What makes the F18 stand out to you

[oldcrusty]

1 hour ago, Paul_Exotic said:

I haven't had much time in the hornet since the patch but nothing was obviously different (aside from my VR performance increasing and the flir polarity issue)...

 

What did you notice in regards to high alpha, slow speed flight?

Pitch rate, very low speed/high AOA handling, spin entry and recovery (used as an alternative to pirouette in some defensive situations when gunning around). Hey, whether it's my imagination or a real improvement... I'm happy with this part of the sim. Now, all this other 'stuff' I see in the bug forum and here, well... 

[wilbur81]

47 minutes ago, Gripes323 said:

Pitch rate, very low speed/high AOA handling, spin entry and recovery (used as an alternative to pirouette in some defensive situations when gunning around). Hey, whether it's my imagination or a real improvement... I'm happy with this part of the sim. Now, all this other 'stuff' I see in the bug forum and here, well... 

I haven't noticed anything except this: it seems like accelerating now leads to a rising of the velocity vector that I've never noticed before? Not sure if this is something that, in real world, the FCS would dampen out? But maybe I'm just imagining this as well. Anyone else noticed this VV rise when accelerating after the update? 

[unlikely_spider]

16 minutes ago, wilbur81 said:

accelerating now leads to a rising of the velocity vector that I've never noticed before

Isn't that how it should always act? I've always noticed the VV rising when increasing throttle in any module featuring a VV.

[rfxcasey]

On 3/6/2022 at 4:43 PM, Jetliner said:

Hey all, F16 addict here.  I own the F18 but aside from some very basic training I quickly gave up on it when I felt it was just really slow, sluggish, bled speed insanely fast for not much maneuverability and didnt offer anything extra that the F16 couldn't already do and in my opinion - do better.  I imagine there is something I just haven't found out yet since I have 10x the hours in the 16 than I do the 18, so I was wondering if anyone could explain to me what sets the F18 apart from other multirole fighters for them?

We can avoid carrier talk as thats an obvious one but besides carrier ops - why do any of you pick the 18 over something else?  I could use some motivation to try it out agian.

Seriously? What kind of a post is this, the F/A-18 gets trashed and trolled enough. I don't believe you're really sincerely curious. People like what they like and fly what they fly for their own reasons, it's really none of your business, not sure why it would concern you as long as everyone is having fun. The childishness in these types of this airframe vs. that airframe discussions just get old, tiresome and annoying after a while. Anyone can buy and learn every module, perhaps you'd be happier if everyone just flew the same thing? Perhaps it makes some feel better to bash on others for getting enjoyment out of flying anything other then the "best" plane in the game, and yes, it is a game at the end of the day.

And the "We can avoid carrier talk as thats an obvious one but besides carrier ops - why do any of you pick the 18 over something else?", would it bother you if carrier ops was the only reason someone enjoyed the module? Is that irrelevant? Seems you just wanted to poke people. No one owes you an explanation for why they enjoy what they enjoy.

Edited March 20, 2022 by rfxcasey

[rfxcasey]

On 3/6/2022 at 5:56 PM, Jetliner said:

The entire post was meant to help me understand why I would want to get back into the 18 over the 16.  I wasnt saying the 16 WAS better I was saying I wanted to hear reasons why you 18 pilots feel its better so I can understand its role in todays battlefield.  

Anti-ship is one I didnt consider but in fairness I havent been in any missions where there are ships to begin with so that would explain why I didnt consider it.

What does "better" mean to any given person? Why do any of us care what you fly? Why would you automatically assume that 18 pilots think it is "better" than anything else just because they personally enjoy it? Just be happy we have both. If you need to ask, then just don't fly it. There problem solved. That wasn't too hard was it?

I like them all, I used to fly the other 16 sim as well. I own and know the DCS A-10, Ka-50, F/A-18, F-16, F-14, A4-E, UH-60L, Hercules, P-51, F-15 and now learning the AH-64D Apache.  No one is better than any other in my opinion, I thoroughly enjoy them all.

Edited March 20, 2022 by rfxcasey

[rfxcasey]

On 3/9/2022 at 3:51 AM, Nealius said:

For me personally, there are two things that stand out. One positive, one negative.

1. A wealth of available weaponry and enough stations to rack them on

2. Convoluted systems logic

Concrete examples for point #2:

To change the laser code in the Hornet, you have to turn on the TPOD, select A/G mode, arm the LTD/R switch, box UFC on the FLIR DDI display, colonize LTDC on the UFC, then enter the code.

In the Viper you punch LIST, 0, 5, enter the code. Done.

To arm bombs in the Hornet, you have to call up the SMS page and set the MFUZ and EFUZ. 

To arm bombs in the Viper, you have to do....nothing. Punch AG master mode and you're ready to rock.  

Don't get me started on HARM codes......

 

This is what macros and voice commands are for.

[Wizard_03]

First of  all counter air isn't everything. The hornet is a much better strike fighter. It can carry more farther, and has a better selection of stores. Its a true multi-role. The F-16 is first and foremost a fighter, but you can also strap bombs to it, the multi-role capability in the viper was evolved over time including the ergonomics in the cockpit and systems which have the benefit of being integrated later after lessons had already been learned. The difference is the hornet had strike in mind as its central role from the get go, everything from stores management to weapon fire control integration is better in the hornet. You have much more control over getting the weapons on target and how that is accomplished. Which is critical because a lot of that functionality is important for the type of on the fly precision attack the hornet is required to preform. It can't rely on pre-planned missions as much as the viper can, and as a naval fighter, it may very well be the first or only available asset in theater to get the job done so It needs to be much more independent and have the ability to quickly and easily adjust its mission to changing circumstances while already air-born and en route to the mission area.

The viper has the Ability to do many of the same missions, but its a lot more limited in some cases, one look at the JDAM page on the hornet vs the SMS page on the viper and you'll understand what I mean. The hornet is strike aircraft that can self escort. It's not really intended for the dedicated defensive counter-air role the viper was first designed for, It CAN do that mission but the viper is more suited to it. But on the other hand the viper makes a lot of sacrifices for that mission, stores and fuel capacity being chief among them. The hornet is a lot more balanced. As its the not the perfect jet for any given job but it CAN do pretty much any job. Which from a logistics standpoint is much more valuable these days. As having the perfect tool for the job at the right place at the right time in the right condition is going to be increasingly unlikely with the fast paced nature of modern conflict today. You need aircraft that excel in changing environments where you don't have the time to move in the absolute best of the best or doing so would cause you to loose an opportunity in the critical first hour first day of the war kinds of situations. The naval component of the hornet is very central to the way it was intended to be used. Deck space is limited so you need as much bang for your buck as you can get. Viper needs to be deployed in theater and have a nice big airbase with lots of intelligence and support to really shine. warhorse vs racehorse

[VR Flight Guy in PJ Pants]

Pardon if I sound I discovered the New World today. Earlier I was testing my mission flying a Hornet against the Viper (AI) with the new FM. I got shot, probably at the starboard wing. No leakage, no warning what-so-ever. When I tried to turn the table by pulling some sweet high-G. The starboard wing was torn away and the plane was literally on fire.

Say hi to the great damage model.

[Steel Jaw]

On 3/20/2022 at 1:59 PM, rfxcasey said:

Seriously?

Have a shot of the Jeremiah Weed, brother.

[Beirut]

What stands out for me:

 

Variety of action and Space Shuttle of Death tech toys. 

[Hulkbust44]

On 3/11/2022 at 6:36 AM, Gypsy 1-1 said:

It matches public figures and the radar range equation rather well within acceptable error margins. Got any evidence for that claim? Keep in mind we are still missing the track through the notch feature and VSR mode.

What public figures? Everything you can find for the 68v5 points to some 28nm for a 5m^2 target. In DCS the range is 45nm, which is absolutely absurd. The simple issue on the DCS side is the interleaving of HPRF in RWS/TWS. Seeing as the  MPRF range would then be 25nm, bump it up by 3-4nm for a 5m^2 target and we're good.