HB: Which Tomcats were scanned to create the module?

[LanceCriminal86]

I ask this out of constructive criticism, because there are features present in the model that should not have been there for any variant of the Tomcat, and there are also features there correct for the D model that I can't seem to find photos of on B models, or at least from VF-74 and VF-11 B models.

 

Can you guys provide which jets were used for the scans and references to build the models and textures? Perhaps only certain builds of A+/B models retained certain visual features?

 

The items have already been added in the bug tracker in the past, but they included the NACA duct that does not belong on the right engine, the small "vents" above the NAVY stencil aft that I can only find in photos of D models so far, a misalignment of the model and textures where the landing gear reinforcement struts lock into the nacelle, the leading edges of the vertical stabilizers having the wrong reinforcement shapes, and a few other issues. What I'm trying to understand is how some of this stuff showed up without being compared to mountains and mountains of photos of Tomcats which should have perhaps shown they weren't right?

[IronMike]

EDIT: See Cobra's answer below please.

Edited December 19, 2020 by IronMike

[Cobra847]

14 hours ago, LanceCriminal86 said:

I ask this out of constructive criticism, because there are features present in the model that should not have been there for any variant of the Tomcat, and there are also features there correct for the D model that I can't seem to find photos of on B models, or at least from VF-74 and VF-11 B models.

 

Can you guys provide which jets were used for the scans and references to build the models and textures? Perhaps only certain builds of A+/B models retained certain visual features?

 

The items have already been added in the bug tracker in the past, but they included the NACA duct that does not belong on the right engine, the small "vents" above the NAVY stencil aft that I can only find in photos of D models so far, a misalignment of the model and textures where the landing gear reinforcement struts lock into the nacelle, the leading edges of the vertical stabilizers having the wrong reinforcement shapes, and a few other issues. What I'm trying to understand is how some of this stuff showed up without being compared to mountains and mountains of photos of Tomcats which should have perhaps shown they weren't right?

 

Some of these things are simply bugs. Can you elaborate on the reinforcement edges? I am not aware of that particular subtelty.

 

NACA ducts and reinforcement strut misalignment are both issues due for a fix, but they're not an issue with references at all. They're simply graphics errors (the duct occurs due to a mirroring without plugging the hole, the misalignment due to.. fatigue, I suppose )

 

As for your curiosity re actual BuNo's use as primary reference:

158627 (F-14D) - Hickory, NC
161134 (F-14A) - Titusville, FL

160889 (F-14A) - Santa Rosa, CA

 

Edited December 19, 2020 by Cobra847

[Skysurfer]

3 hours ago, Cobra847 said:

 

Some of these things are simply bugs. Can you elaborate on the reinforcement edges? I am not aware of that particular subtelty.

 

NACA ducts and reinforcement strut misalignment are both issues due for a fix, but they're not an issue with references at all. They're simply graphics errors (the duct occurs due to a mirroring without plugging the hole, the misalignment due to.. fatigue, I suppose )

 

As for your curiosity re actual BuNo's use as primary reference:

158627 (F-14D) - Hickory, NC
161134 (F-14A) - Titusville, FL

160889 (F-14A) - Santa Rosa, CA

 

 

 

Here's a screen of said mis-aligned bumpmap texture (both on the A and B). Has been there since release and many livery creators have fixed it since it's a really simple and straightforward fix. Would be cool if the global bumpmap for the necelle could be fixed. Small detail but still a graphical bug. And when can we expect the TCS internals to be textured properly? Currently they are untextured, same as the additional LAU-7's for the 4x AIM9 loadout. I think the Tomcat needs a sort of a "cleanup" patch for these external and internal graphical glitches/issues to bring it up to speed.

 

If you need good reference pictures for the TCS I can provide them.

 

[LanceCriminal86]

So, that actually is not an easy fix.

 

The black square is in the right spot for the model. It's the rest of the panel textures that are misaligned, OR the whole landing gear assembly is off. One of the two. I can see how that would happen if you modeled it off plans and then scanned the jet and tried to overlay the scans. Obviously the modeler noticed  the issue and adjusted the locking port location so at least the arms will go in there on the model, but now the whole rest of the nacelle is off. In turn that probably impacts the front textures too.

 

Can anyone find a B model with those little vents? The HQ walk-around photos I reviewed from books and websites were VF-11 and 74 B models, and I didn't see them on the 101 B model walk-around either. But they are definitely on D models.

 

If they don't belong then that's at least one less difference between the A and B visual model.

[Nealius]

I can't help but notice that, with exception to the refueling probe length issue on the Harrier some time back, the Tomcat is the only module that gets so much "this rivent is in the wrong place!" attention, while overlooking greater issues that affect actual gameplay. Most of those issues being on the ED end, but still. Priorities? 

[LanceCriminal86]

Maybe because the livery and model guys probably aren't working on the issues with radar coding, missile API, or flight model values? Yeah, the A-6 and Forrestal are on their plates too but we haven't seen those in an eternity. For all we know the model/texture work could be done and they're on the coding queue. Or maybe they're not, it's up to HB to prioritize their time.

 

People who spend time painting Tomcats notice things. People who spend a LOT of time painting Tomcats notice a lot more things. Painting talent does not equate to attention to detail, there are a ton of very talented skinners who have stepped right past these issues, and I know some of them are waiting on final corrections and template updates to fix their skins.

 

With the ongoing state of turn rates, missile behavior, EDs lack of any real updates to the Supercarrier, the continual existence of FC or Flanker era assets, and the litany of other core issues with DCS I find my time better spent on trying to at least get accurate, correct Tomcat liveries. And in doing so some issues have become apparent when comparing the models we have side by side with high quality photos that are readily available with a Google search.

 

People can't talk about how a module's attention to detail sells them on it and then get mad if someone applies attention to detail and finds issues. The difference is Heatblur have generally shown a strong desire to embrace making corrections even if they were minor. If they told me to pound sand, at this point I'd probably hang up on DCS and go do something better with my time. The HB Tomcat is the entire reason I finally got DCS, pardon me if I want it to be *right*. This isn't a thing like glove vanes or PTID, or a feature. It's the model/product being accurate.

[CanopyJettison]

vor 12 Stunden schrieb LanceCriminal86:

The HB Tomcat is the entire reason I finally got DCS, pardon me if I want it to be *right*. This isn't a thing like glove vanes or PTID, or a feature. It's the model/product being accurate.

I would agree 100%

[G.J.S]

13 hours ago, LanceCriminal86 said:

The HB Tomcat is the entire reason I finally got DCS, pardon me if I want it to be *right*. This isn't a thing like glove vanes or PTID, or a feature. It's the model/product being accurate.

WAS going to jump in and say something like "pot, kettle, and black", and leave it at that, just couldn't figure the order to put them in.

But its your response to Nealius that brought me here - remember our little tango? You giving me flack for a model accuracy error i was pointing out?

Just a little hypocritical.

 

Merry Xmas.

 

Edited December 20, 2020 by garyscott

[LanceCriminal86]

You mean the one they fixed?

 

No, we tangoed because YOU were criticizing a Tomcat pilot and module SME for not noticing it on his walkarounds. I pointed out that there are tons of bearded SF dudes who know almost nothing about the specs and details of their rifles, because they are too busy putting rounds on foreheads.

 

I never said you were wrong about the missing anhedral, did I?

[G.J.S]

27 minutes ago, LanceCriminal86 said:

You mean the one they fixed?

 

No, we tangoed because YOU were criticizing a Tomcat pilot and module SME for not noticing it on his walkarounds. I pointed out that there are tons of bearded SF dudes who know almost nothing about the specs and details of their rifles, because they are too busy putting rounds on foreheads.

 

I never said you were wrong about the missing anhedral, did I?

You called it 'minutia', lets just hope your SF grunts know which end of the rifle goes bang at least, and which bit to look through.

 

Hanukkah Sameach.

[Nealius]

....it is minutia....

 

Knowing which end of a rifle goes bang and how to aim are not minutia. I recommend you consult a dictionary. There is too much unfair criticism of actual pilots by armchair experts who are disconnected from reality. 

Edited December 21, 2020 by Nealius

[LanceCriminal86]

Not every guy I talked to could remember who made their barrel, what twist rate it used, which chamber dimensions it used (was it cut for M855 or Mk262), how many turns until the suppressor locked up, or what all was included in the kit. But considering they are still alive and by many accounts had plenty of opportunities not to be if they couldn't figure out which end of their rifle was which, I guess it all worked out.

 

As I knew this was likely the case, I instead asked them about their experiences, did the rifle fill the role it was built for, what would they have changed, etc. For the technical minutea I tracked down armorers and folks at AMU or 5th SFG who built and originally configured them. In the same vein, I'd be more surprised if a Grumman engineer who worked on aerodynamics didn't know about or notice the anhedral of the HStabs than a pilot, but I still wouldn't try to publicly diss them for it.

 

This is precisely what I was driving at while you were trying to have a jab at Victory because he didn't pay attention to it. Within the various US Special Operations groups yes, some guys are very switched on about the technical details of the weapons they used. Usually it's because they already were predisposed to it, guys like Larry Vickers. Some former Tomcat pilots and RIOs have done things like write books, do seminars, interviews, and appeared to really be into the minutea of the jet's designs. Others naturally did not. They focused on flying, doing their jobs, got out of the Navy, and went on with their lives. Some got out of aviation completely.

 

Thank you for totally derailing the thread. What I suspected seems to be verified, though I was hoping perhaps others could provide some documentation that perhaps would show that, in fact, some of the B models did have those small vents. Like Mike said yes there are some small differences between blocks, but this seems to be a feature on D model cats and not the A and B airframes we have or will have.

[RustBelt]

2 hours ago, LanceCriminal86 said:

yes, some guys are very switched on about the technical details of the weapons they used. Usually it's because they already were predisposed to it,

No Usually it's because they had teachers that confused Rote regurgitation with actually knowing things

2 hours ago, LanceCriminal86 said:

Others naturally did not. They focused on flying, doing their jobs, got out of the Navy, and went on with their lives. Some got out of aviation completely.

 

And Some like a lot of pilots I flew with in airlines, thought the engine starts by air being directly blown into the center of the engine, not an Air Turbine Starter Motor driving the engine core through the accessory gear box. Didn't make them bad pilots, but It did mean that you never let them fix anything. 

Edited December 21, 2020 by RustBelt

[IronMike]

I am proud that you guys are nitpicking. It shows how much deep and never ending interest you show in the Tomcat. Can it be tedious sometimes? Hell yeah. But that is natural. We've been at the Tomcat almost 7 years now... It's massive. But interest does not waver. The rivet counting does not stop. The nitpicking does not stop. The passion does not stop...

And while sometimes it might seem gloomey, and give the impression of "nothing works goddaymut" - it is in fact indicative of the opposite. A module you do not expect to improve or live up to your expectations, you don't count rivets for... Which keeps us on our toes. Not because we would miss these things else, I doubt anyone knows the graphical bugs better than Cobra, but because it reminds us of the passion ppl have for the Tomcat. And if your fire keeps burning, so does ours.

[LanceCriminal86]

5 hours ago, IronMike said:

I am proud that you guys are nitpicking. It shows how much deep and never ending interest you show in the Tomcat. Can it be tedious sometimes? Hell yeah. But that is natural. We've been at the Tomcat almost 7 years now... It's massive. But interest does not waver. The rivet counting does not stop. The nitpicking does not stop. The passion does not stop...

And while sometimes it might seem gloomey, and give the impression of "nothing works goddaymut" - it is in fact indicative of the opposite. A module you do not expect to improve or live up to your expectations, you don't count rivets for... Which keeps us on our toes. Not because we would miss these things else, I doubt anyone knows the graphical bugs better than Cobra, but because it reminds us of the passion ppl have for the Tomcat. And if your fire keeps burning, so does ours.

 

To be fair, I'm usually only counting rivets when I'm trying to align a stencil so it matches a photo. Sometimes counting the rivets past a panel line is the best method. But it's also that process where I picked up on a few things that just seemed out of place, and that opened up a rabbit hole.

 

 

[Victory205]

It’s not the rivet counting, it’s the guys who have never bucked a rivet declaring that “the rivets the wrong diameter”!

[Southernbear]

On 12/21/2020 at 8:48 PM, IronMike said:

A module you do not expect to improve or live up to your expectations, you don't count rivets for...

Is literally why...

On 12/20/2020 at 6:33 PM, Nealius said:

the Tomcat is the only module that gets so much "this rivent is in the wrong place!" attention

 

That isn't to say, of course other main line "poster child" Modules won't improve or eventually live up to expectations but its why you don't see people take issue with things on say the Harrier, Mirage, F-16C and F/A-18C in the same way they do the F-14.

 

Those modules mentioned just haven't cultivated the same level of trust and or commitment as Heatblur has shown with the Viggen and F-14 projects

Edited December 23, 2020 by Southernbear

[Nealius]

5 hours ago, Southernbear said:

Is literally why...

 

That isn't to say, of course other main line "poster child" Modules won't improve or eventually live up to expectations but its why you don't see people take issue with things on say the Harrier, Mirage, F-16C and F/A-18C in the same way they do the F-14.

 

Those modules mentioned just haven't cultivated the same level of trust and or commitment as Heatblur has shown with the Viggen and F-14 projects

 

 

The question remains: Is minutiae an "improvement" as opposed to something like a better-functioning Jester or dynamic modexes so multiplayer isn't thrown into chaos with 5 AB112s in the Marshal where no one knows who ATC (AI or human) is addressing?

[Dragon1-1]

Again, people who do that kind of improvements do not (usually) have the expertise to do anything about Jester, modexes or anything else that involves code.

 

That's when it's even within Heatblur's power to fix. Some things are entirely on the ED side of things. Soon all missile-related complaints will have to go to ED, for instance, though I don't think they'll completely leave 3rd party devs out of that.