no F-18 boring?

[Cab]

1 hour ago, Slippa said:

Welcome .

”70s”? I don’t remember any home computers being around, we were still pretty impressed by digital watches. When did we get ‘Pong’?

Sometime in the ‘70’s ‘(I didn’t care enough to google it either)

[Braunn]

On 1/24/2024 at 3:05 PM, Exorcet said:

Adjusting fuel is an apples to apples comparison. You can't use raw fuel amount, the planes are different. Cruise range also isn't just for ferrying, unless you're immediately taking off and going into combat. How far you can cruise is going to determine how far away you can fight.

I haven't done as many combat comparisons on fuel use, but I've found situations where the F-16 comes ahead. It was able to get up to combat speed and altitude faster and then use mil power to conserve fuel while maintaining most of its speed. The Hornet needed AB the entire time to keep up which burned through the fuel. Again it's going to be mission dependent. Heavily loaded the F-18 will pull ahead.

If you're adjusting fuel load for weight before testing you're basically moving the yard stick around, and it will create a different result. I get that you probably like the Vipers very much, I do too, but there's no way around the fact that they are thirsty AF when operating in a combat scenario. They do have range in perfect conditions like good AOA (6deg), light load and 90 percent throttle, but I don't like to compare fighters to airliners. 

Edited January 29 by Braunn

[Exorcet]

2 hours ago, Braunn said:

If you're adjusting fuel load for weight before testing you're basically moving the yard stick around, and it will create a different result.

 

The load was not adjusted, it was the bingo amount. Full fuel for both at the start, bingo set proportional to weight. I could have just flown to 0 fuel which would be functionally the same thing, but I wanted useable range numbers.

  

2 hours ago, Braunn said:

If you're adjusting fuel load for weight before testing you're basically moving the yard stick around, and it will create a different result. I get that you probably like the Vipers very much, I do too, but there's no way around the fact that they are thirsty AF when operating in a combat scenario. They do have range in perfect conditions like good AOA (6deg), light load and 90 percent throttle, but I don't like to compare fighters to airliners. 

 

I enjoy the F-16 (and I like the Hornet even if I don't always get along with the controls) a lot but that doesn't really matter here, it's an objective test. I've tested both cruise and combat and I've seen the F-16 come out ahead when lightly loaded (ie AA config or small AG loadout). The F-16 uses less fuel innately and has less draggy stations. It does have a fuel fraction disadvantage, so on internal fuel only while carrying a big bomb load it can fall behind, but the drop tanks proportionately give it more fuel and don't add as much drag.

I think one way to put it is that the F-16 is naturally a little more efficient, which makes some sense as it's single engine and not weighed down with naval equipment, but the F-18 is better at carrying payloads. Though if you have numbers to provide, I'd be interested in comparing. I haven't really seen many people do tests like mine.

[rfxcasey]

On 12/14/2023 at 5:59 AM, Peedee said:

Is it just me that find the F-18 a little bit "boring"? I mean, this is just compared to the A-10C and F-16. It´s a matter of taste, I know. And they are very different airplanes. But, I tried to like it, I even bought the Winwing Take off panel, the UFC/hud control thingies, the  3 mfd panels, all nicely setup on my desk..  Thrustmaster F-18 stick mounted on a Virpil base with 20cm extender... (wow - the precision I get with that is just insane btw!).

I have spend most time in the A-10C. But I wanted something faster, something for shooting down other planes too. So I got all the Winwing stuff and... nope.... I don´t mean to come out as a troll - this being the F-18 part of the forum and all. But... nah... argh... wanted to like it. Really did. 

I have jumped to the F-16 for now. Find it fun to fly, but my 1998 Falcon 4 patch 1.08 flying and fighting skills (which was the last time I really spend many hours in a F-16 sim) doesn´t really cut it   Much to learn.

Maybe I´ll come back to the F-18 later. Hate to sell all this nice stuff or just let it rest there on my desk. I probably didn´t spend enough time in it. "Patience, my young padawan" isn´t something that I live by. I´m 54 and hasn´t got time for that 

 

F/A-18C is great, you just have to be smart enough and a good enough pilot to know how to use it effectively. Perhaps it's just not for you. And its not the Viper, its the Fighting Falcon or just Falcon for short. I mean, snakes don't fly do they? Well I guess vipers, and tom cats as well for that matter, do sort of fly when you let go of their tails after vigorously spinning them around, like a shot put hammer.

Edited January 29 by rfxcasey

[Chaffee]

On 1/27/2024 at 6:11 AM, Slippa said:

Welcome .

”70s”? I don’t remember any home computers being around, we were still pretty impressed by digital watches. When did we get ‘Pong’?

Altair 8800.

You set the bios with switches on the front of the machine. We had two 8-inch (yes, 8 ) floppy drives at $1,000 apiece (in '70s money, no less).

The "flight sim" was "Lunar Lander," in which you put in your fuel-burn and got a text response on deceleration. At the end, it told you how large a crater you made.

My dad was really into computers. He built a system on a 4x8 plywood board in 1972. It had 1k of core memory, which was an open grid of copper wires and solder joints about 20cm a side.

1k of core memory! Can you imagine? I once asked him what it did: "nothing."

RE: Pong -- I played it on an Odyssey in 1973. It had semi-transparent electrostatic sheets you stuck on your TV, and the graphics rendered behind that. Seriously.

All this makes me sound terribly old. I have a hot girlfriend.

Edited January 29 by Chaffee
Better narrative

[Slippa]

2 hours ago, Chaffee said:

All this makes me sound terribly old. I have a hot girlfriend.

 I feel old myself. She’s getting on a bit herself now, bless her. 

I just about remember some of those floppy drives but never got anywhere near any. I’m an early 70s jobby so you were probably already well into your flares by the time I saw pong and the like. There’s a thread here somewhere debating whether or not we’re in the golden age of flight sims now or had it been and gone. I daren’t mention it really. It’s come on a bit though eh? 

[Shimmergloom667]

Haha, just have to say the tag of this thread is just perfect, 10/10 *chef's kiss*

[Chaffee]

21 hours ago, Slippa said:

 I feel old myself. She’s getting on a bit herself now, bless her. 

I just about remember some of those floppy drives but never got anywhere near any. I’m an early 70s jobby so you were probably already well into your flares by the time I saw pong and the like. There’s a thread here somewhere debating whether or not we’re in the golden age of flight sims now or had it been and gone. I daren’t mention it really. It’s come on a bit though eh? 

Having seen pretty much the whole arc of flight sims, this seems a golden age to me. I remember in Falcon 3.0 the option to turn on canopy arrows b/c there weren't enough references to know which way you were looking in padlock.

We thought it was ridiculously cool that the bombs had visible shock waves: literally a hollow white circle that expanded from the impact point... But seriously, if these kids knew what came before, right? That was the first one I recall being able to make sense of in a spatial way. So often enemies had been simple dots, even in dogfights.

And yes, older than you, but still pretty...and younger (and prettier) than the F-4E  

[McCloud]

I bought the F16 afew years ago along with the F18. I fly cap most of the time.

 

I hardly fly the F16.

[BuzzU]

31 minutes ago, Chaffee said:

Having seen pretty much the whole arc of flight sims, this seems a golden age to me. I remember in Falcon 3.0 the option to turn on canopy arrows b/c there weren't enough references to know which way you were looking in padlock.

We thought it was ridiculously cool that the bombs had visible shock waves: literally a hollow white circle that expanded from the impact point... But seriously, if these kids knew what came before, right? That was the first one I recall being able to make sense of in a spatial way. So often enemies had been simple dots, even in dogfights.

And yes, older than you, but still pretty...and younger (and prettier) than the F-4E  

What took you so long to come here?

[Chaffee]

31 minutes ago, BuzzU said:

What took you so long to come here?

Mostly raising a child and some other responsibilities took hold, so I had to be a bit more casual about following DCS and its progress. My last serious sims covered WWI and F-16s, about a decade ago.

The child is now 9, so still a child, but is expressing interest in serious flight sims amongst the many other games, (smart kid who likes challenge and depth) so here I am, learning and teaching.

Currently have the F/A-18C and the Apache. Love 'em both.

My next 3 will be F-14, F-15E, and F-4E, as I plan to do a lot of backseat time supporting the kid in the front (offline, obviously). Online, I'm looking forward to some Cold War stuff, but really doing RIO/WSO in support of the person in front will be a hell of a lot of fun for me, especially since I'll have put the time in with the kid. (I let him shoot things in the Apache, but daddy keeps it out of high-tension wires, but I guess that's strictly backseat too lol).

It's not that I don't love the flying part (I have a carrier-ops plane and a helicopter, after all), but pushing the buttons pushes my buttons (as does being that extra set of eyes for SA and the scopes, giving the person up front every thing they need to succeed).

I think I'll build a RIO cockpit for the F-14, because operating that radar with real tactile switches and buttons has serious upside, I think, not least because it helps keep you heads-up more. It's just easier to glance at a real scope or a real panel. (It's also the 9-year-old's favorite plane, so I'll be getting serious seat time).

DCS has caught me now, and we're committed. I like the approach and the business model, especially for a niche product. I like what ED is developing and understand how both project management and product development works, so EA/bugs don't freak me out. Build, iterate, refine: I see that over the long arc, and they've done well. I get that people get impatient, but it's this or arcade, and what I see is that the development team and its partners actually care, even if every moment isn't a success.

I've worked for a lot of start-ups. The long arc here is success, so it's worth investing time and money into.

Anyway, that's my flight-sim journey and my opinion.

Cheers

Edited January 30 by Chaffee

[BuzzU]

Good luck and have fun flying with your son.

[Slippa]

I've been flying props pretty much exclusively. I bought the 14, 16 and 18 around the same time as I got my vintage birds sorted. I had quick looks before starting to learn to cold start the F18 and try it out. I'd barely used DCS at all and spent about 3 hrs going round in circles hooking up on the trap. I dropped two off the edge of the carrier while standing on my rudder pedals. I think I hadn't set them up properly or was still trying to get used to bindings but it was anything but boring .

I got launched a few times and smashed it into the back of the boat enough times to know there was fun to be had. I focused on learning to fly the props so left all the jet sport for another day. Yesterday I stumbled on the T-45 project (It's great) and was tempted back into a bit of jet flying. I'll get back in the hornet soon, training missions I think as I've forgotten the cold start now. I don't think I'll be bored for a while with it.

[BuzzU]

12 hours ago, Slippa said:

I've been flying props pretty much exclusively. I bought the 14, 16 and 18 around the same time as I got my vintage birds sorted. I had quick looks before starting to learn to cold start the F18 and try it out. I'd barely used DCS at all and spent about 3 hrs going round in circles hooking up on the trap. I dropped two off the edge of the carrier while standing on my rudder pedals. I think I hadn't set them up properly or was still trying to get used to bindings but it was anything but boring .

I got launched a few times and smashed it into the back of the boat enough times to know there was fun to be had. I focused on learning to fly the props so left all the jet sport for another day. Yesterday I stumbled on the T-45 project (It's great) and was tempted back into a bit of jet flying. I'll get back in the hornet soon, training missions I think as I've forgotten the cold start now. I don't think I'll be bored for a while with it.

When landing the Hornet on the boat you need to give full throttle at touchdown. If you catch a wire it's strong enough to hold the plane. Back off the power as soon as you know you caught a wire. However, if you bolter and miss all the wires the engine will be spooled up to accelerate off the boat. You'll never stop the plane by hitting the brakes if you bolter.. As you found out.

Edited February 1 by BuzzU

[VDV]

Do you know whats the Hornet logo? "It can do everything,  but its best in nothing ".

I have both,  I'm flying both and I definitely think that F-16 is better. It has better radar, more powerful engine  (but better and with more economic fuel consumption). Also the Viper is wayyy better in AA in every aspect (dogfight,  BVR, everything). Do I even need to mention the Hornet's shi.ty radar??

Also, the Viper can do everything that Hornet can in AG mode (except maybe anti-ship, but I think Maverick can be used vs ships too) and it can do it better.

And the end F-16 has more advanced displays and can perform better SEAD/DEAD tasks. And I will not even mention the visibility of the Viper's cockpit,  which is ages above the Hornet's cockpit.

For me, the only interesting thing on the Hornet was the naval operations (landings on the boat).

 

I think it's enough for me to chose Viper instead of Hornet.

So Viper all the way!

Edited February 2 by VDV

[Blackfyre]

36 minutes ago, VDV said:

Do you know whats the Hornet logo? "It can do everything,  but its best in nothing ".

I have both,  I'm flying both and I definitely think that F-16 is better. It has better radar, more powerful engine  (but better and with more economic fuel consumption). Also the Viper is wayyy better in AA in every aspect (dogfight,  BVR, everything). Do I even need to mention the Hornet's shi.ty radar??

Also, the Viper can do everything that Hornet can in AG mode (except maybe anti-ship, but I think Maverick can be used vs ships too) and it can do it better.

And the end F-16 has more advanced displays and can perform better SEAD/DEAD tasks. And I will not even mention the visibility of the Viper's cockpit,  which is ages above the Hornet's cockpit.

For me, the only interesting thing on the Hornet was the naval operations (landings on the boat).

 

I think it's enough for me to chose Viper instead of Hornet.

So Viper all the way!

 

I have an opposite opinion on almost every aspect, especially radar. Viper has certain advantages in the ability to fly high and fast, but that is it. Hornet is better in everything else.

Edited February 2 by Blackfyre

[freehand]

39 minutes ago, VDV said:

Do you know whats the Hornet logo? "It can do everything,  but its best in nothing ".

I have both,  I'm flying both and I definitely think that F-16 is better. It has better radar, more powerful engine  (but better and with more economic fuel consumption). Also the Viper is wayyy better in AA in every aspect (dogfight,  BVR, everything). Do I even need to mention the Hornet's shi.ty radar??

Also, the Viper can do everything that Hornet can in AG mode (except maybe anti-ship, but I think Maverick can be used vs ships too) and it can do it better.

And the end F-16 has more advanced displays and can perform better SEAD/DEAD tasks. And I will not even mention the visibility of the Viper's cockpit,  which is ages above the Hornet's cockpit.

For me, the only interesting thing on the Hornet was the naval operations (landings on the boat).

 

I think it's enough for me to chose Viper instead of Hornet.

So Viper all the way!

 

Is it better is it ah bless you.

[BuzzU]

2 hours ago, VDV said:

Do you know whats the Hornet logo? "It can do everything,  but its best in nothing ".

I have both,  I'm flying both and I definitely think that F-16 is better. It has better radar, more powerful engine  (but better and with more economic fuel consumption). Also the Viper is wayyy better in AA in every aspect (dogfight,  BVR, everything). Do I even need to mention the Hornet's shi.ty radar??

Also, the Viper can do everything that Hornet can in AG mode (except maybe anti-ship, but I think Maverick can be used vs ships too) and it can do it better.

And the end F-16 has more advanced displays and can perform better SEAD/DEAD tasks. And I will not even mention the visibility of the Viper's cockpit,  which is ages above the Hornet's cockpit.

For me, the only interesting thing on the Hornet was the naval operations (landings on the boat).

 

I think it's enough for me to chose Viper instead of Hornet.

So Viper all the way!

 

Did you take a wrong turn? Viper forum is over there >------>

 

BTW...How's your Viper landings on the boat doing? How about slow dogfights? ect ect.

[wilbur81]

4 hours ago, VDV said:

It has better radar... Also the Viper is wayyy better in AA in every aspect (dogfight,  BVR, everything). Do I even need to mention the Hornet's shi.ty radar??

 

These statements, in particular, make it appear that you know little about these two A/C in real life... I do appreciate your post, though... as it's the most likely post to shut this silly thread down for good. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-gPWlODKCY&t=4838s
https://youtu.be/Vz7B_QfF_hw?t=224
https://youtu.be/w877J-B6IXU?t=975
https://youtu.be/APAEykrfUZs?t=1515
https://youtu.be/yDMVhAh7nOQ?t=162
https://youtu.be/yDMVhAh7nOQ?t=401
https://youtu.be/eD9s0Eb6c7U?t=3432
https://youtu.be/y-a-CL8ClX8?t=9

https://youtu.be/eD9s0Eb6c7U?t=3481
https://youtu.be/Q_n78CvQrRY?t=1017

Edited February 2 by wilbur81

[Smashy]

3 hours ago, wilbur81 said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-gPWlODKCY&t=4838s
https://youtu.be/Vz7B_QfF_hw?t=224
https://youtu.be/w877J-B6IXU?t=975
https://youtu.be/APAEykrfUZs?t=1515
https://youtu.be/yDMVhAh7nOQ?t=162
https://youtu.be/yDMVhAh7nOQ?t=401
https://youtu.be/eD9s0Eb6c7U?t=3432
https://youtu.be/y-a-CL8ClX8?t=9

https://youtu.be/eD9s0Eb6c7U?t=3481
https://youtu.be/Q_n78CvQrRY?t=1017

 

Brilliant list, thanks for sharing these @wilbur81!  I'm adding these to my podcast playlist.  I'm always excited to fly the Hornet and listening to these kinds of interviews just feed that stoke.

The way internet gladiators bash on one module or another in that "my dad can beat up your dad" fashion strikes me as extremely immature.  It's boring to hear Viper guys bash the Hornet or vice versa.  It's a video game and meant to be fun.  Sure I have my favorites (Hornet, Huey, Mustang and now the Apache is growing on me) but all the modules I own have something to offer.

[VpR81]

9 hours ago, VDV said:

It has better radar

Definately not. The Hornets Radar in DCS does suffer from a few bugs and issues, but that does in no way reflect the real aircraft.

9 hours ago, VDV said:

more powerful engine  (but better and with more economic fuel consumption)

Only as long as you don´t carry any A/G ordonance.

9 hours ago, VDV said:

Viper is wayyy better in AA in every aspect (dogfight,  BVR, everything)

No. The F-16 can fly higher and faster, but that´s all. Flying the Hornet at the limit, will give you an outstanding ACM platform

9 hours ago, VDV said:

Also, the Viper can do everything that Hornet can in AG mode (except maybe anti-ship, but I think Maverick can be used vs ships too) and it can do it better.

The F-16 has proper stand-off capability like the Hornet has with the SLAM-ER? Please explain. Yes, you can do anti-ship with Mavericks. Against speed boats and little patrol vessels. Going against anything larger than a coastal patrol boat (i.e. a frigate or a destroyer) is not realy recommended with the F-16. Unless you have a death wish. Overall, the Hornet is the way better A/G platform. Maybe except for SEAD/DEAD.

9 hours ago, VDV said:

And the end F-16 has more advanced displays and can perform better SEAD/DEAD tasks. And I will not even mention the visibility of the Viper's cockpit,  which is ages above the Hornet's cockpit.

Maybe in 2D, i don´t know. In VR, the Hornets displays are better to read as they have significant larger screens. Also the Hornet provides much more information on the MFDs. Good example is the tiny small RWR scope of the Falcon vs. the EW page of the Hornet (wich can also be displayed on the HUD if there is no HMD available).

The Hornet also has a much better HMD, providing superior SA compared to the F-16. I´m doing a lot of PvP and with the Hornet, i´m always confident in beeing informed as best as possible about whats happening around me, while with the F-16 i´m always feeling half-blind. Besides that, the Hornet provides a way superior A/P and way better navigation, as well as better radios. The F-16 is a great jet wich i love to fly (not as much as the Hornet, but i do realy enjoy the 16), but in summary the Hornet is definately the more capable platform in almost every aspect.

Edited February 2 by VpR81

[VDV]

That is not true, F16 has speed advantage in AA which is crucial in ACM. And it perfoms better in BVR due to better implemented radar in DCS (as i said F18 radar is trash in DCS and its full of bugs). Also - what about cockpit vision of the Viper? 

And about AG - did u forget, that Viper has CBU97 and 105 which has devastating effect on any armor...what similar has Hornet?

No need to say a word about SEAD/DEAD capabilites, anyone knows who`s best here ya... 

[wilbur81]

3 hours ago, Smashy said:

Brilliant list, thanks for sharing these @wilbur81!  I'm adding these to my podcast playlist.  I'm always excited to fly the Hornet and listening to these kinds of interviews just feed that stoke.

The way internet gladiators bash on one module or another in that "my dad can beat up your dad" fashion strikes me as extremely immature.  It's boring to hear Viper guys bash the Hornet or vice versa.  It's a video game and meant to be fun.  Sure I have my favorites (Hornet, Huey, Mustang and now the Apache is growing on me) but all the modules I own have something to offer.

My pleasure, bud! 

[VpR81]

14 hours ago, VDV said:

That is not true, F16 has speed advantage in AA which is crucial in ACM. And it perfoms better in BVR due to better implemented radar in DCS (as i said F18 radar is trash in DCS and its full of bugs). Also - what about cockpit vision of the Viper? 

The Hornet has nose / alpha authority wich is crucial in ACM, especially with fox 2s. Also the Hornet can bleed speed much better, wich is crucial in defensive ACM. Speed isn´t everything, ACM and BVR is much more. And for BVR... The most F-16s i face have to retreat from BVR after i dodged all of their Amraams while i have still 3-4 Amraams left. That is for fox 3s. On servers with fox 3s beeing banned, the F-16 isn´t even BVR capable at all. 

edit: The Hornets radar in DCS suffering from a few bugs is completely unimportant. The Hornet has the better radar. Otherwise we could say, the F-16 does not have Datalink as the F-16s D/L is bugged (or using your words, it is trash). This is not a proper argument.
 

14 hours ago, VDV said:

And about AG - did u forget, that Viper has CBU97 and 105 which has devastating effect on any armor...what similar has Hornet?

Doesn´t make the slightest difference. Important is what kind of targets you can attack and how close you need to get to do it. The CBU-97 and 105 are good against armored targets. The Hornet can attack armored target as well. On the other hand, the F-16 cannot attack proper warships and has no standoff capabilites. The Hornet is the overall more capable A/G platform.

SEAD? Maybe, but the HTS is not much of an advantage. For DEAD you rarely use HARMS, as they can easily be intercepted or defeated by just turning off radar. GBUs are the weapon of choice here and this is what the Hornet can do just as fine as the F-16.

And coming back to the thread title, i don´t think that any DCS module is "boring". They all have a lot of fun to offer.

Edited February 3 by VpR81

[Exorcet]

On 2/2/2024 at 4:43 AM, VDV said:

I have both,  I'm flying both and I definitely think that F-16 is better. It has better radar, more powerful engine  (but better and with more economic fuel consumption). Also the Viper is wayyy better in AA in every aspect (dogfight,  BVR, everything). Do I even need to mention the Hornet's shi.ty radar??

I really don't understand when people look down on the Hornet's radar. It's definitely better than the F-16's. If you mean the radar display and symbology, then fine, I think the F-16 is superior there as well. The actual radar though? I wish the F-16 had the 18's radar so much. The extra range and azimuth would mesh so well with the F-16's performance for BVR.