F/A-18 Super Hornet

[jaynus 10]

Will there be a no-glt/no-mando version available as well, Meatball? Or will this be strictly mando+glt aircraft?

[Meatball0311 79]

Will there be a no-glt/no-mando version available as well, Meatball? Or will this be strictly mando+glt aircraft?

As of right now it will be... but in time I hopefully will learn more about modelling and will release a standalone version...

However, you cant ask for any other better addons to be required. They both put together awesome addons that work well.

[[frl]myke 14]

Will there be a no-glt/no-mando version available as well, Meatball? Or will this be strictly mando+glt aircraft?

Would you have asked the same question also if it were announced as ACE dependant?

[abs 2]

Myke;1887489']Would you have asked the same question also if it were announced as ACE dependant?

If this were the case, I probably would have skipped it.

Abs

[Lastuslustus 10]

Very nice Team for the F18. Makes me want to to have this one more and more. :)

[jaynus 10]

Myke;1887489']Would you have asked the same question also if it were announced as ACE dependant?

Nope; I wouldn't. But the community I run operates on a pretty strict addon basis when it comes to asset addon's (e.g. things required server side which go into our official modpack). We use ACE - we do not use GLT/Mando.

But since you brought it up - the reason I asked is because #1. We don't use them, and #2. myself and others (in my community) have been interested enough in waiting for this specific vehicle to discuss the effort involved between us to port it to be stable/usable within our modpack prior to bringing it up. If it makes you feel better - the same discussions have been going on (between us) about doing the same thing with GLT and parts of Mando (perf/conflict issues mostly) to have them on par with our needs/requirements.

Don't be so fast the jump the gun ;)

[SigintArmA 10]

Hrm... I was happy when hearing the missile box but, now that Mando will be added is leaning me away.

Mostly on a mission making standpoint, it's one thing to say it requires F/A-18 but then adding more and more just for a single aircraft might be pushing it.

But that is only my point of view, don't know about anyone else. -Shrugs- Just think getting more then one requirement for a single aircraft is getting to overkill...? :lookaround:

[TBuck 10]

Hi,

Do I really have to install MMA?

Actually, it's an extra feature for airplanes or helicopters.

So it's only a additional feature to get a more realistic aiming etc.

My problem is, that I like to fly the AH64. With MMA i have to use the to dark monocle. I hate it- sorry ;) . I also have a noticable frame drop with MMA, when placing many units. I would like to implement your F18 into Drapers airsupport script. But with MMA restriction I would kick it.

Tino

[Meatball0311 79]

Now gentleman, I understand the reasoning behind wanting a standalone version, (which may come in the future) but I don't see how requiring two addons that are firmly established in the community would make this so unbearable. I listed the reasoning behind this decision and have also suggested that a standalone is not out of question. GLT_Misslebox and MMA are popular and really put together well. They will add a realism that I personally desire in an addon.

GLT_Missilebox and MMA should be the only requirements for this addon and I personally think they will bring a high level of entertainment/realism to this addon.

[ANZACSAS Steven 395]

M8,I gotta say the same here,

I dont know why ppl want addons to be dependent on other addons.

There really isnt anything in those addons that cant be coded into the F18 itself.

What features were u after in mando's and and GLT box?

[[frl]myke 14]

What features were u after in mando's and and GLT box?

Well, let's see:

- a crapload of ready-to-use weapons?

- weapons well balanced to each other?

- a ready-to-use GPS/INS targetting and guiding system?

- weapon models of good quality?

Thats what i can say about the Missilebox, MMA also adds some goodies.

But it is like every other addon: don't like it, don't use it. Don't blame the people for trying to make things as good as possible and shift the experience to a higher level.

Everyones free to stick with Vanilla ArmA 2.

[Defunkt 431]

Hrm... I was happy when hearing the missile box but, now that Mando will be added is leaning me away.

Mostly on a mission making standpoint, it's one thing to say it requires F/A-18 but then adding more and more just for a single aircraft might be pushing it.

But that is only my point of view, don't know about anyone else. -Shrugs- Just think getting more then one requirement for a single aircraft is getting to overkill...? :lookaround:

ROFL. Too funny.

Honestly too me <Insert Addon Maker>, ignore them. This sounds too much like the crying about balancing tanks for PvP since the T72 is cannon fodder yet the M1A1 isn't. Ignore them and move on.

As a great man said 'Keep Moving Foward' -Walt Disney

And hey, look at that now. It's -Your- mod. They don't like it? As <Insert Some Other User> said, the others can make their own to do what they want. I mean hell, if people want an <Insert Plane> bad enough but NOT your <Insert Addon Dependency>, they can make their own that doesn't require it -Shrugs-

Only person you gotta make happy is yourself. Do bug fixes and what you want but ignore people who are almost demanding you do it their way.

@TheCryBabies: You have a choice. Use it or don't. (Goes for every addon out there. Not just this) No one is forcing you to DL anything damn it

[mandoble 1]

The F18 will be as dependant on MMA as any other existing plane, if you activate MMA in the mission or automatically, you will have MMA systems on it, if you dont, you will not have them. There should not be any strict dependancy at all. MMA also ensures it will never activate client side if it is not activated also server side, so all potential dependancies or MP issues are strongly solved.

[jaynus 10]

The F18 will be as dependant on MMA as any other existing plane, if you activate MMA in the mission or automatically, you will have MMA systems on it, if you dont, you will not have them. There should not be any strict dependancy at all. MMA also ensures it will never activate client side if it is not activated also server side, so all potential dependancies or MP issues are strongly solved.

See. This is the perfect response to my question.

I will be sending a joint-PM to all three of you helping with this now with some questions :)

Thanks guys.

[SigintArmA 10]

Alright. Was just wondering, because personally I'd use the F/A-18 for support and though having MMA needed wouldn't be worth a plane for a support role. Now that I know about it better, I'm okay. Was just giving two cents on what I thought since I haven't used MMA extensively to know that it won't be required, but if you have it activated it'll be there in working order but if not the plane is still good for use.

Only was iffy about it because I wasn't sure if it'll be a 'If you don't have MMA you can't use it at all' kind of thing. Thank you Mandoble for the explanation ^^

[Meatball0311 79]

Yes, thank you Mandoble for clearing things up.

[ANZACSAS Steven 395]

@Mandoble,thanks for the explanation.I havnt used your missile scripts since arma1 when they were just scripts.Very clever design.

@Myke,I asked meatball what features he was after with the extra addons.I am sure he is more than capable of answering himself.Your post is only an echo of your frustration in another thread.

[Meatball0311 79]

@Mandoble,thanks for the explanation.I havnt used your missile scripts since arma1 when they were just scripts.Very clever design.

@Myke,I asked meatball what features he was after with the extra addons.I am sure he is more than capable of answering himself.Your post is only an echo of your frustration in another thread.

Actually, I was looking to implement everything that MMA has, so it was only logical to go with it. I had taken about a 6 month vacation from ArmA, and kinda got rusty. I haven't scripted in a while (and never was really good at it), so I sought help. Myke was kind enough to offer his time and knowledge to help me out. I always respected him for his work and his patience in taking time to help people like myself. This is the first vehicle project I have taken on and I needed some help. I am spending a lot of time on this (learning new things, trial and error, and sharpening my skills). I know that in time this addon will hopefully meet everyone's needs and that a standalone version will be made. Until then, I have to seek assistance, so I sought the help from people that are established in the ArmA community.

The area's that I lack in are:

-weapons configuration

-and scripting...

those are the areas that I need help with in this project.. so if you know how to script air/ground radar, rwr, weapons, air/ground weapons lock, unguided weapons targeting, etc... shoot me a PM. But I will be honest... this first release will have GLT_Missilebox and MMA

[[frl]myke 14]

Oh Steve, you got me. This whole Missilebox issue is/was part of my plan to take over the world. Now as you revealed this plan i have to think of another way.

qzZmU0aGmcc

But on a serious note, as i am the creator of the Missilebox (and therefor knows best it's benefits and features) and also as i'm involved in the F/A-18 a bit, i thought i'm entitled enough to answer a question about it. But as you in your endless wisdom pointed out, i am not. Nonetheless, thank you for noticing me, Sir.

Edited April 1, 2011 by [FRL]Myke

[Lastuslustus 10]

Is it possible to add some external tanks under the wings too? Would be looking nice and adds a long range version! ;)

[ANZACSAS Steven 395]

@Lastuslustus,

My fav loadouts are external wing tanks too.I RL these aircraft rarely go anywhere without external tanks but in games they often dont use them to allow more bombs etc.The problem with that is that the ingame aircraft often dont look "real" cos of the unorthodox loadout/s.

[mosh 0]

Actually, I was looking to implement everything that MMA has, so it was only logical to go with it.

Awesome, thanks for the update, the plane is looking great.

[[frl]myke 14]

Actually it should be possible to load 5 additional fueltanks (4 underwing and one center fuselage). Personally i would suggest 1, 2 or 3 droptanks as i think full capacity of 5 is overkill, even more as it is only for asthetic reasons.

I wish BIS would have thought of droptanks and included a way to make them actually work as intended.

[abs 2]

Myke;1888399']... as it is only for asthetic reasons.

I wish BIS would have thought of droptanks and included a way to make them actually work as intended.

I remember that there was an addon in OFP that had drop tanks, which, when jetissoned, drasticly cut the amount of fuel you had. I just don't remember which one it was. My point here being that there is a way somehow, and it doesn't just have to be aesthetic. :)

Abs

[[frl]myke 14]

@Abs

There are always ways to achieve something. The problem as we use the droptanks as cfgAmmo proxies, there must be a reliable way to detemine if tanks are present, if yes how many, what happens on refuel and so on.

Actually with the F-16 i have exactly the same problems and i will surely script a appropriate fuel management system for it which then surely could be adapted for this F/A-18 but i'm not at this point yet.

That said, in the initial release of the F/A-18 i wouldn't expect such a system, it will be probably included in a later update.