-14A/B/D Tomcat by Dave Coreman):

Yeah, I had a look again and that's probably a DFCS aircraft which would remove the spoiler override panel so could be an active aircraft. Or at least I guess that it was the DFCS that removed it. The latest B(U) NATOPS I have still have that gauge straight though.

In any case, afaik having it straight is not wrong.

[LanceCriminal86]

35 minutes ago, DSplayer said:

Source for the original image btw (from Uncovering the F-14A/B/D Tomcat by Dave Coreman):

Coreman's jet is a later B (Upgrade) which features different layouts than older photos of A+/B, like the one in Lock On #18 by Willy Peeters from 1991. Other books with F-14 B and B(U) pits even show different layouts from the VF-32 jet circa 2004 or so from Coreman's book.

DFCS may have introduced changes to the front cockpit, but photos of a pretty fresh A+/B from the above reference are more accurate to the jet being modeled in DCS. No DFCS, none of the later B (U) changes, just the LANTIRN integrations.

Let's always take the steps to make sure we're comparing the right years and configurations.

^ Credit Willy Peeters, from Lock On No. 18, Grumman F-14A/B Tomcat

[IronMike]

It is also not unlikely that it boils down to a maintainer simply putting in the gauge in a tilted way, we know for example that they also moved some panels around, etc... But when we model stuff like that, we ofc model the most common standard, which was not tilted. Having it slightly tilted for example could be something for forge as well, which aims precisely at capturing such maintenance oddities. No promise though.

Thank you also for pointing out where the original pic came from.

Edited July 19, 2022 by IronMike

[r4y30n]

Here I was thinking Forge would just change the amount of weathering on the panels…

[IronMike]

8 hours ago, r4y30n said:

Here I was thinking Forge would just change the amount of weathering on the panels…

I don't know where you guys keep taking this from? We always said we will not offer different weathering of the cockpit, it would amount to basically re-doing the cockpit. On certain, smaller panels maybe, but primarily forge is about changing panel positions (for panels where applicable), in the future maybe seat cushions, buno, that kind of stuff.

[DSplayer]

3 hours ago, IronMike said:

I don't know where you guys keep taking this from? We always said we will not offer different weathering of the cockpit, it would amount to basically re-doing the cockpit. On certain, smaller panels maybe, but primarily forge is about changing panel positions (for panels where applicable), in the future maybe seat cushions, buno, that kind of stuff.

That bit about weathering came from the F-14 - Pre Order / Gameplay Reveal Trailer you guys had put out about 3ish years ago: “The cockpit of your aircraft will change depending on the aircraft you’re currently flying. Panel locations, weathering, details, and even the type of seat cushions will change…” 

 

Maybe that was the only instance where you guys mentioned weathering in relation to Forge.

[IronMike]

8 minutes ago, DSplayer said:

That bit about weathering came from the F-14 - Pre Order / Gameplay Reveal Trailer you guys had put out about 3ish years ago: “The cockpit of your aircraft will change depending on the aircraft you’re currently flying. Panel locations, weathering, details, and even the type of seat cushions will change…” 

 

Maybe that was the only instance where you guys mentioned weathering in relation to Forge.

Yeah, this part is a bit too generalized. Weathering on certain panels to a certain degree is much more accurate. But not the overall weathering. That would add like almost another year on the Tomcat and is just not feasible. We'll see how far we can take this, but I don't want folks to get disappointed who expect to suddenly have a brand new looking jet, etc...

[r4y30n]

Sorry Mike, what I meant was that it sounds more impressive the way you describe it today than I thought back then.

[IronMike]

1 hour ago, r4y30n said:

Sorry Mike, what I meant was that it sounds more impressive the way you describe it today than I thought back then.

Oh no need to apologize at all bud.

[Uxi]

Would be very cool if tilted for Forge. Different cushions would rock.  Maybe tears or stains?  Would BuNo be tied to livery or just a random number? 

[IronMike]

21 hours ago, Uxi said:

Would be very cool if tilted for Forge. Different cushions would rock.  Maybe tears or stains?  Would BuNo be tied to livery or just a random number? 

We haven't fully decided on the BuNo yet, it is possible it will be random rather, feasibility will have the last word in this case I would carefully suggest.

[LanceCriminal86]

7 minutes ago, IronMike said:

We haven't fully decided on the BuNo yet, it is possible it will be random rather, feasibility will have the last word in this case I would carefully suggest.

*IF* the BuNO could be separated from the main panel texture as its own, then it could be tied to skins at least without adding another large texture to each skin. Since the BuNO is not dynamic on the outside of the jet anyways, trying to make "dynamic" cockpit BuNO wouldn't make sense. But letting it be more easily controlled at least by the base skin would be a lot easier to manage.

Now, if you guys do a MODEX controlled by mission editor, then various stenciled or stickered numbers somewhere in the cockpit should be doable at the least which I think is something you already mentioned being considered before. But the BuNO makes more sense to tie to the skins and you have to duck pretty far down right now to see it anyways.

[RustBelt]

Never assume something that should be easy, is easy in DCS.  It’s decades of stuff built on top of stuff.

[LanceCriminal86]

4 hours ago, RustBelt said:

Never assume something that should be easy, is easy in DCS.  It’s decades of stuff built on top of stuff.

I'm well aware of the issues. In this case replacing a portion of the cockpit panel's texture with another separate texture file is simpler than creating a "dynamic" BuNO that changes based on the mission editor or loadout screen. We can already replace the BuNO by overwriting the HB_F14_CPT_FRONT_03 texture and its roughmet, and it works in the Livery arguments. But that means re-exporting what already was a compressed DDS file. Also likely simpler than cutting up the external model for dynamic MODEX. Since we're seeing cockpit bits and external model stuff happening again, now's the time to ask.

Edited July 29, 2022 by LanceCriminal86

[Callsign JoNay]

Is the oxygen gauge going to be getting instrument/console lighting eventually?

 

[JupiterJoe]

You're of course right to point this issue out, but my hope is Heatblur consider things like this a low priority when compared to getting systems like Heading Hold and Wing Sweep to work as they should.  I would put items like this in the 'finishing touches' category, with other cockpit lighting issues like the bright white night lighting of the Electronic Instrument Group (Engine Parameter Bars) on the F-14B.  I would even put these items lower on the list than getting previously unimplemented systems like the engine fire suppression up and running for example.  I suspect these days most of HB resources are allocated to projects like the F4.  Projects that are going to bring money in more readily and that's of course as it should be.    The F-14 remains one of the best modules in DCS.  HB's reputation for producing a quality product and expectation for future  products couldn't be higher.  Continued polishing/development of their modules helps maintain that reputation, but there must only be a skeleton crew left working on the F-14 by now.  I'm sure they're aware of how beloved their F-14 module is.  

Edited July 30, 2022 by JupiterJoe

[Callsign JoNay]

6 hours ago, JupiterJoe said:

You're of course right to point this issue out, but my hope is Heatblur consider things like this a low priority when compared to getting systems like Heading Hold and Wing Sweep to work as they should.  I would put items like this in the 'finishing touches' category, with other cockpit lighting issues like the bright white night lighting of the Electronic Instrument Group (Engine Parameter Bars) on the F-14B.  I would even put these items lower on the list than getting previously unimplemented systems like the engine fire suppression up and running for example.  I suspect these days most of HB resources are allocated to projects like the F4.  Projects that are going to bring money in more readily and that's of course as it should be.    The F-14 remains one of the best modules in DCS.  HB's reputation for producing a quality product and expectation for future  products couldn't be higher.  Continued polishing/development of their modules helps maintain that reputation, but there must only be a skeleton crew left working on the F-14 by now.  I'm sure they're aware of how beloved their F-14 module is.  

 

Sure, and I would argue all those things are less important than properly modeling the weight/drag of the pallets and fairings, but I'm not going to mention that in a thread about AP heading hold.

[JupiterJoe]

...Wait, there's a problem with the modelling of weight/drag for pallets and fairings?

[Callsign JoNay]

5 hours ago, JupiterJoe said:

...Wait, there's a problem with the modelling of weight/drag for pallets and fairings?

Yes, it has been proven in the FM Development Status pinned thread that adding or removing phoenix pallets has no effect on the aircraft gross weight and drag. Either the weight of the pallets is permanently baked into the clean weight of the jet, or they don't weigh anything when attached.