How accurate would you want your Hornet?

[SwingKid]

I love this type of reply. You guys must have a list of tactics somewhere.

 

Hey!

 

I don't know who you're lumping me with, but my tactics are 100% my own! :angry:

 

Seriously, though. The trouble with giving a serious reply to an issue like this is that after you've explained everything,

(a) knowing the reason isn't going to help the person from wanting whatever it is they want, and

(b) even if the person you're writing to at least refrains from incessantly posting about their wish, very soon after, someone else will, and you'll have to explain it all over again.

 

This is not a personal judgement against the originator of this topic. Beta testers and team members also have their own pet features that they simply cannot give up asking about, even when it's clear that they are out of scope for the current project. Yes, even me, I do it too. Enthusiasm is part of the nature of every enthusiast.

 

The F/A-18 issue is one of the more pathogenic varieties. There is neither any immunization nor any cure for it, people just go on wanting and wishing and posting and polling no matter how many times it's explained.

Any flight simulator is an immensely complex undertaking and there are many reasons why a flyable F/A-18 should wait for a future project - in this case the lack of documentation is only one of them. Merely mentioning this as a reason was Oleg's mistake, however, since he has only managed to fan the flames of the discussion by giving people something not to care about.

The simple fact is that lack of consumer demand is NOT one of the reasons. Anyone who is willing to accept this without pouting already recognizes it on their own without an intelligent reply from ED or its testers (why else would we be getting the Ka-50 instead?), and for anyone who isn't - no intelligent reply would make a difference.

 

It's unfortunate that this state of affairs comes across to some users as ED not caring what they think, but caring is a two-way street. ED faces their own challenges - e.g. finding manuals, that many of us seem not to care about.

 

-SK

[VMFA-Blaze]

As far as all information being classied for the F-18 thats not exactly true....

 

Most of the information for the A and B is available, and some of the information for the D and E is also available, and the D and E uses a lot of the systems that were developed for the A/B...

 

The ordnance is similiar to the F-16 but the TAC most likley differs...

 

Read Olegs Post in the last thread....

 

And from what I've read in these forums Ed really hasn't decided to go ahead with this project, but If they do you can bet it will be very close to the real Hornet, if not spot on as it should be.....

 

~S~

 

Blaze

[SUBS17]

Well polls speak for themselves :D , yeah I like the Hornet too.

[X_Man]

Well my question is - how long is a long time? LOMAC as been out since '03 so I guess 3 years isn't long enough?

[phantom_fly85]

If ED develops a F/A-18 sim, I'd lov'em forever! But it has to have A-G and processes for doing so. Not neccessarily a clickable pit, but key mapping would be nice for going into A-G mode, select weapon, fuse delay, pickling options, etc.

[SuperKungFu]

Well my question is - how long is a long time? LOMAC as been out since '03 so I guess 3 years isn't long enough?

 

I can't believe this thread is still going on :lol: . It has been beaten to death...SEVERAL times. Yes most of us like a hornet but there are just too many things standing in the way such as classified info and lock on's engine. We need support of AG radar as well. In short, they would have to rebuild the engine and attain the information. Just take a look at the F-14, dispite the fact it is a 2 seater and it can't be modeled in lock on, it is still classified and they are going out of service. So 3 years isn't long enough, try 30 years to get a fully accurate hornet.

[SwingKid]

Well my question is - how long is a long time? LOMAC as been out since '03 so I guess 3 years isn't long enough?

 

If quality is not an issue and accuracy can wait, what's wrong with editing the MEInit.xml to say "humancockpit=yes"? Then the wait is over immediately, no?

 

-SK

[kydius]

You know it's not, SK. When you edit the file, there's no real cockpit and you can't use all of the airplane's weapons.

 

And I should clarify that in my question I wrote : in a future ED sim. I know there's no way we're gonna get a Hornet in the current project. But in the future, if they can make an F-16 then they can (and have to) create an A2G radar. And speaking of the F-16, I know there's nothing official that it will be this plane in their next project but there are gonna be so much F-16 sims in the near future that I don't think it's gonna be that good for the community. We're gonna have a new Falcon from LP, Fighter Ops from XSI and then another F-16 with ED. I know this can seem good but I'm not sure it realy is. Who will take the time to learn 3 different sims? Sure a few ones but I guess people will pick one and stick to it.

 

Now if we ED were building an F-18 (even with some guesses), they would be miles ahead of the competition and appeal to a whole new market.

[JonTex]

You know it's not, SK. When you edit the file, there's no real cockpit and you can't use all of the airplane's weapons.

 

And I should clarify that in my question I wrote : in a future ED sim. I know there's no way we're gonna get a Hornet in the current project. But in the future, if they can make an F-16 then they can (and have to) create an A2G radar. And speaking of the F-16, I know there's nothing official that it will be this plane in their next project but there are gonna be so much F-16 sims in the near future that I don't think it's gonna be that good for the community. We're gonna have a new Falcon from LP, Fighter Ops from XSI and then another F-16 with ED. I know this can seem good but I'm not sure it realy is. Who will take the time to learn 3 different sims? Sure a few ones but I guess people will pick one and stick to it.

 

Now if we ED were building an F-18 (even with some guesses), they would be miles ahead of the competition and appeal to a whole new market.

 

I totally agree dude but ive put my foot in my mouth in these forums so many times by speaking on things that i know little about so much that I can taste dirt. I know what i want to say and you basically said it but the problem is ED , despite what their consumers will compromise on, will not make these aircraft flyable without all the info they claim they need. Well thats cool.

 

GG, Brit, SK sorry for the heated debate yesterday but i had to voice my opinion and once again your right. You always have been because you guys know more about this stuff than me. But no matter how you twist it A LOT of people feel exactly the way I do. True, the average flight sim community is very fickle. And tommorrow they will want a dynamic campaign and the stealth bomber but success will come to the developers who give the community what they want. I consider ED very lucky to have such loyal fans that will bend and compromise on the accuracy of an aircraft that they want so badly. I think the poll speaks for itself but hey what can you do? Your hands are tied right. Maybe a game maker out there with untied hands will cut through the red tape that you cant see past and give the community what they want and more. SK you said that caring is a two way street and that ED cares about finding manuals , that being something the community didnt care about. Well we as a community do care its shows in our ideas and financial support of this game every time we pay for another ED product or download another patch or post another thread about the well being of this game that you claim is annoying and incessant. Well if ED doesnt start caring about the F18 , and F14 , and "What aircraft would you like to see in Lomac" polls that keep coming up week after week they will be looking for more than Tac manuals....... they will be looking for the english speaking community that used to be annoying to them.:noexpression:

[SwingKid]

One thing that is often missing in these discussions is the historical "lessons learned."

 

If ED is to develop another carrier aircraft in the near future, how is it proposed to avoid what happened with Flanker 2.0 and 2.5?

 

From my perspective, adding a carrier aircraft to ED's sims seems to have always coincided with a sharp drop in realism and/or sales of the product (Flanker 1.5->Flanker 2.0 Su-33, Flanker 2.0->Flanker 2.5 MiG-29K). I call it the "one-trick pony" for ED's self-destruction.

 

In order to argue that that won't happen again, someone would need to identify the reasons why it happened in the first (and second) place. That could be a very interesting discussion/poll.

 

-SK

[SUBS17]

If quality is not an issue and accuracy can wait, what's wrong with editing the MEInit.xml to say "humancockpit=yes"? Then the wait is over immediately, no?

 

-SK

 

Its just not the same:D