A-4E By HoggitDev

[Angelthunder]

While it's great to see a Skyhawk in development.I'll pass on this since it's not a fully modeled A-4.But I hope someone will make one someday.I would love to see a fully modeled variant pack with the C, E/F and the Marine Corps M model variant.

[QJW]

While it's great to see a Skyhawk in development.I'll pass on this since it's not a fully modeled A-4.But I hope someone will make one someday.I would love to see a fully modeled variant pack with the C, E/F and the Marine Corps M model variant.

 

Well, at least at the current moment, there is no hard to downloading it when it is ready since, it is in fact, free.

[Tirak]

Another solution would be to see what the exact altitude of the aircraft carrier deck is, and say in a range +/- 10 feet, increase the power for that narrow band only. The chances of a land-based runway being at the same altitude are slim, I'd think.

 

Not a great choice given that Skyhawks do a lot of NoE work, that 10ft range might come up a lot.

[aaron886]

If ED or one of the 3rd parties improve the core carrier mechanics and we're able to integrate with that, we will do so.

 

One hopes, but they're really holding back a lot of core functions from anyone not in a business agreement with them. Unfortunate to imagine that it will never have the level of open modification like FSX, especially with the integrity check updates ED has hinted about. :(

[gospadin]

Not a great choice given that Skyhawks do a lot of NoE work, that 10ft range might come up a lot.

 

Thrust tables in the SFM are organized by the intersection of altitude and airspeed. We can boost the throttle setting in this range to only help you below mach 0.3 or so, thus not affecting NoE flight.

 

Thanks for the suggestion.

[AG-51_Razor]

One other possibility might be to tie a higher thrust level to the landing gear position. When it's down, higher thrust - sufficient to get off the carrier with a load - and once it is retracted, back to normal thrust levels. One other thought might be that there will be an operable carrier in the game by the time you are ready to release the Scooter. Leatherneck is working on a Forestall class carrier to go with its F-14 and ED is going to release a new Nimitz class with their F/A-18 so you may not even have to worry about this gaming the game. :pilotfly:

[Sport]

Not a great choice given that Skyhawks do a lot of NoE work, that 10ft range might come up a lot.

 

Good point. So altitude + configuration (gear/flaps) in the lookup table? Just spitballing

[Sport]

One other possibility might be to tie a higher thrust level to the landing gear position. When it's down, higher thrust - sufficient to get off the carrier with a load - and once it is retracted, back to normal thrust levels. One other thought might be that there will be an operable carrier in the game by the time you are ready to release the Scooter. Leatherneck is working on a Forestall class carrier to go with its F-14 and ED is going to release a new Nimitz class with their F/A-18 so you may not even have to worry about this gaming the game. :pilotfly:

 

I guess the thing to avoid would be for carrier-style takeoffs off surface runways. Its an interesting problem to have to try and solve.

[AG-51_Razor]

I agree Sport, but when you're dealing with a mod, sometimes you might have to make a compromise or two in order to enjoy it in the game. I would not mind.

[Sport]

I agree Sport, but when you're dealing with a mod, sometimes you might have to make a compromise or two in order to enjoy it in the game. I would not mind.

 

Yep, and its free, so I'm not complaining one bit. As I said, its an interesting problem to have to solve, so I'm curious how they will address it in the end...

[gospadin]

It's already solved. =P

[Automan]

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.

 

At this point, why not model an F variant instead E.

Just change the model of the refueling probe, and add more thrust...

and nose wheel steering is standard:music_whistling:

 

Great work:thumbup:

[AG-51_Razor]

Good point Automan. A simple solution but the reality of it is that only about 3, maybe 5% of the end users out here would even know the difference between the two and probably fewer would care. I, for one, will be exstatic to just fly an A-4 of any model, whether the steering is properly modeled or not. :pilotfly:

[theropod]

is the June update on the way?

[gospadin]

is the June update on the way?

 

Is it June 30th yet?

[theropod]

Is it June 30th yet?

 

i didnt know the update day, sorry

 

30th to 30th

 

i wont forget that:)

 

thank you!

[gospadin]

Just a quick update from the team.

 

Thanks to Jones, we now have working bort numbers on our external model that you can set in the mission editor. I know this is a small, but I think it adds quite a bit in multiplayer.

 

 

 

We've set up our model with both traditional and aggressor bort locations, so anyone making an A-4 livery will have plenty of locations to choose from. In a few cases there are variations on where exactly numbers appear or how big they were, even within a squadron from year-to-year, so our placements have averaged out a few of them. Our goal remains realism, within our limits and abilities.

 

Currently available bort locations are: nose (3-digit traditional), nose (2-digit aggressor), top of tail (USMC and some USN, 2 digit), top of rudder (USN and some USMC, 3 digit), middle of tail (aggressor typically, 3 digit), flaps (all planes, 3 digits), right wing top (USN, 3 digits).

 

We've also added another USMC livery with a draft version pictured above, VMA-121 Green Knights, rounding out all the units that served in Chu Lai.

 

Some other stuff is in progress, but we need to save something to show in future updates. =P

 

--gos

[AstroEma]

Awesome guys! :)

Any way to become a beta tester for the Flight Model?

[Automan]

Well done guys :thumbup:

[gospadin]

Awesome guys! :)

Any way to become a beta tester for the Flight Model?

 

Right now we're SFM so there isn't much to test. Our tables are mostly in-line with the data available, at least for clean configurations.

 

If we get to the point where we're working on it and having trouble testing, we'll reach out to the community at that point.

 

Thanks for the interest though!

--gos

[AG-51_Razor]

This is going to be so awesome!!!:pilotfly:

[Tirak]

Got to admit, given the general way most modules come into being, I find it hilariously ironic that your flight model is all done, but not your texture work :lol:

[gospadin]

Got to admit, given the general way most modules come into being, I find it hilariously ironic that your flight model is all done, but not your texture work :lol:

 

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

[Cibit]

hey Gos very nice work your producing, good luck I hope it all goes well:) FYI if it has not been mentioned elsewhere a very good novel was written by a guy called Frank Hughes called Everyday Heroes about carrier ops in A4's in combat in Vietnam

 

10 used copies available on Amazon

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Everyday-Heroes-Frank-Hughes/dp/0843908858 :)

[Stratos]

There are ny chances of seeing a humpless variant in the future? A "C" will be ana amzing choice.