A-4E By HoggitDev

[Tirak]

Well, "done" may or may not be done. It's as done as we felt like making the SFM given some of its limitations for now. As other stuff finishes up, we may revisit tweaking is so that it performs close to spec with armaments loaded. EFM would be a whole different kettle of fish, and if we were working on that it'd probably look more like the real teams, who spend 6+ months getting their FM correct.

 

If not for the model elements not yet unwrapped, our textures would probably be done or close to it. IMO they look really good up close thanks to plusnine's effects work.

 

--gos

 

(Emphasis mine)

 

I'm a bit confused, does that mean the flight model is unaffected by stores right now?

 

I.E. the plane handles the same with an 8 bomb 2 tank load the same way it does clean?

[LevelPulse]

(Emphasis mine)

 

I'm a bit confused, does that mean the flight model is unaffected by stores right now?

 

I.E. the plane handles the same with an 8 bomb 2 tank load the same way it does clean?

 

When there are no stores it flies more accurately(~5%) (from the graphs we have), however when we have stores on we have noticed that some characteristics of the flight model are ~+20%(Some others may vary) off from graphs that are provided in the NATOPS.

[gospadin]

What level said is correct.

 

The problem (we think) is in how the game engine models drag when you attach multiple bombs to a bomb rack. In the engine they're additive regardless of the stores configuration, which leads to lower-than-expected max airspeed when fully loaded with 6 bombs on a single MER.

 

I believe (without an aero degree) that having two bombs nose-to-tail on a pylon should result in a combined drag for the pair that is only slightly larger than the drag from a single bomb.

[Alpenwolf]

Any idea what armament it's gonna have?

[Tirak]

Any idea what armament it's gonna have?

 

Dumb Bombs and Rockets. They couldn't get guided weapons to work and still have a clickable cockpit.

[gospadin]

Dumb Bombs and Rockets. They couldn't get guided weapons to work and still have a clickable cockpit.

 

Correct. As far as we can tell, guided weapons require the SDK. Using the avionics from another aircraft that uses the SDK is one way around this, but then you wind up with their full cockpit implementation.

Edited June 27, 2016 by gospadin

[ActionMav]

As far as I know the A4 was able to carry rockets and dumb bomb only. So its even more realistic.

[ST0RM]

Hoping you guys have a better FM than the Virtavia FSX A-4.

Thanks for the update.

 

-Jeff

[Tirak]

As far as I know the A4 was able to carry rockets and dumb bomb only. So its even more realistic.

 

Depends on the A-4. They're working on an A-4E (Late) with the avionics hump and uprated engine. Original plans were for Shrike Anti Radiation Missiles and Bullpup guided bombs.

[ActionMav]

Depends on the A-4. They're working on an A-4E (Late) with the avionics hump and uprated engine. Original plans were for Shrike Anti Radiation Missiles and Bullpup guided bombs.

 

OK I see. But which version was used during Vietnam war?

[gospadin]

OK I see. But which version was used during Vietnam war?

 

A-4B/C/E/F and TA-4F variants saw action in Vietnam.

 

First "humped" A-4E was in 1967, which was the same year the A-4F was first deployed.

 

Whether to add the hump or not was really based on the squadron's mission. Some never upgraded.

 

Since we aren't modeling both versions, we had to pick one, and we voted internally on having the hump. While we recognize some fans of humpless A-4s will be disappointed, that's what we've chosen.

 

--gos

Edited June 27, 2016 by gospadin

[Tirak]

OK I see. But which version was used during Vietnam war?

 

Everything form Bs to Fs were used in Vietnam, and they employed Shrikes, Bullpups and Walleyes during the war as well.

 

From the perspective of the version we were getting, all three of those guided weapons would have been realistic. Sadly, what can be done without having access to the SDK is limited.

 

If HoggitDev had based their aircraft on the code of an already existing SFM aircraft such as the A-10A, guided weapons would have been possible, but the clickable cockpit would not be. So the decision was made, go for the clickable cockpit, and hope/ask for more controls be opened to mod makers.

 

It makes quite a bit of sense for them to do it this way. The cockpit and coding thereof is one of the harder parts of making a module, and so if guided weapons support ever comes to mod makers, it will be easier to adapt their module to accept it, rather than base it off another SFM module and basically have to redo the hardest part of development if guided weapon support comes.

[Stratos]

Since we aren't modeling both versions, we had to pick one, and we voted internally on having the hump. While we recognize some fans of humpless A-4s will be disappointed, that's what we've chosen.

 

--gos

 

And once the hunchback is released?

[gospadin]

And once the hunchback is released?

 

Everyone will be able to download it and play with it for free!

[archer86]

Everyone will be able to download it and play with it for free!

 

Thank you all Gospadin!

[SUBS17]

A-4B/C/E/F and TA-4F variants saw action in Vietnam.

 

First "humped" A-4E was in 1967, which was the same year the A-4F was first deployed.

 

Whether to add the hump or not was really based on the squadron's mission. Some never upgraded.

 

Since we aren't modeling both versions, we had to pick one, and we voted internally on having the hump. While we recognize some fans of humpless A-4s will be disappointed, that's what we've chosen.

 

--gos

 

There is a difference for the flight model with the Kahu it was lighter with the hump removed and the wiring replaced but I'm not sure of the earlier versions regarding the weight.

[SUBS17]

Everything form Bs to Fs were used in Vietnam, and they employed Shrikes, Bullpups and Walleyes during the war as well.

 

From the perspective of the version we were getting, all three of those guided weapons would have been realistic. Sadly, what can be done without having access to the SDK is limited.

 

If HoggitDev had based their aircraft on the code of an already existing SFM aircraft such as the A-10A, guided weapons would have been possible, but the clickable cockpit would not be. So the decision was made, go for the clickable cockpit, and hope/ask for more controls be opened to mod makers.

 

It makes quite a bit of sense for them to do it this way. The cockpit and coding thereof is one of the harder parts of making a module, and so if guided weapons support ever comes to mod makers, it will be easier to adapt their module to accept it, rather than base it off another SFM module and basically have to redo the hardest part of development if guided weapon support comes.

 

Talk to ED and maybe they might do something regarding the SDK.

[Stratos]

I still think a A-4C will be great to have, specially as we cannot control guided ammo. Even a humpless "E" will be nice.

[Tirak]

I still think a A-4C will be great to have, specially as we cannot control guided ammo. Even a humpless "E" will be nice.

 

2 fewer pylons and a weaker engine? No thanks.

 

Personally I prefer the hump, humpless Skyhawks just look wrong in my opinion.

[SUBS17]

2 fewer pylons and a weaker engine? No thanks.

 

Personally I prefer the hump, humpless Skyhawks just look wrong in my opinion.

 

The hump actually makes them slower when the Kahu skyhawks had them removed the aircraft was lighter and faster and slightly less drag.

[Tirak]

The hump actually makes them slower when the Kahu skyhawks had them removed the aircraft was lighter and faster and slightly less drag.

 

I understand that, I just aesthetically prefer it with the hump :thumbup:

[Oesau]

I understand that, I just aesthetically prefer it with the hump :thumbup:

 

Agree on the aesthetics with the hump - took me a while to get used to the Kahu (outwardly) but loved what it brought about in terms of capabilities!

[SUBS17]

I remember seeing them using the arrester gear on the airfield and observing how short the take off run after was it was an incredibly short take off run and that was flown by a test pilot. The Kahu opened up a lot of new capabilities for the A4 and one of them was to be able to drop LGBs which was impressive to watch.:pilotfly:

 

Regarding the hump it added capability to the A4 with the extra space and that's why they flew with them the Kahus rewiring meant the A4 no longer needed the hump and also was able to be fitted with Chaff/Flares etc because of the increased space made by removing miles of wiring.

[gospadin]

I remember seeing them using the arrester gear on the airfield and observing how short the take off run after was it was an incredibly short take off run and that was flown by a test pilot. The Kahu opened up a lot of new capabilities for the A4 and one of them was to be able to drop LGBs which was impressive to watch.:pilotfly:

 

Regarding the hump it added capability to the A4 with the extra space and that's why they flew with them the Kahus rewiring meant the A4 no longer needed the hump and also was able to be fitted with Chaff/Flares etc because of the increased space made by removing miles of wiring.

 

Exactly. With early-60s electronics, the hump was needed.

 

The move to compact solid state hardware in the 80s meant the same avionics could be fitted without the hump. The Kahu even got a medium range pulse doppler radar.

 

Definitely a sweet package.

[Stratos]

2 fewer pylons and a weaker engine? No thanks.

 

Personally I prefer the hump, humpless Skyhawks just look wrong in my opinion.

 

For me is clearly the other way around. And I'm not requesting not releasing the humpped version, just If we can get a Humpless version once the original planned plane is released.