F/A-18E/F Super Hornet

[mattxr 9]

Afterburner seems perfect now, in this version..

Also like all the fixes great job.

[franze 196]

@Rubberkite

Acceleration is reduced, but maximum speed is only partially reduced. You can still make some 750kts with a clean airframe.

@Sgt_Eversmann

Yeah, I forgot that actions could be bound to specific functions. I don't know if the same is true for useractions in the config though.

[ricnunes 0]

i've made simple search in google and found this guys arguing about the same theme - which plane is most maneuverable -

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread292441/pg1

U can find different ideas and meanings but there wasn't f18 even close

Don't get me wrong, but I don't find a discussion between a few guys on the Internet a "credible way" to search information or to backup claims about aircraft (or other stuff). Honestly, I prefer to read more "professional" articles such as found on military aircraft magazines such as "AirforcesMonthly" or "Combat Aircraft" or publications such as "Janes".

I also find really odd that those guys discuss which aircraft is more manouverable mentioning the F-16 and F-15 and leaving out the F/A-18 when the later is more manouverable/agile in terms of horizontal manouvers than the later ones. Of course if you go to vertical manouvering the F-15 and F-16 (as well as the Mig-29 and Su-27) should have an advantage over the F/A-18 but nevertheless they seems to center their discussion about more on horizontal manouvering than vertical manouvering.

Don't be fooled, the F/A-18 in terms of horizontal manouvering in a threat the be recon with and from what I read (again in other publications and also real pilot claims) seems to point out the F/A-18 is one of the best fighters in terms of horizontal manouvering, perhaps the best if we exclude fighters equiped with TVC (thrust vectoring control) engines such as the F-22 or the SU-30MKI, which by the way is what those guys seem to center in with their discussion.

[mandoble 1]

Got some time to test fz_f18f_aws_kb with fz_f18_mk84 bombs and mando air support console. The accuracy is 100% (bombs spawned at model coords [5, 0, -3] and [-5, 0, -3]). Perhaps too accurate for the lethal area of the bombs (a single hit destroys 3 tanks in an area of 100m radius with direct hit over a single one).

But, for some reason, some times after spawning the plane, setting up its vectorDir, vectorUp and velocity vector, everything aligned with the target, the plane tends to turn right or left, missing the alignement before reaching the automatic guidance range (where the script takes full control of the plane). Is there something "pushing" the plane in some direction once plane is spawned in the air or modifying its vectors or direction?

Edit: init.sqf used for the test.

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

mando_support_left_WEST = 8;

mando_airsupport_type = "fz_f18f_aws_kb";

mando_airsupport_range = 3500;

mando_airsupport_bomb_alt = 150;

mando_airsupport_bomb_type = "fz_f18_mk84";

player addAction ["Air Support console", "mando_airsupportdlg.sqf"];

[franze 196]

@Sgt_Eversmann

Thanks for kicking me in the butt, I'm now adding shortcuts to my custom actions to keys.

@ricnunes

I think we have to remember that maneuverability is relative. I don't think the Super Hornet is the most maneuverable aircraft in the world, but I think within certain limits it can hold it's own against contemporary aircraft.

EDIT

@Mandoble

No, there shouldn't be anything active that adjust velocity. Velocity changes only occur when the burners are on or the engines have taken damage.

[ricnunes 0]

@ricnunes

That makes more sense, I get it now. On the other hand, seldom do these aircraft deploy with maximum payloads, so perhaps it's a moot point. I'm thinking of the F-15E, it can stuff some 50,000lbs of fuel and weaponry onto it's airframe, yet it rarely loads that maximum. There might also be some carrier-based limitations on the Super Hornet's maximum load as well.

Yes, you are correct at 100%. A discussion about "maximum payload weight" is definitly more about an academical scenario than a realistic one since NO fighter aircraft ever (or rarelly ever) carries a maximum payload of weapons for a vast number of reasons such as:

- Limits the manouverability/agility of the aircraft

- Limits the range of the aircraft

- A maximum payload weight is rarelly reached because an aircraft have a limited number of pylons and the pylons have a limited weight and number of weapons capability.

- etc...

[Sgt_Eversmann 1]

@Sgt_Eversmann

Thanks for kicking me in the butt, I'm now adding shortcuts to my custom actions to keys.

no problem mate

ok tested it

Flies much better than last time, the afterburner is better too!

Just a thing: When I put thrust to 100% the acceleration is abit low and the maximum speed I can reach without afterburner is about 300 or so...maybe you can tweak this so that the plane goes around 500, better acceleration and so on, think the overall flight behaviour is better then because you fly with more speed...atm it feels abit like you have just one engine that gives you the thrust!

Beside that, I quite like the F/A-18, nice work so far!

[Davey 0]

Lo Franze ,i got first personview,instead of cockpit view in your latest version (beta0.2). versions b fore idont have that prob. sry dont know how 2 make a screen.Pilot is on top of the cockpit . Dave

[Davey 0]

Whit animation fix FFNmod its ok now

[EricJ 725]

@Rubberkite

Do

Yes, I think that's the USMC's plan. As for the Super Hornet being a USN-only aircraft, I think that hinges on whether or not the RAAF is still going through with their order. I also read that the USN might be buying some more Super Hornets in case the F-35 hits more delays.

Regardless, I think the USMC is committed to the F-35 right now.

Quote[/b] ]The Joint Strike Fighter program is facing $38 billion in cost overruns and could be delayed by more than two years, according to a government report urging defense planners to re-evaluate the program.

The delays could affect the Navy’s schedule for the carrier variant of the plane. The service is already facing a fighter-jet gap with F/A-18 Hornets projected to die out before they’re replaced by the JSF. Service officials say they plan on buying more F/A-18 E/F Super Hornets to bridge the gap.

The almost $1 trillion program — the largest in defense history — has already ballooned more than $23 billion during the past year of development because of changes in procurement costs, according to the Government Accountability Office’s March 11 report.

Additionally, three separate defense offices found that initial cost estimates for the program were understated by $38 billion and that development will be delayed by 12 months to as much as 27 months, the GAO said.

It’s a red flag warranting an independent, life-cycle cost-estimate review of the entire program, the GAO said. Such a review should come before a review already planned for 2013.

Shift from testing could create problems

Last year, program managers put into place a Mid-Course Risk Reduction Plan, since they feared almost-certain cost overruns in the plane’s development phase. That plan shifted money away from testing and toward management reserves, which cover expenses related to technical issues that can emerge in development — engineering drawings, production materials and labor, for example. But the decision to put that plan into place came with a consequence, the GAO said.

Moving the money increased the risk of not completing testing on time, and not finding design problems early enough to prevent them from becoming costly, the report states. Furthermore, the report says the plan did not take up the issue of why the cost overruns were occurring in the first place.

“Two-thirds of budgeted funding for JSF development has been spent, but only about one-half of the work has been completed,†the GAO reported.

Concerns such as these in early government assessments could spell trouble for the services counting on the aircraft in the long term, said Bob Work, a defense analyst for the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.

The JSF program’s reach across the services is wide. The fighter’s F-35A version, which will perform conventional takeoffs and landings, and the F-35C carrier variant are favored by the Air Force and Navy, respectively. The Marine Corps wants the F-35B short- takeoff/vertical-landing variant.

The Navy Department plans to buy 680 F-35s, which covers both Navy and Marine versions. The first operational Marine version is scheduled to join the fleet in 2012, and the first aircraft carrier version in 2015, Lockheed Martin spokesman John Smith said.

Smith said he didn’t have a Navy/Marine breakdown of the total 680 number, but Marine Maj. Eric Dent said the Corps plans to buy 420 aircraft.

Delay may be disaster for Corps

Delays with JSF delivery will exacerbate the problem of aging aircraft, Work said.

“How the JSF goes will really have an impact on all the services’ plans,†he said.

Furthermore, significant delays could threaten the Corps’ STOVL version, already under the gun because of disagreements among Navy and Marine leaders as to how it should be incorporated into the fleet, Work said.

“The Marine Corps has pretty much bet the farm on JSF,†Work said.

The magnitude of the JSF program prompted a congressional mandate that the GAO review its progress incrementally. The attention could be just beginning.

“Any hint of an overrun is just going to raise the level of scrutiny and interest,†Work said.

Despite the findings in the GAO audit — one of about a dozen assessments the program undergoes each year — the JSF program remains on target, countered a project spokesman.

Even if the total cost for the F-35 over its planned 35-year service life does adds up to $1 trillion, as the GAO report indicates, that’s still less than the total cost for operating all the varieties of aircraft it’s replacing, Smith said.

The F-35 Joint Program Office prepares an annual Selected Acquisition Report, which estimates the procurement cost, Smith said in an e-mail. The next report will be issued “in the near future,†he said.

“The bottom line is — and I’m not being flip about it — we have to take a step back and, if you remember our job is to produce all these things we described and do it in a responsible manner, this is one of the most cost-effective programs out there.â€

So yeah man, there are some issues with the JSF...

[the_shadow 0]

i dont know if this might be a addon conflict bug or if it´s related to the addon itself.

but the pilot of the planes are standing on top of the cockpit glass :P

looks quite wierd.

other than that the keyboard version works quite good with AI..

and i´d like if there was a way to add invisible targets in the mission editor for the planes to attack..

targets that would be destroyed after 1 or 2 hits (depending on weapon fired)

[Sgt_Eversmann 1]

i dont know if this might be a addon conflict bug or if it´s related to the addon itself.

but the pilot of the planes are standing on top of the cockpit glass :P

looks quite wierd.

other than that the keyboard version works quite good with AI..

and i´d like if there was a way to add invisible targets in the mission editor for the planes to attack..

targets that would be destroyed after 1 or 2 hits (depending on weapon fired)

thats a bug with some replacement pack or so...FFN or how it's called. read back some posts and you will find a anwser to your problem

Erm, download Map_misc, they have invisible targets!

[franze 196]

@Sgt_Eversmann

I don't know how much more thrust and speed I can give it without afterburner - I think it'd take some geo lod modifications again but I'm not exactly sure how it works with aircraft. RockofSL probably knows but I haven't spent that much time playing around with geo lod (pain in the butt!.

@all

I have these functions bound to my actions:

Afterburner - VehicleTurbo

Gear Up/Down - Same

Drop tanks - Binoculars

Eject - Ejection Seat

Any objections to those assignments and/or ideas for other assignments?

Also, one other thing: For pre-selected loadouts, which weapons do you all prefer for the following profiles:

CAS

CAP

Strike

Anti-Tank

[Yuka 0]

I get an error/warning when I load a mission that I added this add-on into... but only when running on a dedicated server:

'_wep6 = _deadcarg |#|select 5'

Error Zero divisor

[franze 196]

@Yuka

"In order to make the aircraft work properly on a dedicated server, you will have to have one BLUFOR soldier (preferrably

a fz_f18_weps unit preloaded) named as "fz_weaponcmd". This is necessary for the weapon proxies to work."

Sometimes that error shows up in other instances but it can be ignored (script moving faster than the game, etc). On a dedicated server if you get that error constantly, you're probably missing the above unit.

[Yuka 0]

Thanks! I tried to be a good boy and read the instructions that came with the add-on... and I did read it, I just didn't remember that part!

[Renegade Commando 0]

How about making it possible to ditch the aircraft into the sea, i.e. making an emergency landing on water and stay afloat long enough for you to get into the life raft?

Oh, and the pitch ladder is supposed to be aligned with the horizon, right now it turns the opposite direction of what it's supposed to.

[franze 196]

@Renegade Commando

Fixed HUD horizon.

Emergency float... Dunno. Better to eject most of the time and if you impact the water at almost any speed you're automatically dead. I don't know how far I'm willing to go to change that.

[Hunin 0]

For the preset loadouts it depends on how realistic you want to have it.

The most realistic choices are not the best gameplay choices.

For example the real Hornets almost always fly with droptanks.

Sahrani is not large enough to justify droptanks ( other then having more AB time that is ).

I'd like it to be as realistic as possible nonetheless and that why my list looks like this:

CAP

Amraam*4, Aim-9*2, Fuel*3

CAS/Multypurpose

AGM-65E*2, Mk-20*4, Aim-120*2, Aim-9*2, Fuel*3

CAS/AntiArmor

AGM-65E*4, Mk-83*4, Aim-120*2, Aim-9*2, Fuel*1

Strike/Interdiction

GBU-10*2, GBU-16*2, Aim-9*2, Fuel*1

or Mk-84*2, Mk-83*2, Aim-9*2, Fuel*1

[GeneralCarver 0]

Alright, I tried using this in multiplayer and we got some really crazy syncronozation problems.

We tried combining the F18s into Domination.  Players were moving and interacting in the game and it was not being syncronized between everyone (you would move, but others would not see it).  Once the F18s were destroyed, all was fine.  Very strange.  

This occured on a dedicated server.  We never had this before, so its not our server.  I'm not going into details.  I'm experienced in scripting, addon installing/use and I know we were using the addons correctly, we had access to the loading menus for weapons and everything.

All I want to know is if anyone else has experienced this in multiplayer and also to let the developer know this might be a problem.

[franze 196]

@Hunin

Yes, that's exactly the problem. We don't really have any load limits, so we can pretty much take the max we want at all times. Thanks for the input.

@GeneralCarver

Try two variables in global space:

This one first, disables looping scripts unless the aircraft is local -

fz_f18_aicheck = 1

If that doesn't work, this one kills all scripts -

fz_f18_noscripts = 1

If either of those do anything, it will help me pinpoint the issue.

[layne_suhr 0]

The engine and Gun sounds are too low, you can only just hear them, and i can hear them normal at full volume!!! :hm:Using 1.09b

[ANZACSAS Steven 393]

Hi m8,

Good work with the f18.

I too wish it was a bit faster without AB.

I am not sure if everyone knows but 1.09 beta patch "broke" the inside sound coeffiecient parameter but i think its the sound occlusion parameter,which will annoy everyone using any vehicles in 1.09.

[Sgt_Eversmann 1]

@Sgt_Eversmann

I don't know how much more thrust and speed I can give it without afterburner - I think it'd take some geo lod modifications again but I'm not exactly sure how it works with aircraft. RockofSL probably knows but I haven't spent that much time playing around with geo lod (pain in the butt!.

@all

I have these functions bound to my actions:

Afterburner - VehicleTurbo

Gear Up/Down - Same

Drop tanks - Binoculars

Eject - Ejection Seat

Any objections to those assignments and/or ideas for other assignments?

Also, one other thing: For pre-selected loadouts, which weapons do you all prefer for the following profiles:

CAS

CAP

Strike

Anti-Tank

I tested Footmuch F-16 yesterday too, and I have to say it handles better and even without afterburner you can get to a speed about 600 or more on 100% thrust, also acceleration is good.

Give RockofSL the Model, just let him do what he thinks is best and then compare his result with yours and decide which one is better (Just an idea, don't want to tell you how to do things )

@Loadouts:

SEAD (Harm + MK20s)

[Yuka 0]

A little bit more thrust without AB would be nice. I found I had to take gentle turns to avoid bleeding off too much energy. If I had to make evasive manuevers, I felt like I was falling out of the sky and the stick got heavy.

I'm not sure if what it is set to now is realistic... but if it is... kudo's to the real deal F/A-18 pilots.