F/A-18E/F Super Hornet

[Dark SudoNix 1]

also, i dont think it should be able to fly quite as slow as the F16 (after all, it´s a much bigger and heavier plane)

Actually the F/A-18 is able to fly quite slower than the F-16, since it has bigger wings and bigger flaps areas which mean that the F/A-18 generates a bigger lift when compared with the F-16 (and many other fighters as well) and bigger lift means lower stall speed which by it's turn means that the F/A-18 can fly slower than the F-16.

In part it also means that it can execute manouvers with higher angle of attack than the F-16 which mean that the F/A-18 can outmanouver the F-16 in a turn manouver.

Also remember that the F/A-18 was designed to land in an aircraft carrier which means that such aircraft are usually designed to have slower stall speeds than their land based counterparts.

But I do agree that the F/A-18 (ArmA Mod) Stall speed is a bit exagerated, since you can fly this F/A-18 traveling in speeds around 90 Kts, no way the F/A-18 (or any other flighter) can fly so slow at least with almost 0 degrees of angle of attack.

I would say that the Stall Speed (flying with near 0 degrees of angle of attack) would be something near 110+ knots.

Other thing that I find a bit wrong with the F/A-18 is the following:

- Acceleration with afterburner seems too fast.

- Acceleration without afterburner seems too slow.

- I agree that the pitch controls are a bit too sensitive, but the turning ability seems IMO to be right. The F/A-18 and specially the Super Hornet is capable of very impressive (and very tight turn) manouvers!

yea of course, watching the blue angels peform is one thing... and they are hydraulically controlled so they are capable of turning that fast... but what you want is user friendly control of the aircraft... just because (in real life) it can turn and bank like that doesn't mean that it has to in the game... its way too hard to control in game... way too sensitive...

[urbanwarrior 0]

allthough the f18 has larger wings you'll find it has a larger wing loading value than the f16. The f16 also has a power to weight ratio higher than 1 so its capable of ballistic flight, the hornet is not. The f16 is considerably lighter aswell so for outright turning ability i would doubt the f18 is that much better if at all.

[xnodunitx 0]

yea of course, watching the blue angels peform is one thing... and they are hydraulically controlled so they are capable of turning that fast... but what you want is user friendly control of the aircraft... just because (in real life) it can turn and bank like that doesn't mean that it has to in the game... its way too hard to control in game... way too sensitive...

Theres a button up there labelled Edit, I suggest you look into that before you get a warning from the mods.

We tend to atleast attempt to make our addons as close to the real thing as possible, maybe not texture wise but in performance yes. If that means making it less user friendly but more maneuverable and to the the real thing then thats just one of the quirks.

[franze 196]

@urbanwarrior

In a word, yes, it was designed with a joystick.

Also, the P/W ratio of the F-16 hinges on which engine it has. The GE produces some 3,000lbs extra thrust over the P&W engine. The P&W engined F-16s have worst P/W ratio to the Super Hornet, while the GE engines give the F-16 a slightly higher than 1-to-1 thrust ratio. Which one I'd have my money on depends on the scenario. The F/A-18E/F has a better radar than the F-16 does, which - when coupled with some low-observable technologies that the F-16 lacks - give it an edge in long range engagements. Close-in is definitely the advantage for the F-16, so as long as extreme AoA maneuvers are not being pulled.

With that in mind, the F/A-18E/F is not a lightweight fighter. It's heavier than the F-15C is, and only marginally lighter than the F-15E. The F/A-18E/F also has a max takeoff weight at least 20,000lbs greater than the F-16.

@Rubberkite

Sorry, I forgot to respond to that. I can handle a couple extra lines of script for the life raft, but I think the smoke grenades should be something for you to think about rather than something to be added later. Unless your meaning is a automatic smoke grenade when over water, then I think I'd agree with that.

Blackouts + Redouts may be possible with some cutscene tricks. In the FP version of the aircraft, if you were one of the F-18 pilots I created and you flew without your oxygen mask above 10,000ft, you would black out after a certain period due to lack of oxygen.

It would be possible to replicate this function using the G-meter animation controller to identify just how many G's the aircraft is pulling - assuming the G meter function is accurate.

Loading system - the problem is it's complex and one-of-a-kind built specifically for the F-18. If others want to use that functionality, they only need my permission to use it. I don't think the ability to cycle weapon combinations is good for your run-of-the-mill aircraft.

@-HUNTER-

I've spent the past 6 months trying to get the agility to where I like it (key word, 'I' ), but I'm planning on a keyboard-only subvariant which handles horribly like the AV-8 and A-10. It's not the ideal solution but perhaps it's a middle ground we can all agree on.

@HailStorm

AAMs are strong enough to pretty much wipe out any aircraft in a certain blast radius. The problem is that this power puts the weapon at the equivalent of a couple FFARs in game-power terms. On the other hand, if you want to blow the equivalent of rockets on ground targets, then I guess thats ok; just that when the MiGs show up, you'll be in trouble.

The repair function doesn't reset the display or fire extinguishers unless you've taken damage greater than 25%. I need to script a "breaker" function that trips whenever damage is taken.

Center of gravity - already fixed.

Dead model - didn't do one because I was lazy. But I prefer your idea of simply making a burned crater with pieces of debris as opposed to the dead model.

No canopy = same sound - known issue. Undecided fix at this point.

Ejection function - the eject function is gone because the aircraft is locked when the canopy is closed. This is why the ejection seat is a different action. I'm not sure if I want to change this one as I'm reluctant to 'unlock' the aircraft. (If you lose the canopy, the eject function remains and ejection seat doesn't take as long to activate).

Engine fires - With steadily increasing damage from fires, the effect is that it will eventually consume the aircraft unless extinguished.

@ricnunes

I'm not sure but I think stall speed may be hard coded. I tested the A-10 and it stalls at approximately the same speed as the F-18 does (150kmh vs the F-18's 120kmh). I've modified the characteristics on the F-18 slightly to try and bring that higher but it hasn't done much apart from making the aircraft feel heavier (which is probably a good thing).

@HeAvY TrAnCe

Depends on the altitude and payload of both aircraft.

Clean, the F/A-18E/F is usually placed in the realm of Mach 1.6-1.8 at 40,000ft. The F-16 is placed at above Mach 2 at an equivalent altitude. At sea level I'd imagine both aircraft have almost identical speeds. So "way faster" is relative depending on what you have them doing.

Handling seems to be a matter of preference - I've received about as many responses negative to the handling as I've had positive to the handling.

[-HUNTER- 1]

@-HUNTER-

I've spent the past 6 months trying to get the agility to where I like it (key word, 'I' ), but I'm planning on a keyboard-only subvariant which handles horribly like the AV-8 and A-10. It's not the ideal solution but perhaps it's a middle ground we can all agree on.

Ive flow it allot more now I can do CRAAZY stuff that really isnt supposed to go like that. I mean some of that isnt possible without

uber stalling out. I mean really impossible stuff, with real aircraft. Perhaps something to take into consideration?

I know this is still WIP and with steady hand it flies nice, but if I pull on the stick harder or slam it, impossible stuff happens, but I keep flying.

< with the other aircraft we have now, that isnt the case, which is good. Im trying to get some video footage of the things Im talking about, try some aerobatics and do some rolls and sharp turns out of rolls.

Its a very nice addon though, personally I think the wheels and suspension are brilliant. Have you thought of airbrakes for landing or even better wheel brakes for landing would that be an option?

And the AGM154's are awesome. Ive tested them with releasing at 3000 then whent to 5000, 7000, and 10000 away from the target. All four impacted right on target. And blasted everything else with fragments.

Allthough It takes a while for them to glide to the target. On the 10000m run I bailed out of the aircraft over the target for a good view of the impacts, quite high up, but I had allready landed before the thing impacted/ blowing and I got pwned by myself. What is the max range that you put into the config for these?

And is the air to air refueling working? Had it in the basket but nothing happened?

Keep it up!

[ricnunes 0]

allthough the f18 has larger wings you'll find it has a larger wing loading value than the f16. The f16 also has a power to weight ratio higher than 1 so its capable of ballistic flight, the hornet is not. The f16 is considerably lighter aswell so for outright turning ability i would doubt the f18 is that much better if at all.

Well yes, the F/A-18 (both Hornet and Super Hornet) have a big advantage over the F-16 in turning or horizontal manouvers since the F/A-18 is capable of higher angle of attack manouvers. This means that if you put an F/A-18 and an F-16 side by side and put them in a dogfight with each other, the F/A-18 would definitly point it's nose first into the F-16 than vice-versa.

But you correct when you say that the F-16 has a higher thrust to weight ratio than the F/A-18 (even if this can obviously vary depending on the fuel and weapons load that each aircraft carries), but a higher thrust to weight ratio doesn't mean higher horizontal turning capability but instead it gives an advantage over vertical (or energy) manouver therefore the F-16 should have an advantage (in vertical manouvers) over the F/A-18.

[havocsquad 0]

My educated assessment is the current version 0.15 is way to squirrely in manuvering to be effective.

My specifics:

Roll is okay, elevation is extremely sensitive and wrong.

The aircraft needs to accelerate slower on the ground (increase weight or friction?) (if possible).

Afterburner acceleration needs to be reduced by 10 to 20%

Regarding the manuverability arguement, for my own personal only testing I tried to edit the elevatorcoefficient line for the F/A-18E base model in the config.  This was to possibly give some helpful feedback on good values that work for most in simulating the F/A-18E/F.

However, it seemed any time I made a very minor change in the number (elevator coefficient from 1.7 down to 0.7), ArmA revolted against me giving me a landing gear config error when I packed it and tested it.

Any clue on why?

[1in1class 0]

On the weapons load out how do i make the jet have diffrent weapons what do i put in the int line?

[hailstorm 4]

Ive flow it allot more now I can do CRAAZY stuff that really isnt supposed to go like that. I mean some of that isnt possible without

uber stalling out. I mean really impossible stuff, with real aircraft. Perhaps something to take into consideration?

I know this is still WIP and with steady hand it flies nice, but if I pull on the stick harder or slam it, impossible stuff happens, but I keep flying.

< with the other aircraft we have now, that isnt the case, which is good. Im trying to get some video footage of the things Im talking about, try some aerobatics and do some rolls and sharp turns out of rolls.

Its a very nice addon though, personally I think the wheels and suspension are brilliant. Have you thought of airbrakes for landing or even better wheel brakes for landing would that be an option?

And the AGM154's are awesome. Ive tested them with releasing at 3000 then whent to 5000, 7000, and 10000 away from the target. All four impacted right on target. And blasted everything else with fragments.

Allthough It takes a while for them to glide to the target. On the 10000m run I bailed out of the aircraft over the target for a good view of the impacts, quite high up, but I had allready landed before the thing impacted/ blowing and I got pwned by myself. What is the max range that you put into the config for these?

And is the air to air refueling working? Had it in the basket but nothing happened?

Keep it up!

i don't think franze can really change that - all that's included in the config are roll rates - how it actually flies through the air is all up to the game engine, which, lets face it, is atrocious. i think if you upped the roll rate on any of the aircraft in-game it would fly in a similar fashion. (note: i mean roll rate in terms of aircraft rotation in all directions, not just bank)

the fact you can twist and turn this jet all over the shop but the flightpath doesn't seem to react much to it is mostly due to the bad setup of the flight model by BIS, and not franze deciding it feels good that way.

it's unfortunate that this mod is getting a lot of bad press because of the handling, but as far as i can see all it's really done is highlight the faults of the BIS flight model (and lack of sensitivity controls), which none of the mod team are responsible for.

personally, i don't mind the squirrelly behaviour of the hornet - with some practice, i can fly it just as well as any other jet (not that any of those jets are actually flown properly - the flight model is a different matter however, IMO, and i won't complain about it here.)

imo it's better to know that if i need to very quickly position the jet to get out of a bad situation, i can, as opposed to it being limited to the point where i could fly like that anyway by just using less stick. and AFAIK, the real hornet is capable of such turning manuevers, so i'd prefer to learn to get good on something 'realistic', as opposed to something being nerfed so i can pick-up-and-go with it right off the bat.

with the A2A refuelling, you have to go though the action menu once your maintaining position somewhere near the refuelling hose basket - you'll find an option to refuel just under the action 'retract refuelling probe' if memory serves. it's hard to notice because the action doesn't suddenly jump out at you when you've got all the parameters correct.

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

[i don't think franze can really change that - all that's included in the config are roll rates - how it actually flies through the air is all up to the game engine, which, lets face it, is atrocious. i think if you upped the roll rate on any of the aircraft in-game it would fly in a similar fashion. (note: i mean roll rate in terms of aircraft rotation in all directions, not just bank)

the fact you can twist and turn this jet all over the shop but the flightpath doesn't seem to react much to it is mostly due to the bad setup of the flight model by BIS, and not franze deciding it feels good that way.

it's unfortunate that this mod is getting a lot of bad press because of the handling, but as far as i can see all it's really done is highlight the faults of the BIS flight model (and lack of sensitivity controls), which none of the mod team are responsible for.

personally, i don't mind the squirrelly behaviour of the hornet - with some practice, i can fly it just as well as any other jet (not that any of those jets are actually flown properly - the flight model is a different matter however, IMO, and i won't complain about it here.)

imo it's better to know that if i need to very quickly position the jet to get out of a bad situation, i can, as opposed to it being limited to the point where i could fly like that anyway by just using less stick. and AFAIK, the real hornet is capable of such turning manuevers, so i'd prefer to learn to get good on something 'realistic', as opposed to something being nerfed so i can pick-up-and-go with it right off the bat.

with the A2A refuelling, you have to go though the action menu once your maintaining position somewhere near the refuelling hose basket - you'll find an option to refuel just under the action 'retract refuelling probe' if memory serves. it's hard to notice because the action doesn't suddenly jump out at you when you've got all the parameters correct.

Yes he can.  Its all about the Geo LoD.  The Config variables should only be used for trim corrections. I gave Franze a very quick tutorial on trimming up aircraft a while ago.  

If it works for me and the dozen or so others ive helped i dont see why it cant be fixe don this.... BUT as Franze said. This plane is set up how he likes it.

@ Franze If you would like me to make a more neutral flight model for it let me know and i'll sort it out.

[havocsquad 0]

I'm just wanting the pitch to be fixed where when I command the stick to full pitch, it feels closely like an agile turning aircraft and not a latch flipping instantly up at 90 degrees.

I used to do this feedback work for some of Footmunch's planes by modifying the configs to find a good result, but this ArmA config.cpp error is bugging me.

[wolfbite 8]

I Think i just pulled of the most awesome emergency landing... thanks for this great addon man...

Just so you know... One of the agm65/ Dumb bomb loadouts has them stuck on the same rack together

[1in1class 0]

can some one help me on this what do i put in the int line for adding diffrent weapons? How do i do this?

[urbanwarrior 0]

allthough the f18 has larger wings you'll find it has a larger wing loading value than the f16. The f16 also has a power to weight ratio higher than 1 so its capable of ballistic flight, the hornet is not. The f16 is considerably lighter aswell so for outright turning ability i would doubt the f18 is that much better if at all.

Well yes, the F/A-18 (both Hornet and Super Hornet) have a big advantage over the F-16 in turning or horizontal manouvers since the F/A-18 is capable of higher angle of attack manouvers. This means that if you put an F/A-18 and an F-16 side by side and put them in a dogfight with each other, the F/A-18 would definitly point it's nose first into the F-16 than vice-versa.

But you correct when you say that the F-16 has a higher thrust to weight ratio than the F/A-18 (even if this can obviously vary depending on the fuel and weapons load that each aircraft carries), but a higher thrust to weight ratio doesn't mean higher horizontal turning capability but instead it gives an advantage over vertical (or energy) manouver therefore the F-16 should have an advantage (in vertical manouvers) over the F/A-18.

I agree with some of what you said but i still dont think an F18 is going to have an advantage over an F16. The falcon can hold higher g than a hornet and wont bleed speed fast as it will have more thrust by comparison. all this and the falcon only looses 500kg's of payload to a hornet. goddamn wikipedia rocks!

[ricnunes 0]

I agree with some of what you said but i still dont think an F18 is going to have an advantage over an F16. The falcon can hold higher g than a hornet and wont bleed speed fast as it will have more thrust by comparison. all this and the falcon only looses 500kg's of payload to a hornet. goddamn wikipedia rocks!

But you can bet that the Hornet will definitly outturn the F-16 in horizontal turns. Also the Hornet can hold the same number of G forces has the F-16 (more than 9 Gs), what happens is that the F/A-18 is limited by default by the flight control software to attain a maximum of 7.5Gs but this limit can be overiden by the pilots anytime he/she wants. I also read somewhere that the Swiss Air Force F/A-18s have this G limit software disabled, which means that those Hornets don't have the 7.5G limit.

Also, just because it has better Thrust to Weight and better acceleration doesn't mean it's more agile or it turns better, or else the Mig-25 would be one of the most agile fighter aircraft in the world which is not (by the contrary). Agility, has more to do with aerodynamics than with anything else.

Finally, be carefull about the sources when you search for information. For example in Wikipedia, if you look at the F-16 entry you'll see that it says that the max speed of the F-16 is Mach 2+ (which is correct) and 2414 km/h which is definitly wrong. The maximum speed of the F-16 in Km/h is around 2160 km/h (and definitly not 2414)! Regarding maximum payload, the data that I have indicates that the "normal" hornet is able to carry more 700Kg's of payload compared to the F-16 but if instead you compare with the Super Hornet the diference incresses to 2600Kg's which is much more, but again the Super Hornet is a considerably larger aircraft than the F-16 and even than the "normal" Hornet.

[urbanwarrior 0]

yeah i noticed some conflicting info on wikipedia, infact the internet as a whole really. as a matter of interest i actually found a link referring to an instance where a f18 got a gun kill on a F22 recently so it must be pretty maneovreable. but yes you are correct, in horizontal turns it can sustain higher turn rates but its all pretty pointless anyway because its not the 60's anymore and as we all know the hornet would kill an f16 before either of them even seen each other. hornet=over horizon engagement falcon=fail

[franze 196]

@-HUNTER-

Almost all the extreme maneuvers you can pull with the aircraft result in it stalling out, but it can recover that energy pretty quickly. Regardless, the current version I have is rebalanced and the 'stall' speed is at least 20kts higher. It handles about 20% heavier with this new balance.

Something else to keep in mind, the sensitivity is also due to the speeds possible with afterburners engaged. Clean, the in-game aircraft with burners on can close in at around 800kts.This is just shy of 1500kmh. At that speed the controls are a bit less responsive than they are at the lowest apex; so when I got the sensitivity to where I wanted it, I was taking into account the maximum speed more than the minimum.

AGM-154 are 'powered' even though they're described as glide bombs. So they fly at a relatively low speed to make up for it and will fly for about 18-24km before they run out of juice - at a speed of approximately 300kmh.

Air to Air refueling is not 100% accurate - you get within a certain distance of the drogue and you have to hold it steady long enough to activate the refuel action. You get fuel in 15% blocks, so hit it several times to fully refuel.

@havocsquad

Sensitivity will stay on the primary type, but I've already made a simple subtype that's identical but with a 30-45% reduction in control authority across the board. I'm not sure if this will be satisfactory for mouse-n-keyboard users (I tried both with the mouse and I honestly don't have any trouble with full authority or reduced).

I don't know what would cause the config error as it shouldn't be that critical of minor changes.

@1in1class

You can modify the standard loadouts by placing this in the init line:

for F/A-18E:

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">

this removeweapon "fz_f18_aim7"; this removeweapon "fz_f18_aim120_4"; this removeweapon "fz_f18_aim9x_2"

for F/A-18F:

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">

this removeweapon "fz_f18_aim120"; this removeweapon "fz_f18_mk83hd_4"; this removeweapon "fz_f18_aim9x_2"; this removeweapon "fz_f18_agm88"

Clears the default weapons load. From there you can add a variety of weapons (see the weapons section of the readme) with the syntax placed right after the above:

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">

; this addmagazine "fz_f18_magname"; this addweapon "fz_f18_weaponname"

This can be duplicated for as many weapons as you want. Not all weapons are compatible with one another, so there may be errors (e.g., fz_f18_agm84_4 and fz_f18_agm84_2 on the same aircraft will not work right).

@HailStorm

It's more or less a matter of preference; I had wanted an aircraft that was maneuverable but 'draggy' - capable of feats of agility but difficult recovery from those feats. The geometry and the control sensitivity reflect this (to a degree).

@RockofSL

Something neutral would be nice, although you are correct in that I really did make it fly the way I wanted it to. My wants and needs aren't exactly the same as the next persons' wants and needs.

@wolfbite

Do you know which combination this was? There's several sets of dumb bombs available.

@urbanwarrior

Suggest you recheck the max TO values on Wikipedia for the Super Hornet and F-16 - the Super Hornet takes off with 10,500kg greater than the F-16.

Also, the G limit on the F-16 is fixed at 9Gs max last I checked. The FLCS will not let the pilot exceed 9Gs, period (this may be outdated info but it's what I have). The F/A-18E/F is limited to 7.5Gs but that can be overridden at the risk of airframe damage - I'm not sure how the FLCS works on the F-18 series but I believe that once you opt to go higher than 7.5Gs, you can pull all the way to 10Gs.

[wolfbite 8]

Mk-82's and mavericks... i think it was Mk-82's on the inside mavericks for the rest

[Bingham67 0]

Nice work Franze anyone with any ideas cant seem to get this working with mando air support console. ?

It just drops from sky straight off although will do a perfect run if it dosnt recognise the loadout but it dosnt drop bomb of course.

Thanks in advance.

[urbanwarrior 0]

Franze i checked wikipedia again and it says 11 hardpoints with a payload capacity of 8050kg, i may be wrong but thats what i'm seeing, and thats only 500kg more than a F16-D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superhornet

[mrcash2009 0]

Quote[/b] ]@RockofSL

Something neutral would be nice, although you are correct in that I really did make it fly the way I wanted it to. My wants and needs aren't exactly the same as the next persons' wants and needs.

But if the most of the next persons wants/needs are addons matching reality in a military simulator, I do hope you actually do tone it to that way of flying ... its superb but I don't use it simply becuase of the way it feels when flying.

As its early beta I assume its going to be tuned ... other wise its one hell of a great "looking" fighter

[franze 196]

@Bingham67

I need a better description of what's going on - is it falling until it crashes or is the behavior different?

@urbanwarrior

I can find no stats on Wikipedia's F-16 page for hardpoint capacity.

Using maximum takeoff minus empty weight, the F-16 has a 'capacity' of 10930kg vs the F/A-18E's 16036kg - a little bit more than 5000kgs greater than the F-16's capacity. IMO this is more accurate because fuel is a big factor, and both aircraft rarely deploy without some auxiliary tanks.

@mrcash2009

Again, this is how I thought a fighter should feel. I get into the Su-34, A-10, or AV-8 and I feel helpless, not in control. I wouldn't want to get into a shooting match with any of these - they aren't docile, easy-flying trainers; they're treacherous, wild war-horses and I wanted the F-18 to reflect that.

Nonetheless, it has been addressed: there are now two reduced-agility, less-treacherous versions that can barely turn at all now.

[Bingham67 0]

Hi thanks for the reply Franze its dropping out the sky i tried with a few of the loadouts but still crashes to ground.

But it seems to do a run ok on 2x something or more loadout but the plane wont drop any bombs. I tried the plane and default bomb Bo_GBU12_LGB and still no joy cant quite work out why not releasing bombs from plane.

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

Quote[/b] ]@RockofSL

Something neutral would be nice, although you are correct in that I really did make it fly the way I wanted it to. My wants and needs aren't exactly the same as the next persons' wants and needs.

But if the most of the next persons wants/needs are addons matching reality in a military simulator, I do hope you actually do tone it to that way of flying ... its superb but I don't use it simply becuase of the way it feels when flying.

As its early beta I assume its going to be tuned ... other wise its one hell of a great "looking" fighter    

@ mrcash2009 I'm looking for the same thing myself.  BUT the ArmA Flight model is limited so you can’t expect F4 flight physics.  I've now got 16 [bETA] fixed wing aircraft into ArmA and the feedback I've got from the RKSL Beta team has been very good far. I'm confident that we can strike a balance that should satisfy most people.  

I’m working on an expansion of our Dynamic Rotor System; its something that simulates the effects of G-loads on both fixed wing and rotary aircraft.  It has the effect of allowing very high agility at lower speeds and G loads but imposes a more restrictive envelope when under load.  It should/might/could/maybe make up for some of ArmA’s flight model deficiencies but it still needs more work.

@ Franze I'll have a look in the morning (GMT) and PM you the results.

[franze 196]

@Bingham67

I think what's happening with the F/A-18E/F + Mando Air Support is the bombs are coming in contact with the jets and blowing them up.

I set the bomb pos in the script to be 3 meters less than the default and it worked just great.

EDIT: As a side note, if you try to use any of the bombs I have, you better plan the attack well. The bombs tend to overshoot by about 300-400m - I blew myself up by accident!