Jump to content

SUPER hornet!?


Huilque151

Recommended Posts

There is no Exclusive Rights Contracts w/ Boeing for any of the Super Hornet variants

  • Like 1

Windows 10 Pro, Ryzen 2700X @ 4.6Ghz, 32GB DDR4-3200 GSkill (F4-3200C16D-16GTZR x2),

ASRock X470 Taichi Ultimate, XFX RX6800XT Merc 310 (RX-68XTALFD9)

3x ASUS VS248HP + Oculus HMD, Thrustmaster Warthog HOTAS + MFDs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/21/2021 at 4:39 AM, SkateZilla said:

There is no Exclusive Rights Contracts w/ Boeing for any of the Super Hornet variants

 

Even better, then there's hope to yet get a Rhino at some point and I was mistaken.

i7 - 9700K | 32 GB DDR4 3200 | RTX 2080 | VKB Gunfighter Mk II /w MCG Pro | Virpil T-50CM2 Throttle | TrackIR 5 | VKB Mk. IV

 

AJS-37 | A/V-8B | A-10C | F-14A/B | F-16C | F-18C | F-86F | FC3 | JF-17 | Ka-50 | L-39 | Mi-8 | MiG-15bis | MiG-19 | MiG-21bis | M2000-C | P-51D | Spitfire LF Mk. IX | UH-1H

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/19/2021 at 8:02 PM, hip3rion said:

Thank you. I thought Beetle was talking about a module and not a mod.

This being said, they seem to want to create an extremely detailed T45 so if it's on top of a decent flight model, I'm excited for it !

It is a standalone module like the A4 and C130 Hercules , with it's own flight dynamics,  cockpit etc. Not based on any other chassis.

https://discord.gg/ZW77rwSgww


Edited by Beetle
More info

VNAO, CVW-14, VFA-146.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

I´ve seen a lot of videos lately where F/A-18s have refueling equipment on their center store and 2 wingtanks on each wing. In my research i found out that this is only able on the Super Hornet version whether its the single seat or dual seat variant. 

Is there any plan for this Plane? I would love to fly it and refuel my buddys midflight using this system.

 

800px-F-18_Buddy_Refueling.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome mate 🙂 

 

The wish for a Super Hornet passes by on this forum almost on a weekly basis (as well as wishes for other aircraft that aren't feasible yet)

 

You'll (and others for that matter) have to understand though, that in order to develop a full fidelity module (such as the F/A-18C, F-16C, A-10C II, F-14A&B, Mi-24, etc.) the dev will, amongst other things, need fully detailed information/documentation, which for these kind of "new"-ish aircraft hasn't been declassified yet.

 

As you might or might not know, DCS can't be compared to some of the arcade military aircraft games out there, where it's basically a ton of nicely shaped 3D models and textures, but with a total lack of realism when it comes to for instance aircraft avionics systems and flight characteristics.

 

I understand your question, and yes most of us here wil agree that it'd be a great addition, but no, not gonna happen any time soon 😉  

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2

System specs:

 

i7-8700K @stock speed - GTX 1080TI @ stock speed - AsRock Extreme4 Z370 - 32GB DDR4 @3GHz- 500GB SSD - 2TB nvme - 650W PSU

HP Reverb G1 v2 - Saitek Pro pedals - TM Warthog HOTAS - TM F/A-18 Grip - TM Cougar HOTAS (NN-Dan mod) & (throttle standalone mod) - VIRPIL VPC Rotor TCS Plus with ALPHA-L grip - Pointctrl & aux banks <-- must have for VR users!! - Andre's SimShaker Jetpad - Fully adjustable DIY playseat - VA+VAICOM

 

~ That nuke might not have been the best of ideas, Sir... the enemy is furious ~ GUMMBAH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your best hopes for a recovery tanker will be the A-6 Intruder fitted with the buddy pod or better yet the KA-6D tanker variant.  Heatbur has already made this statement regarding the tanker variant:

"The short answer to this is that we want to - but until we know more, we can't commit just yet.

It's possible we might do some kind of "pseudo" implementation; where it's really an A-6 except in exterior shape alone, as a stop-gap.

 

We'll keep you in the loop!"

 

 

 

a-strike-fighter-squadron-15-vfa-15-fa-1

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wouldn't a Block 1 Super Hornet be feasible? No idea how many made it to the fleet, but there were some delivered. I'm not talking 2-seater, at least not yet. Just the single seater. It's pre-AESA radar and shares many of the same systems with our current C. Sure, I know most would want a version with AESA, but I'd enjoy a Super Hornet for the extended range and time aloft it gives.

"These are NOT 1 to 1 replicas of the real aircraft, there are countless compromises made on each of them" - Senior ED Member

 

Modules - Damn near all of them (no Christian Eagle or Yak)

System - i7-12700K, 64Gig DDR4 3200 RAM, RTX-3080, 3 32" monitors at 5760 x 1080, default settings of High (minor tweaks)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The key problem to the Super Hornet is that it's a still in-service aircraft, and many of its systems are still classified. ED has even stated that while they would like to do it, they would, at best, only be able to do the earliest versions of the aircraft, as that would be the ones they could get access to the information on.

 

Now, I wouldn't mind the Super Bug being in DCS, but this applies to almost all of the aircraft that have ever existed. However, one thing I will say is that there are some people who need to get off their high horse and accept that for some aircraft to come into DCS, they may not be 100% accurate to the real thing, because there just isn't enough information on it available to the general public. With that said, I wouldn't mind a partial fidelity module. It can still have the clicky cockpits, but not all of the systems and such are modeled, and the aircraft still has a mostly realistic flight model based on both what little information is out there, as well as 'virtual wind tunnel' data. But, when it comes to the bolt counters, if the test reports say one thing, and the game version is only slightly off, they flip their stuff, gripe on the forums about it being .0001% off about whatever aspect they're on about, which ultimately forces the dev team to fix this minor issue and starts a mess of arguments within the fanbase...

 

It's not pretty

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I for one think that if the information is available then it is time to model the Super Hornet. As of now it seems it's only possible to create a module for a very early variant of the super hornet. Which would essentially be similar to our current C Lot 20 but bigger in all dimensions, more range and 2 additional pylons. It'd have access to the same weapons the that our current module already has. Do we really want that? 
 

2 hours ago, Tank50us said:

However, one thing I will say is that there are some people who need to get off their high horse and accept that for some aircraft to come into DCS, they may not be 100% accurate to the real thing, because there just isn't enough information on it available to the general public.

No, it will never be 100% accurate to the real thing, for on we will never have a proper Electronic Warfare properly modelled in DCS, that's a whole aspect of a modern war that DCS will never be able to simulate. Now for something like the aircraft and the rest of it's systems (excluding the EW suite) we could wait for more information to be declassified to perhaps grant us a more modern Super Hornet. After all, the Legacy hornet we have is still being developed and far from complete. 

That being said, can we all just be in agreement that we shall at least wait for ED to completely finish the F/A-18C Lot. 20 before they even consider making an F/A-18E/F module. After such time has passed we might get access to more modern / newer weapons that would then have been declassified. Sounds like a more interesting module to me. As with everything in Flight Sims, have patience.


Edited by KIllshot0597
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Player to player tanking in some form would be a great addition to DCS multiplayer. Even if it was unrealistically implemented on our C model.. however, given the "discussions" over the ability to use 4 harms on the viper I can't see the purists allowing any of this. Even if just not using it was an option. Maybe we will get the KA-6. that would be better, but I don't see a whole module being reworked for this purpose. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/8/2021 at 12:24 PM, sirrah said:

which for these kind of "new"-ish aircraft hasn't been declassified yet

New aircraft? The early block Rhinos are from the exact same timeframe as our Charlies. Hell, if they want, they could theoretically make an even earlier Rhino from ~2002 that would be less capable in the avionics department than our Charlie.

 

2 hours ago, Tank50us said:

The key problem to the Super Hornet is that it's a still in-service aircraft, and many of its systems are still classified

This is true for virtually any modern (and the classified can apply to older ones) DCS module. F-16, Apache, A-10, F-18C, Typhoon, Mirage, Harrier, etc. All are still in service and each and every single one of them have a lot of classified systems and information associated, even if we disregard the obvious CM, ECM, ECCM performance.

 

2 hours ago, Tank50us said:

there just isn't enough information on it available to the general public

You'd be lucky with an early Block Rhino, because the avionics are so close to a period correct Charlie that you could replicate the same exact DDI pages and options as our Hornet, and it wouldn't be all that inaccurate. The Goldbook (Super Hornet avionics manual issues by Boeing that details relevant displays and data for a DCS module) is unclassified and SMEs have helped other developers make accurate Rhinos in the past, so it's obviously not an information availability issue. Licensing could be a problem in theory. Don't think that the current Hornet is complete or it matches up particularly well with public information to begin with, so I don't really see this being an issue. Flight model and whatnot is probably a bigger problem, but Wags stated that all the EM charts for the Legacy Hornet are still classified to this day, so it's a moot point.

 

39 minutes ago, KIllshot0597 said:

Do we really want that? 

Well, sure, I think a lot of people would want that, especially if it's a two seater. The extra bringback capability and all that gas would instantly make me shell out the 70 bucks for the preorder, even for an E. If it's an F, no questions asked, everyone would buy it. But would it make sense for ED from a financial perspective to make a new product that will basically render an earlier one almost completely obsolete? The Rhino is for all intents and purposes a better Hornet barring some niche areas, even the early ones. So making a Rhino would just cannibalize the Hornet sales and at this point in time it makes very little sense to focus on that. Maybe in the future it would be a great idea, once the Charlie Hornet met the sales numbers that ED expect from the module.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hoirtel said:

Even if it was unrealistically implemented on our C model..

It should never be a thing for the C. Call me a purist if you like but I like that ED is sticking to the specific variants. Having started my simming days in F/A-18 Korea, then a large chunk of my simming in IL-2 Sturmovik (the old sim). I've come to understand the value of making a flight sim as realistic as can plausibly be done, of course we can't get it to be 1 to 1 to IRL. However, compromising realism for the sake of appeasing people to get what they want is a slippery slope that no body wants to be on. I do agree that we as a community should pressure/suggest to Heatblur to make the KA-6 flyable. This would give the community a flyable tanker while preserving realism. This would also open the doors for potential modules that are also tankers, like the S-3 for example. Or even in the distant future once we get Super Hornet module, ED would develop it with the ability to have a buddy tank as well! 

Unfortunately, I don't see it in any way financially feasible for ED to create a dedicated module for tanking like a KC-135 for example. It'll have to be bundled in with an aircraft that is also capable of doing some kind of offensive attack with ordinance.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, KIllshot0597 said:

It should never be a thing for the C. Call me a purist if you like but I like that ED is sticking to the specific variants. Having started my simming days in F/A-18 Korea, then a large chunk of my simming in IL-2 Sturmovik (the old sim). I've come to understand the value of making a flight sim as realistic as can plausibly be done, of course we can't get it to be 1 to 1 to IRL. However, compromising realism for the sake of appeasing people to get what they want is a slippery slope that no body wants to be on. I do agree that we as a community should pressure/suggest to Heatblur to make the KA-6 flyable. This would give the community a flyable tanker while preserving realism. This would also open the doors for potential modules that are also tankers, like the S-3 for example. Or even in the distant future once we get Super Hornet module, ED would develop it with the ability to have a buddy tank as well! 

Unfortunately, I don't see it in any way financially feasible for ED to create a dedicated module for tanking like a KC-135 for example. It'll have to be bundled in with an aircraft that is also capable of doing some kind of offensive attack with ordinance.

You are right. It becomes difficult to define how far to go and would almost certainly be a slippery slope. It would be fun to try, and would love  to do it on a super hornet, but can't see this being a worthwhile addition as there are so many airframes that should come first.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As of the moment, given that (to my knowledge) AI use SFMs. I would actually love to have AI only Super Hornets in the meantime. It'd give carriers a realistic looking flight deck post F-14 retirement. At the moment I think this is a more reasonable request to make to ED.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to be blunt. I would rather not see another modern blufor aircraft, until we see some cold war classis to give the Mig-15, 19, and 21 some period correct targets or AI Redfor. However if there is an early Super Bug that basically uses the same avionics as the F-18 we have now then Yes go for it, just get started on the other Rhino

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@upyr1If you didn't know there is a G.91 module being developed by Inda Foxt Echo, Leatherneck's F-8J, Flying Iron Simulation's A-7E, Mig-23 by Razbam, Mirage F.1 by Aegres. Pretty good and diverse roster of early to to mid cold-war era modules under development! 

Also of note is a Mig-17 by Red Star simulations. With Red Star Simulations they are aspiring to be a 3rd party and aren't official yet, so at the very least treat their Mig-17 project as a mod as of now.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, KIllshot0597 said:

@upyr1If you didn't know there is a G.91 module being developed by Inda Foxt Echo, Leatherneck's F-8J, Flying Iron Simulation's A-7E, Mig-23 by Razbam, Mirage F.1 by Aegres. Pretty good and diverse roster of early to to mid cold-war era modules under development! 

Also of note is a Mig-17 by Red Star simulations. With Red Star Simulations they are aspiring to be a 3rd party and aren't official yet, so at the very least treat their Mig-17 project as a mod as of now.

 

Also A-6 Intruder by Heatblur, Bolkov 105 and Sea Harrier by Razbam, MiG-29A by ED, probably Su-17 by other developer. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, kseremak said:

 

Also A-6 Intruder by Heatblur, Bolkov 105 and Sea Harrier by Razbam, MiG-29A by ED, probably Su-17 by other developer. 

You are right on the A-6 and Bo-105 but the sea harrier is only AI at the moment with some distant plans to maybe become a module. Mig-29A is so far only planned and I never even heard of am Su-17 officially. All we have that i know of with regards to the Su-17 is a potential teaser by Leatherneck. We have no confirmations yet.

 

Yes more cold-war stuff is welcome, however we are starting to stray from the topic at hand. 😅

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, KIllshot0597 said:

Yes more cold-war stuff is welcome, however we are starting to stray from the topic at hand. 

 

As I said before, I personally vote yes to any and all aircraft being available in DCS, even if they can't be 100% modeled to the standards of full fidelity. That being said, this is one of the things I hope happens with MAC, that ED decides "Screw it", and just ties it into the existing DCS platform and give us more options, while also giving 3rd Party Devs more options to make aircraft that we would otherwise never see thanks to the classified nature of some of them.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, KIllshot0597 said:

@upyr1If you didn't know there is a G.91 module being developed by Inda Foxt Echo, Leatherneck's F-8J, Flying Iron Simulation's A-7E, Mig-23 by Razbam, Mirage F.1 by Aegres. Pretty good and diverse roster of early to to mid cold-war era modules under development! 

Also of note is a Mig-17 by Red Star simulations. With Red Star Simulations they are aspiring to be a 3rd party and aren't official yet, so at the very least treat their Mig-17 project as a mod as of now.

I consider most of those to be mid cold war, I'm really looking forward to the f-8 since it will be a good opponent for the MiG-19

2 hours ago, KIllshot0597 said:

You are right on the A-6 and Bo-105 but the sea harrier is only AI at the moment with some distant plans to maybe become a module. Mig-29A is so far only planned and I never even heard of am Su-17 officially. All we have that i know of with regards to the Su-17 is a potential teaser by Leatherneck. We have no confirmations yet.

 

Yes more cold-war stuff is welcome, however we are starting to stray from the topic at hand. 😅

Back to what got us on this tangent, what Lot Super Hornet would you want? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Tank50us said:

 

As I said before, I personally vote yes to any and all aircraft being available in DCS, even if they can't be 100% modeled to the standards of full fidelity. That being said, this is one of the things I hope happens with MAC, that ED decides "Screw it", and just ties it into the existing DCS platform and give us more options, while also giving 3rd Party Devs more options to make aircraft that we would otherwise never see thanks to the classified nature of some of them.

Same here, I would love if Eagle gives us some MAC modules they can't do in DCS and cross platform play. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tank50us said:

that ED decides "Screw it", and just ties it into the existing DCS platform

what do you mean by this?

Personally, I don't care much for MAC. I love DCS for how realistic it is so MAC isn't something for me at all. I'm going to make a guess that MAC will basically be DCS with Game flight mode and Game Avionics mode on. Whatever modules they develop for DCS will probably also be available for MAC. Perhaps newer more classified aircraft will be on MAC too and that might be good for those interested but if it isn't up to DCS's standards then I hope it stays in MAC.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...