anton_f

To reproduce, you need to select a bomb for wing hardpoints and set a fuse other than the default. For example, select the mk-82 with a DSU-33 nose fuse (screenshot 1). Immediately after the mission starts, the bomb on the wing hardpoint will be displayed with the default fuse M904E4 (screenshot 2). Immediately after the drop, the bomb model switches to the correct one (screenshot 3). Exactly the same behavior with CBU-99. I didn't see such a problem on Hornet, it looks like it's the F-14 module.

I'm not talking about the shape. I'm talking about the sharp change in color and texture itself. It's as if part of this thing was photographed in one light, part in another, and then simply glued together. In my understanding, this is simply a photogrammetry defect that should have been corrected in Photoshop. Perhaps I am wrong.

The difference is in the feel. I recently bought a Hornet at full price, and an F-14 on sale, much cheaper than the Hornet. My personal feeling is that the F-14 has much more effort put into it. The A-10 and F-16 also feel much more detailed. Forget about the graphics, but the damage model is really depressing. I recently got hit in the tail by an Igla on my new F-14. It was an interesting experience to drag a dying plane to an aircraft carrier and land. On the F-18, either the wings would have come off or all the avionics would have turned off, and that's every time. There are no intermediate values. I don't want to argue with anyone, but with the "it'll do" attitude, this module will never reach the level of the others.

Just in case, I decided to write here, suddenly this is regression.

I also think that everything is done perfectly, except for these two details. Still, they are constantly visible, and do not seem to require much effort to correct.

I bought the module and found two controversial points in the cockpit. The first point - apparently due to flaws in photogrammetry, the texture color changes abruptly. I would like this to be corrected. The second point is that the glass under the HUD is made in the form of a texture after photogrammetry, although I would like to see a reflective material there, similar to glass.

When landing gear is damaged, the wheel falls into the textures

You can't sell the same thing for 7 years in a row. The module needs a remaster/remake, it would be better to do this instead of another desert map. In any case, the low detail of the damage system is a problem, since the plane can act as an attack aircraft. If engine damage is not modeled, this should be added to the module description. So as not to mislead. Although in fact I am completely confused, the module is 7 years old, but it was removed from early access in the middle-end of last year. At the same time, it already requires clarification and finishing. Something does not add up here.

Hello everyone. Is there a plan to finish the Hornet to the state of a finished module? Right now, a lot of it looks like an alpha version. Horrible cockpit elaboration, disgusting low-resolution textures, terrible stepped reflections on the displays. The damage model looks very, very strange. I have been using the module for several months now and I have not yet encountered engine damage, have not seen fires, loss of power, etc. Most impacts on the aircraft from the outside end with torn off wings and that's it. I tried the A-10, F-16, recently bought the F-14 and I got the impression that compared to the listed modules, the Hornet is a pre-alpha version that is nevertheless sold for 80 bucks. What are we paying money for here? In the F-14 I see work and effort, in the F/A-18 I do not see it, help me find it. Are there any plans to improve at least the points I listed?