A-4E By HoggitDev

[Sport]

I have a feeling this is going to be one of those models that's just going to be pure fun. Not too serious, but just a joy to toss around the sky and blow stuff up!

 

Plus I can't wait to get on teamspeak and say:

 

"Good morning gentlemen, the temperature is 110 degrees..."

[AG-51_Razor]

You've got that right Sport!! The only other thing that I really look forward to is hitting the boat with it - figuratively speaking, of course!! :pilotfly:

[gyrovague]

For #1, SFM+SSM is 100% lua. You get a very limited set of environmental API calls, but you can implement as much or as little system code as you want. Full HUDs, etc. are possible. Weapon locking / designation doesn't seem to be possible, but we have some ideas to try. There are no SSM radios unfortunately either.

 

If you switch to the EFM API, by compling a flight model in C++, you lose all the SFM+SSM assists and have to re-do everything from scratch. The ASM API documentation is only available to official 3rd party developers.

--gos

 

Just to add a tiny bit of info to this: The SFM (Standard Flight Model) is generic aerodynamic flight model code built in to DCS. The aircraft modules using the SFM basically just supply some tables of constants (quite a large number of constants in total) which the DCS SFM uses as inputs to its flight model. I've seen people on the forums previously saying that SFM modules have a scripted flight behaviour model, which I don't really think is an accurate portrayal.

 

If you want to go EFM, you need to basically conform to the API that is visible in the DCSWorld/API/ExternalFMTemplate/ED_FM_Template directory, and you can make it as complex (or simple) as you like. As Gos said though, you basically start with no flight model at all, most likely even to get a model that only does what the SFM can do will already be a very large undertaking.

[Shogun0]

This looks fantastic!

[Greekbull]

Great update can't wait!

[reemit0772]

Very impressive, looking forward to the eventual release. It will be worth all the hard work that you are doing, I'm sure.

[dave76]

wow, just discovered it now!!!!!! wait for it!!!!!! thanks for your work :)

[Aginor]

Nice work, thanks for the update!

[Farlander]

Thanks for the support everyone. We really appreciate it :)

[Tirak]

For #2, that's the screen for the AN/APG-53A radar. We're still digging through the code to see what we can do with it. (Walleye TV mode is supported on the AN/APG-53B). We'd like to support it, but it seems even more unrealistic than the radar.

 

Surely the coding would be the same as the Maverick missile, minus the propulsion? So long as you're not modeling the ERDL version of the Walleye, it's a lock before launch weapon just like the Mav.

 

Another quetion since I've been bouncing around http://a4skyhawk.org/. Since you're modeling both the avionics hump and the nose wheel steering, are you going for a later A-4E with the uprated 9,300 lb thrust Pratt & Whitney J52-P8A, or the earlier 8,500 lb thrust Pratt & Whitney J52-P6A?

Edited June 1, 2016 by Tirak

[archimaede]

Later variant

[Darkbrotherhood7]

Later variant

 

Yay!

[gospadin]

Surely the coding would be the same as the Maverick missile, minus the propulsion? So long as you're not modeling the ERDL version of the Walleye, it's a lock before launch weapon just like the Mav.

 

Another quetion since I've been bouncing around http://a4skyhawk.org/. Since you're modeling both the avionics hump and the nose wheel steering, are you going for a later A-4E with the uprated 9,300 lb thrust Pratt & Whitney J52-P8A, or the earlier 8,500 lb thrust Pratt & Whitney J52-P6A?

 

We have no choice in the SFM regarding nosewheel steering, per my earlier comment.

 

Walleye and Maverick both require a locking capability, which the SSM cannot do. Most other mods who want to keep targeting capabilities use an existing avionics set from FC3. We chose not to do that, so that we could model our own cockpit and systems, but it means that we have to limit ourselves to non-precision weapons. If we find a way around this, awesome, but for now we don't see one.

[Tirak]

We have no choice in the SFM regarding nosewheel steering, per my earlier comment.

 

Walleye and Maverick both require a locking capability, which the SSM cannot do. Most other mods who want to keep targeting capabilities use an existing avionics set from FC3. We chose not to do that, so that we could model our own cockpit and systems, but it means that we have to limit ourselves to non-precision weapons. If we find a way around this, awesome, but for now we don't see one.

 

Forgive my confusion, but isn't the A-10A an FC3 aircraft? The Mavericks on it seem to work fine.

[Dudikoff]

Forgive my confusion, but isn't the A-10A an FC3 aircraft? The Mavericks on it seem to work fine.

 

It's already answered in the post you're quoting. :)

 

So, it seems you can't have it both ways. You either use FC3 avionics package as it is or you do your own, but then lose some of the inherent features.

 

Most other mods who want to keep targeting capabilities use an existing avionics set from FC3. We chose not to do that, so that we could model our own cockpit and systems, but it means that we have to limit ourselves to non-precision weapons.

Edited June 1, 2016 by Dudikoff

[gospadin]

Forgive my confusion, but isn't the A-10A an FC3 aircraft? The Mavericks on it seem to work fine.

 

We are creating our own SSM using the available lua api.

 

A-10A is FC3, and as such has access to ED's more advanced systems APIs. (They created it themselves, it's an ED product).

 

Some mods will re-use an existing avionics set from an FC3 airplane to keep things like radar, targeting, etc. but we chose not to do that, and instead build from scratch.

[Dudikoff]

A-10A is FC3, and as such has access to ED's more advanced systems APIs. (They created it themselves, it's an ED product).

 

Perhaps if more (or more precisely any) developers opted for "lighter" modules, the lua API would have been expanded by ED to allow for more advanced stuff to be supported.

[Tirak]

We are creating our own SSM using the available lua api.

 

A-10A is FC3, and as such has access to ED's more advanced systems APIs. (They created it themselves, it's an ED product).

 

Some mods will re-use an existing avionics set from an FC3 airplane to keep things like radar, targeting, etc. but we chose not to do that, and instead build from scratch.

 

So does that mean the earlier plans for Bullpups and Shrikes are out as well?

[LevelPulse]

So does that mean the earlier plans for Bullpups and Shrikes are out as well?

 

Most likely yes if we can't find a way to integrate them, however we were thinking of using the bullpups as a massive rocket if we are unable to, unsure about the Shrikes.

[archimaede]

So does that mean the earlier plans for Bullpups and Shrikes are out as well?

 

AI could use those, but not the player.

[Zibell]

Hell yeah for the first DCS freeware. Awesome stuff.

[Tirak]

Hell yeah for the first DCS freeware. Awesome stuff.

 

Yeah, despite my questions, I'm really psyched for this module. Sure it's no longer going to be the first BlueFor SEAD aircraft, but I'm still really excited for it.

[Sport]

So I'm clearly excited for this module to come out and regardless of its performance, will probably add it to my collection. That being said, I'm going to be a slight wet blanket and say I don't agree with HoggitDev not charging SOMETHING for his (or her) work on it. Not only do I feel people should be paid for their work, and it helps add incentive towards further individual development, but by putting this model on the market for free starts an interesting precedent for others. I understand that the OP doesn't want personal profit from this, but it cheapens the market and sets an unfair price point for lesser developed models that the sim could benefit from.

 

Over the last few years, in my line of work, I've seen how private contractors who market themselves at a price point lower than the established standard, end up hurting the rest of us looking for work.

 

I'd pay the same for this as I would any individual FC3 model, because that's what its worth to ED and the rest of the developers or potential developers.

 

Just my opinion, doesn't make it right or wrong, but something to think about...

[LevelPulse]

So I'm clearly excited for this module to come out and regardless of its performance, will probably add it to my collection. That being said, I'm going to be a slight wet blanket and say I don't agree with HoggitDev not charging SOMETHING for his (or her) work on it. Not only do I feel people should be paid for their work, and it helps add incentive towards further individual development, but by putting this model on the market for free starts an interesting precedent for others. I understand that the OP doesn't want personal profit from this, but it cheapens the market and sets an unfair price point for lesser developed models that the sim could benefit from.

 

Over the last few years, in my line of work, I've seen how private contractors who market themselves at a price point lower than the established standard, end up hurting the rest of us looking for work.

 

I'd pay the same for this as I would any individual FC3 model, because that's what its worth to ED and the rest of the developers or potential developers.

 

Just my opinion, doesn't make it right or wrong, but something to think about...

 

I understand where you are coming from, one simple answer to this is that it is not becoming a module, just a mod for DCS. So there will be no change in the market as this mod is not trying to compete with the "Third party developer" market.

[Farlander]

This is not "someone", we are a team, and this is a team project. I think you know this :) I think we definately do understand where you are coming from, but there are several reasons why we're doing this as a free mod. Mostly because this is our hobby and we wouldn't like to feel that we have responsibility of putting it out as a final product. That is only one of the arguements as to why we have not made it that way.

 

If we were to put this up with full systems and flight model for, lets say, 20usd below any other aircraft i can see how this could be problematic. However, this is a free mod that is unsupported by ED and so i don't think this should impact sales or prices of licensed 3rd parties :)

 

EDIT: You got an answer above, but i'll leave this here