F/A-18D Poll

[Kongamato]

 

@Kongamato

Classification is irrelevant, the A-10C, F/A-18C, and AV-8B we have are late currently active variants that have ''classified'' bits. For that matter, it's only specific aspects that will be particularly ''sensitive'', not the whole aircraft persay. The now defunct VEAO had an agreement at one point with BAE regarding the Eurofighter, so even that isn't off the table.

 

As has been stated many times before, it's about availability of info, and in particular how cooperative the governmental and corporate entities you're approaching happen to be when it comes to getting additional data.

 

There is a difference between some features classified, like the range of the AMRAAM or certain radar modes, and MOST of the features classified including performances. The A-10C, the F/A-18C, the F-14B or the "Day" Harrier are realistic simulations with some specific bits that are conjectures, because they are older planes or even no more are in service. The sistems and performances of the F/A-18E, the Eurofighter, Rafale, Grippen, Su-35, etc. would be easily 80% conjectures.

[Kev2go]

@Kev2Go

Granted but his point was mostly that it's even more alike than the 18 vs 16.

 

@Kongamato

Classification is irrelevant, the A-10C, F/A-18C, and AV-8B we have are late currently active variants that have ''classified'' bits. For that matter, it's only specific aspects that will be particularly ''sensitive'', not the whole aircraft persay. The now defunct VEAO had an agreement at one point with BAE regarding the Eurofighter, so even that isn't off the table.

 

As has been stated many times before, it's about availability of info, and in particular how cooperative the governmental and corporate entities you're approaching happen to be when it comes to getting additional data.

 

and/ so what?

 

How is a degree of familiarity a bad thing? Besides point is its still more different than a F/A18D to the F/A18C, but similar enough that it would be refreshing to fly a SH but familiar experience at the same time.

 

 

Especially good for the dev team as it means they can port the An/APG73 radar over and many of the software related stuff thats displayed in DDI/ MPCD becuase the pages essentially have the same formatting and symbology. which means sped up development time vs creating aircraft that functions totally different.

 

IM sure many would still buy a F/A18F lot 25 ( or even a F/A18E) even with a Legacy Hornet present in DCS. The Lot 25 was made future proof to be upgradable with certain block 2 features when they would become available with actual Block 2 production models ( lot26 +) . So in the future if ED would figure out how to Simulate AESA radars then there would be a matter of a DLC pack along the lines of L39's NS430 to have simulate retrofitted AN/APG79 radar to a Lot 25 which would just be a icing on the cake to make SH package an even sweeter.

Edited March 21, 2019 by Kev2go

[Mars Exulte]

There is a difference between some features classified, like the range of the AMRAAM or certain radar modes, and MOST of the features classified including performances. The A-10C, the F/A-18C, the F-14B or the "Day" Harrier are realistic simulations with some specific bits that are conjectures, because they are older planes or even no more are in service. The sistems and performances of the F/A-18E, the Eurofighter, Rafale, Grippen, Su-35, etc. would be easily 80% conjectures.

 

No, I'm saying classification is not a factor in and of itself, certainly not to the extent people think. What is or isn't accessible is far more arbitrary than that.

 

Case and point, ED was outright forbidden from making a Little Bird. A LITTLE BIRD (AH-6). Because 'it's used by special forces and it's strictly forbidden to access any of it'. There is nothing particularly special about a frickin' Ah-6, they're not big enough to have much of anything on them but ''reasons'' so it's not permitted.

 

Btw, except for the F-14 all of those are still active service, current gen models. And we don't have the 'day Harrier' (which I believe is also still in service) we have the ''Night Attack'' with more advanced avionics (most definitely still in service, they were not replaced by the + version).

 

Projects to produce F-A-18E and Eurofighter ALREADY existed and were approved for public resale by the respective entities with caveats. The projects died for internal reasons not ''classification''. So... no. It's entirely about the entities involved.

 

The Su-35 will never be made because the Russian government doesn't WANT their newer stuff made. They are notoriously difficult because even old WWII stuff requires security waivers to access, as one bizarre example. The F/A-18C Block (20, right?) And A-10C Block whatever, etc, have classified bits, full stop. ED commented in the past the DoD required them to change/omit certain things before oking it for public release.

 

So, no. ''It's classified'' and ''OpSec'' are just buzzwords people repeat because they think it sounds cool. In reality, while a factor, it is not a project kill unless the relevant people choose for it to be.

 

@Kev

I didn't say it was a bad thing. I just elaborated on his response. The initial SH block was extremely similar the the late LH blocks. To the extent I've heard they were able to patch most the ''improvements'' into he LH with a firmware update. I don't care personally, but from a gameplay and business perspective, the effort of a complete ground up rework for something almost exactly like another thing barring aesthetics is probably a negative.

Edited March 21, 2019 by zhukov032186

[Kev2go]

 

@Kev

I didn't say it was a bad thing. I just elaborated on his response. The initial SH block was extremely similar the the late LH blocks. To the extent I've heard they were able to patch most the ''improvements'' into he LH with a firmware update. I don't care personally, but from a gameplay and business perspective, the effort of a complete ground up rework for something almost exactly like another thing barring aesthetics is probably a negative.

 

 

A) you've kinda just contradicted yourself, and do you know that this firmware update relates to OFP13C?

 

Also

 

B) Not all developers feel that way since i guess by that mode of thinking Heatblur shouldn't bother developing a F14A+ when theve made F14B......

Edited March 21, 2019 by Kev2go