Early F/A-18E or F

[ruddy122]

I know it’s a pipe dream but if you can come out with an Early Super Hornet

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[obious]

I did hear that early block E’s & F’s share a lot of similarities with our block 20 so maybe it is doable.

 

I’d love to see an E; those extra pylons would be lush 

[CanopyJettison]

I really Hope we will get a Super Hornet after the C is completed and out of early access.

[T-O-A]

Would love to see the Rhino.

 

[F-2]

The block I super hornet has like 90% in common avionics as the F-18 we have. So it would be very doable but the difference would mostly be flight model. The block II has some avionics from the X-32 and early versions do not have AESA so it might be a maybe.

[Evoman]

ED has already stated that they have no plans of doing the Super Hornet any time soon. So it would be up to the 3rd parties to do one.

[Dragon1-1]

Super Hornet was supposedly a licensing issue, possibly related to the fact there's a prominent developer doing this aircraft for MSFS. If they signed an exclusive deal with Boeing, then our only chance for getting any Superbug block in DCS is to convince VRS to expand their offer.

[F-2]

1 hour ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Super Hornet was supposedly a licensing issue, possibly related to the fact there's a prominent developer doing this aircraft for MSFS. If they signed an exclusive deal with Boeing, then our only chance for getting any Superbug block in DCS is to convince VRS to expand their offer.

It would be great if they did it though, that’s one of the better flight simulator mods.

[drPhibes]

10 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Super Hornet was supposedly a licensing issue, possibly related to the fact there's a prominent developer doing this aircraft for MSFS. If they signed an exclusive deal with Boeing, then our only chance for getting any Superbug block in DCS is to convince VRS to expand their offer.

 

Do you have a source for this claim (other than "someone on reddit said so")? The last time I saw soneone from the ED team comment on the issue, the lack of openly available technical information was the main hurdle.

[Dragon1-1]

Someone on the forum said so.  I think it was in that big interview where they talked about problems with various planes other planes, as well, but the thing is a hour-long video (with no easily available transcript, because apparently nobody likes to read these days), so I gave it a pass. If you've got an hour to watch talking heads (instead of, you know, flying), then you can check it out.

[TotenDead]

Да-да, давайте сделаем супер хорнет, чтоб продажи обычного хорнета упали в ноль. Это же так выгодно экономически для ЕД

[SkateZilla]

On 12/26/2020 at 5:48 PM, Dragon1-1 said:

Super Hornet was supposedly a licensing issue, possibly related to the fact there's a prominent developer doing this aircraft for MSFS. If they signed an exclusive deal with Boeing, then our only chance for getting any Superbug block in DCS is to convince VRS to expand their offer.

 

 

Has nothing to do with that, and there is no exclusivity contract. they don't even have a Full fledged license,
hence the reason it's called VRS SuperBug and not VRS Super Hornet.

Edited December 28, 2020 by SkateZilla

[jojyrocks]

 

 

Well since ED already did say they've got no plans for it and the permission too...

 

Maybe some other 3rd party developers could...somewhere down after 5 or 8 years....

 

 

Edited December 29, 2020 by jojyrocks

[Northstar98]

Wouldn't a super hornet just nuke future sales of the current Hornet? Most people are only interested (unfortunately) in the latest and greatest.

[jojyrocks]

39 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

Wouldn't a super hornet just nuke future sales of the current Hornet? Most people are only interested (unfortunately) in the latest and greatest.

 

 

Even if it can be developed...it would take around 4-5 years and beyond from now for the development to start. By the time it reaches such time, the OTHER legacy Hornets would have enough sales. I mean...the development to start on that would take long and the current Hornet has got enough sales to go with.

 

 

[Sonoda Umi]

At previous time, it said multiple times: "ED has no F/A-18E Super Hornet/Superbug plan currently." Well, it makes me very sad.

 

Honestly, as I repeat mostly, I Tomcat dirver have not a good reason to take F/A-18E, but F/A-18F is very nice for me. 

 

 

[МаксиM]

I would like F / A-18D, it would be interesting to fly on a two-seater Hornet, could be sold together as F-14A / B

[Fri13]

On 12/29/2020 at 2:17 PM, Northstar98 said:

Wouldn't a super hornet just nuke future sales of the current Hornet? Most people are only interested (unfortunately) in the latest and greatest.

 

No, if there would be a "DLC" approach that I prefer ED would implement.

It would work that way that the first module that studio starts to develop for the aircraft series (F/A-18 or Mi-24 example) will be the "base version" that is the major development work, research time, licensing agreements etc.

And when that "base version" is done, it is the required version to be owned so one can buy other versions of the series. So example F/A-18C Lot 20 or Mi-24P are the base versions. Then later on ED could come out with F/A-18A or Mi-24V "DLC versions" that are faster and easier to develop as majority is already done, learned how to proceed with the work etc. So this way the pricing would be Base Version + DLC + DLC. So example if a Mi-24P costs 69,99 then the Mi-24V could cost just a 39,99 or 49,99 in the future. And you can not buy the V without owning P first. And that is where many disagree with "Why not just sell full price and give a price cut coupon for the other?" as the reason is that every product needs to be maintained when it is in the sustained phase for the future like 10 next years. The heavy work and time was spent for the first base model, and that deserves to bring income for the studio in the future. Then later when a new variants are added, the studio has the speed/effort boost from not starting from scratch but from already existing project. And so on when they can make faster and easier the new variant, they can cut the price of that as bonus too because they anyways get their cut from first base module that supports them as well to develop the new variant.

 

This example could have been for a Heatblur to ask 79.99 for the F-14A, and then 29,99 for F-14B (or vice versa). ED Sell a L-39C for 49,99 and L-39ZA for 19,99 and later L-39NG for 39,99.

 

It could make it profitable to deliver multiple variants for a fair price, with good schedule and increase the aircraft catalogue in DCS.

Preferred way could be to start from a older version and then offer newer later on, so first example give F/A-18A for cold war era and then offer F/A-18C for post-cold war era. You anyways get people buy to the A and then those who want (many) the C variant will as well invest to it with more modern features and capabilities, and either way you don't end up situation that most would have the "latest and best" but everyone would anyways have the "cold war version" if they want to have the "latest and greatest".

 

As it is though job to sell A after C....

 

But then someone asks "Why not just bundle them all and sell at higher price?". Well, not everyone are ready to drop at once 89-119 price, wait for all variants to get developed etc. So supporting developers from the project starts (a la Early Access) just helps everyone to get project going forward.

Placing 39-49 every other year or so when a new version drops out etc, is easier for the end users as well.

Edited January 1, 2021 by Fri13

[Harker]

Eh, I don't really agree with this. I, for one, would not be interested in the F/A-18A, if the C was available. So why would I have to pay for the A or support the development of Cold War assets, if I'm not interested? Vote with your wallet and all that. You are essentially saying that people can't have a modern aircraft, unless they're willing to pay through the earlier variant and subsidize its development. It even becomes a little bit of P2W, since the significantly more expensive modern aircraft would always be superior to their Cold War versions.

I actually think that the DLC way is good, but if it goes both ways. Owing one gives you a discount for the other. If an F/A-18E, F, A or D would be developed, it could be sold as an upgrade to the F/A-18C or as a standalone module. Offering discounts for the other variants makes them attractive choices, if one decides to simulate a different period, try out multicrew or single seat or simply collect the entire family. And no one feels like they have to pay more for their aircraft of choice.

The more modern variants can still be more expensive, but not to the point that they're including the price of another aircraft.

The argument that everyone goes for the most modern stuff and so older tech aircraft would be left behind is only partially true, since, while many certainly do, there are a lot of people that happily fly the MiG-21 and F-14A. Consequently, many will jump on the opportunity of flying a F/A-18A or F-16 Blk30 in Cold War scenarios. There's a whole thread of people asking for more 80s/90s western aircraft.

[Furiz]

I would pay for the upgrade but not for the downgrade, but that's just my preference, gen 4 and beyond is what I would be paying for.

 

I'd love to see block 52+ Advanced Viper (block 52M) cause of the extra MFD it has with a map, so it is in pair with our hornet and jeff with 3 screens, same as the Rhino, Rafale etc. Those are planes that came out around 2010, same as the eurofighter that we are getting, if I'm not mistaken.

[bies]

23 hours ago, Furiz said:

I would pay for the upgrade but not for the downgrade, but that's just my preference, gen 4 and beyond is what I would be paying for.

 

I'd love to see block 52+ Advanced Viper (block 52M) (...)

 

Kinematicaly in BFM Superhornet is a downgrade compared to our big motor Charlie according to pilots flying both of them.

 

F-16C block 52+ (or even our block 50) is also kinematicaly a downgrade compared to Cold War big mouth block 30 designed to dogfight MiG-29 over Europe.

 

After dissolution of the Soviet Union US planes, without any symmetrical opponent, became more and more overweight JSOW trucks. I see this trend changing in a next decade with the rise of China.

 

What is more fascinating: turning and burning in a dynamic dogfight of i.e. Desert Storm on hot rod variants of F-15, F-16, MiG-29 or having another display in a cockpit of an overnight AMRAAM/JSOW truck?

 

Between 1991 and 2020 it is probably the most boring period in history of combat aviation with close to no real air combat and constant budget cuts for every single US and European program due to lack of symmetrical opponent, total lack of founds in Russia, plus China not closing the gap yet.

 

Not mentioning post ~2005-2010 assets would be totally unrealistic, speculative, made up, castrated with real classified electronic gizmos decisive for their real combat effectiveness IRL etc.

 

Without real detection algorithms of low probability of intercept AESA radars, real autopilot algorithms of per-guided AMRAAMs, real electronic warfare etc. - and we will NEVER have them disclosed - it would be more and more of a WarThunder/AceCombat-ish fiction with combat results and combat methods 180° different than IRL.

 

Edited January 3, 2021 by bies

[Furiz]

Yea talk about single feature and say its a downgrade, but overall its definitely a upgrade, systems etc... they knew what they were doing, its not luck that the viper is exported so much, and that the hornet is being exported too.

 

Being able to fight MiG-29 in a dogfight or not is a matter or preference, I prefer air to ground more than air to air. Doesn't mean Ill run from a fight, but I wont get myself into a 1v3 for example, cause my systems will help me there, so I rly don't need my plane to perform better, I have my brain to do that in conjunction with the improved systems.

 

Military offensives in the end are not about dogfights, that is WW2 tactics, today its about neutralizing enemy threats, so you will never see 1 plane going into enemy territory,

like you see on MP servers people going in 1v2 with AG loaout, or single A10C fully loaded calling for CAP and doesnt change heading even tho AWACS is reporting enemy planes in the area, who does that in real world?...

it will be multiple of those planes in cooperation with ground and naval forces.

 

So talking about engine as a whole plane downgrade...

 

When it comes to modeling various new systems I agree with you, but I also don't think that ED or a 3rd party developer will go for a block 50 - 70 viper or Block I, II or III super hornet without getting everything they need (at least I hope they wouldn't do that). It will be interesting to see how Eurofighter will do, how precise it will be.

 

[TotenDead]

Наивность некоторых индивидов не перестает удивлять. Спасибо, что F-22 не просит

[bies]

1 hour ago, Furiz said:

Yea talk about single feature and say its a downgrade, but overall its definitely a upgrade, systems etc...

Systems which are classified and will not be disclosed just because we WANT so. Systems so modern and so recent making a difference between 2005 F/A-18C Lot 20 and Superhornet are totally classified. Avionics wise Superbug and late legacy Hornet are extremally similar - this few things which are different are the ones the most classified and absolutely not to disclose. Superbug in DCS would be more of a different 3D model more than anything + additional drag and longer legs.

 

1 hour ago, Furiz said:

Being able to fight MiG-29 in a dogfight or not is a matter or preference, I prefer air to ground more than air to air.

 

A/G changed accordingly, together with A/A.

A/G in symmetrical conflict in Desert Storm and before means skill based manually aiming CCIP/CCRP dumb bombs, semi guided/semi steered SLAMs, laser guided bombs you need to lase to the last moment observing explosion on FLIR, short range Maverics, guns and rockets, attack dodging AAA fire and SAMs. Seeing explosions, being forced to get somewhat close to the target, participate in battle.

 

Mid 2000s A/G in symmetrical conflict: type some longass GPS coordinates -> fly to point X where JSOWs drop automatically from under the wings -> RTB not seeing any enemy or hit, just reading post flight report. Getting close to the target on modern symmetrical enviroment and air defence systems is considered suicidal.

 

 

1 hour ago, Furiz said:

When it comes to modeling various new systems I agree with you, but I also don't think that ED or a 3rd party developer will go for a block 50 - 70 viper or Block I, II or III super hornet without getting everything they need (at least I hope they wouldn't do that). It will be interesting to see how Eurofighter will do, how precise it will be.

 

I agree also, Eurofighter will be a litmus paper, a true measure of the direction in which DCS can go. Made by TrueGrit 3rd party but under ED supervision. Reasonably realistic EF Tranche 1 around ~2005 already stepping on a thin ice a lot or guestimated partially made up partially fictional late Tranche 2 post 2010 standard castrated with it's real systems crucial to it's real life effectiveness.

This choice may show the future way of the DCS.

 

Will ED ressist the pressure and won't chose anything totally classified ~2010 or newer systems etc. which can't be model thus maintain high fidelity standard.

Or bend and make some F-22s, Su-35s etc, having exactly nothing in common with real counterparts but maybe sell like hot cakes?

 

Fortunately listening interviews with ED members they want to go the first one.

 

Edited January 3, 2021 by bies