Petition to get ED to make the F/A-18D

[Hammer1-1]

Several pilots on my squadron have started this petition in the hopes of getting ED to make an F-18D Hornet. This is just a petition, not an angry rant so please keep it civil, ladies.

https://www.change.org/DCSFA18DHORNET

Edited June 24, 2021 by Hammer1-1

[Tank50us]

Uhm.... a ChangeDotOrg petition isn't going to affect Eagle Dynamics, especially since they're a Russian Company, and Change is a US based thing.

[Danny_P]

Oh this topic again....

[Hammer1-1]

12 hours ago, Danny_P said:

Oh this topic again....

so?

[Dawgboy]

SQUIRREL!!  Finish the Viper before another Hornet variant...

 

2¢

[Wizard_03]

Why D? Why not F? Supersize the trash.

[Hammer1-1]

1 hour ago, Wizard_03 said:

Why D? Why not F? Supersize the trash.

Why not just do the F-35 instead. Lets just stay on topic please. The idea here is to do a model that requires a minimum of effort that technically isnt any more of a difference than the A-10C and the CII.

Edited June 25, 2021 by Hammer1-1

[Dragon89]

What is the point of doing the D-variant?

[Wizard_03]

10 hours ago, Hammer1-1 said:

Why not just do the F-35 instead. Lets just stay on topic please. The idea here is to do a model that requires a minimum of effort that technically isnt any more of a difference than the A-10C and the CII.

 

They can't do the F-35, not enough data. Early lot F very possible, they considered doing a super hornet before they went with lot 20 C. But in any case hornet D is not minimum effort it's a whole different aircraft, new cockpits, new FM, the works, and for all that, it's basically the same or less capable then lot 20 C.

 

So instead I'd rather have something unique and more different then what we already got like a two seat super hornet for all that work. Because the things that are similar between the C and D that would make the work go faster are also similar between the C and F. 

 

 

 

Edited June 25, 2021 by Wizard_03

[reece146]

Wishing out loud, Canadian F-18B, which I understand is effectively the B two seater updated to roughly C specs.

 

I think what people want is the back seat for various reasons; training, ride-alongs, work-load sharing, whatever.

 

If a two seat '18B could be done with the current info publicly available this would likely be the easiest way to do it.

 

Would be great to have but I won't hold my breath.

 

 

[Hammer1-1]

1 hour ago, Dragon89 said:

What is the point of doing the D-variant?

kinda obvious...

1 hour ago, Wizard_03 said:

They can't do the F-35, not enough data. Early lot F very possible, they considered doing a super hornet before they went with lot 20 C. But in any case hornet D is not minimum effort it's a whole different aircraft, new cockpits, new FM, the works, and for all that, it's basically the same or less capable then lot 20 C.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not really, the model is just adding a back seater, removing fuel and changing ranges. Otherwise it flies just like a C model. Pretty much everything avionics wise is repeated to the backseater.

[notproplayer3]

Well, a petition isn't going to change anything. I'm guessing ED has their hands full already (fa18c, f16, hind, ah64 and probably a lot more...).

[Hammer1-1]

16 minutes ago, notproplayer3 said:

Well, a petition isn't going to change anything. I'm guessing ED has their hands full already (fa18c, f16, hind, ah64 and probably a lot more...).

Well, ED mentioned they were making the Apache about the same time Black Shark was almost out of development in 2007. I get its going to take a while, and so do all the others who started this petition in my squadron.

[Mr. Big.Biggs]

Im starting a petition to force Sony to bring back beta max.  I’ll post a link….

[Furiz]

48 minutes ago, Hammer1-1 said:

kinda obvious...

Not really, the model is just adding a back seater, removing fuel and changing ranges. Otherwise it flies just like a C model. Pretty much everything avionics wise is repeated to the backseater.

 

It's really not obvious, you have 33 that signed this petition, so kinda inst obvious why would we need a 2 seater hornet. and its not just adding this and removing that, we could just add F35 then right?

[norbot]

No need for a D here, girls. 

Edited June 25, 2021 by norbot

[upyr1]

3 hours ago, Dragon89 said:

What is the point of doing the D-variant?

The only point would be multicrew. While I know someone who I think could benefit from playing as a WSO. Whether I would want it, comes down to the difficulty.  It would be nice if two people with the F/A-18C could fly as a D but not a separate module  

[Hammer1-1]

27 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

The only point would be multicrew. While I know someone who I think could benefit from playing as a WSO. Whether I would want it, comes down to the difficulty.  It would be nice if two people with the F/A-18C could fly as a D but not a separate module  

Well from a Marine Corps standpoint, it makes a great bit of difference. The pilot should concentrate on piloting while the WSO concentrates on coordinating the a2g role. As they say, 2 heads are better than one. Quite frankly, theres a huge workload in the cockpit as it is; a little help is welcome IMO.

1 hour ago, norbot said:

No need for a D here, girls. 

 

Then dont participate! Easy as that, ladies. Some ladies want the D. Just sayin'.

1 hour ago, Furiz said:

 

It's really not obvious, you have 33 that signed this petition, so kinda inst obvious why would we need a 2 seater hornet. and its not just adding this and removing that, we could just add F35 then right?

The petition is there; you dont want to sign it, dont sign it. You're welcome to ignore this thread, and that goes for everyone else and their opinion. Sign the poll if you wish, and then move on. Easy peezy.

Edited June 25, 2021 by Hammer1-1

[upyr1]

20 minutes ago, Hammer1-1 said:

Well from a Marine Corps standpoint, it makes a great bit of difference. The pilot should concentrate on piloting while the WSO concentrates on coordinating the a2g role. As they say, 2 heads are better than one. Quite frankly, theres a huge workload in the cockpit as it is; a little help is welcome IMO.

I know someone who I'd be doing multicrew and we both have the C. 

[Wizard_03]

3 hours ago, Hammer1-1 said:

kinda obvious...

Not really, the model is just adding a back seater, removing fuel and changing ranges. Otherwise it flies just like a C model. Pretty much everything avionics wise is repeated to the backseater.

The OFPs are different, pretty much does not equal same, and by add a back seat you mean whole cockpit because they share a canopy so the entire mesh would need to be rebuilt from scratch from the pilot and wso seats, then the external 3D model would likewise need to be re-done again from scratch. Maybe they could re use some texture assets like knobs and switches, but it's a different jet so you'd need to scan a new cockpit, and start over.

 

The flight model is also different, because the aircraft is different. Need a whole new set of CG calculations for pilot in the back, new aerodynamic calculations to handle the different shaped canopy and the million other slight differences then we need to know how the FCS handles all that. My guess is it changes pretty much every value when it's all said and done. So even if it's a little change its means a huge amount of work and validation. There's a reason all the performance charts in the manual specify single or two seat, which engines, and stores configuration.

 

All this on top of multicrew integration, which the old spaghetti code probably can't handle so even if they could use the exact same avionics, which it can't, They would still need to jam that into two cockpits so that can they can work at the same time online. Something ED didn't engineer their lot 20 C code for. 

 

Similar does not equal same.

 

[Furiz]

1 hour ago, Hammer1-1 said:

The petition is there; you dont want to sign it, dont sign it. You're welcome to ignore this thread, and that goes for everyone else and their opinion. Sign the poll if you wish, and then move on. Easy peezy.

 

 

I was planing to ignore it but then I said oh wait, they have a petition to GET ED to make a 2 seater F-18, this will be fun;D /grabs popcorn

 

Anyways, we really need more modern jets, not another variant of a jet we already have, be it Russian, Chinese, European etc... we really lack diversity in modern era, we only have USA jets, and 1 Pakistan jet, I don't want to add Mirage to modern that one is more cold war than modern as far as I know, I don't own it.

 

So getting ED to do a variant of a jet we already have in DCS with a petition... well good luck.

[Hammer1-1]

1 hour ago, Furiz said:

 

I was planing to ignore it but then I said oh wait, they have a petition to GET ED to make a 2 seater F-18, this will be fun;D /grabs popcorn

 

Anyways, we really need more modern jets, not another variant of a jet we already have, be it Russian, Chinese, European etc... we really lack diversity in modern era, we only have USA jets, and 1 Pakistan jet, I don't want to add Mirage to modern that one is more cold war than modern as far as I know, I don't own it.

 

So getting ED to do a variant of a jet we already have in DCS with a petition... well good luck.

I think we lack multi cockpit vehicles; this is something this community has been after since LOMAC when the modding community came together with the F-15D all those many years ago. A petition is a petition, its just asking for you to say yay or nay, so again your participation is voluntary. Doesnt mean it gives you permission to be a dick.

Edited June 25, 2021 by Hammer1-1

[notproplayer3]

19 hours ago, Hammer1-1 said:

Well, ED mentioned they were making the Apache about the same time Black Shark was almost out of development in 2007. I get its going to take a while, and so do all the others who started this petition in my squadron.

Well, seeing how the current DCS timeline looks like (fa18c, f16, hind, ah64, mig29a, mosquito), I do believe ED would have to work for quite some time before finishing those already present and upcomming modules without mentioning the parralel work for new modules. 

 

On the topic of new modules and the fa18d, I really am not convinced that it'll interest ED (neither does it interest me) but all in all I guess the petition is a very good way to show how many people are interested in this plane. Even with that, the number of signatures must be very huge to make ED consider since I'm sure there are other planes or variations many people rather see being worked on. 

Edited June 26, 2021 by notproplayer3

[Furiz]

18 minutes ago, Hammer1-1 said:

I think we lack multi cockpit vehicles; this is something this community has been after since LOMAC when the modding community came together with the F-15D all those many years ago. A petition is a petition, its just asking for you to say yay or nay, so again your participation is voluntary. Doesnt mean it gives you permission to be a dick.

 

 

I just gave you a very good argument why we shouldn't have a 2 seat variant of a plane we already have in DCS and all you do is you insult me.

 

If you can express your opinion on the forum so can I, that's why forums are here, if you don't want to see other peoples opinions don't come to forums and don't do petitions, that way you wont see the lack of interest for 2 seat F-18.

I don't know about the community after LOMAC but judging by the responses on your petition, that community is gone.

 

I'm just being realistic.

[Danny_P]

Would you be expecting this to be a brand new module or an upgrade?