F/A-18C Remaster

[anton_f]

Hello everyone. Is there a plan to finish the Hornet to the state of a finished module?
Right now, a lot of it looks like an alpha version.
Horrible cockpit elaboration, disgusting low-resolution textures, terrible stepped reflections on the displays.
The damage model looks very, very strange. I have been using the module for several months now and I have not yet encountered engine damage, have not seen fires, loss of power, etc. Most impacts on the aircraft from the outside end with torn off wings and that's it.
I tried the A-10, F-16, recently bought the F-14 and I got the impression that compared to the listed modules, the Hornet is a pre-alpha version that is nevertheless sold for 80 bucks. What are we paying money for here?
In the F-14 I see work and effort, in the F/A-18 I do not see it, help me find it.

Are there any plans to improve at least the points I listed?

[bfr]

All the modules you listed are far newer (assuming you have the newer iteration of the A-10) and IIRC then the Hornet is the oldest ED-authored full fidelity module (6-7 years old now?) still on sale. Yes it could possibly benefit from some cosmetic TLC but you are getting a module that is extremely complex and pretty much complete in terms of capability.

Edited January 7 by bfr

[anton_f]

43 минуты назад, bfr сказал:

All the modules you listed are far newer (assuming you have the newer iteration of the A-10) and IIRC then the Hornet is the oldest ED-authored full fidelity module (6-7 years old now?) still on sale. Yes it could possibly benefit from some cosmetic TLC but you are getting a module that is extremely complex and pretty much complete in terms of capability.

You can't sell the same thing for 7 years in a row. The module needs a remaster/remake, it would be better to do this instead of another desert map.
In any case, the low detail of the damage system is a problem, since the plane can act as an attack aircraft. If engine damage is not modeled, this should be added to the module description. So as not to mislead.
Although in fact I am completely confused, the module is 7 years old, but it was removed from early access in the middle-end of last year. At the same time, it already requires clarification and finishing. Something does not add up here.

[Dragon1-1]

New textures would be nice, as would be correcting some cockpit geometry. The damage model will eventually be replaced entirely, they have the new DM working for WWII aircraft, and it will, at some point, come to modern jets.

[bfr]

7 hours ago, anton_f said:

You can't sell the same thing for 7 years in a row. The module needs a remaster/remake, it would be better to do this instead of another desert map.
In any case, the low detail of the damage system is a problem, since the plane can act as an attack aircraft. If engine damage is not modeled, this should be added to the module description. So as not to mislead.
Although in fact I am completely confused, the module is 7 years old, but it was removed from early access in the middle-end of last year. At the same time, it already requires clarification and finishing. Something does not add up here.

They haven't been selling the same thing for 7 years straight as (speaking as someone who had it since day 1) its evolved a great deal in that time.  For all that some later modules have raised the bar in some areas, its hardly like its 8 bit.  The damage model in pretty much all the modern day modules could do with big kick in the right direction, so its hardly out on its own in that regard.

Its not really hard to comprehend that the module is out of EA but still being worked on. They have delivered pretty much everything now that they promised bar (off the top of my head) data cartridge, napalm and sea mines, and the first two are supposedly reliant on game engine changes that haven't happened (the first particularly being a point of annoyance to many). Some of the other changes in the pipeline like FM tweaks are quality of life improvements. As will likely be future changes to damage modelling.

[Canada_Moose]

This is a joke right? The Hornet has been endlessly developed since I got in the pre-purchase phase. Its been the best value product I have ever purchased in DCS along with the A10C that then became the A10CII

[anton_f]

49 минут назад, Canada_Moose сказал:

This is a joke right? The Hornet has been endlessly developed since I got in the pre-purchase phase. Its been the best value product I have ever purchased in DCS along with the A10C that then became the A10CII

The difference is in the feel. I recently bought a Hornet at full price, and an F-14 on sale, much cheaper than the Hornet.
My personal feeling is that the F-14 has much more effort put into it. The A-10 and F-16 also feel much more detailed.

Forget about the graphics, but the damage model is really depressing.
I recently got hit in the tail by an Igla on my new F-14. It was an interesting experience to drag a dying plane to an aircraft carrier and land. On the F-18, either the wings would have come off or all the avionics would have turned off, and that's every time. There are no intermediate values.

I don't want to argue with anyone, but with the "it'll do" attitude, this module will never reach the level of the others.

[bfr]

52 minutes ago, anton_f said:

The difference is in the feel. I recently bought a Hornet at full price, and an F-14 on sale, much cheaper than the Hornet.
My personal feeling is that the F-14 has much more effort put into it. The A-10 and F-16 also feel much more detailed.

Forget about the graphics, but the damage model is really depressing.
I recently got hit in the tail by an Igla on my new F-14. It was an interesting experience to drag a dying plane to an aircraft carrier and land. On the F-18, either the wings would have come off or all the avionics would have turned off, and that's every time. There are no intermediate values.

I don't want to argue with anyone, but with the "it'll do" attitude, this module will never reach the level of the others.

A shame you didn't wait for a sale when you bought the Hornet then as its usually reduced by about 40% from the standard price (as is usually the Viper).  The only modules that tend to be always full whack are any of that have just come out, the Mirage F1 and the Razbam jets (at least since the big fall-out, after which Razbam stopped putting them in the sales).

As for "it'll do", by your own admission they're still enhancing some aspects of it. And if you find the rate of progress frustrating, thank your lucky stars you weren't around when the Harrier was fairly new.

Edited January 7 by bfr

[Vee.A]

On 1/7/2025 at 5:22 AM, anton_f said:

Hello everyone. Is there a plan to finish the Hornet to the state of a finished module?
Right now, a lot of it looks like an alpha version.
Horrible cockpit elaboration, disgusting low-resolution textures, terrible stepped reflections on the displays.
The damage model looks very, very strange. I have been using the module for several months now and I have not yet encountered engine damage, have not seen fires, loss of power, etc. Most impacts on the aircraft from the outside end with torn off wings and that's it.
I tried the A-10, F-16, recently bought the F-14 and I got the impression that compared to the listed modules, the Hornet is a pre-alpha version that is nevertheless sold for 80 bucks. What are we paying money for here?
In the F-14 I see work and effort, in the F/A-18 I do not see it, help me find it.

Are there any plans to improve at least the points I listed?

Damage model certainly needs work along with a lot of other modules, but keep in mind there's a long list of failures you can activate with the mission editor. The underlying systems logic is there. 

As far as graphics, it's not quite as good as the newest ones, but I feel as though you live in an alternate universe if you find it that bad.

The Viper is better modeled in some ways, but worse in others. The Tomcat has plenty to be worked on still as well.

Edited January 13 by Vee.A

[Rotor_Vibes]

Can we get an F/A-18C remaster with it up to the upcoming Mig-29 standards? Laser scanned cockpit and externals, 8k textures, etc.

Edited July 22 by Rotor_Vibes

[lee1hy]

Personally, I think the fa18 texture is fine. The uv layer size is very appropriate. The reason is that when attaching various photoreal // decals, if the texture size is too wide like f16, a lot of noise of texture and .  I think razabam's template is very well made. If the size is too large, there will be serious performance issues and not good for skin makers.
big textuer need big high-res decal 

[lee1hy]

1. High-resolution textures like F4 Phantom's cause low performance  in multiplayer.

2. Hornet's textures offer a very good balance of performance and resolution.

3. Hornet's texture size is easy to create, very good for the attachment of numerous low- to mid-resolution photoreals and decals, making it easy for skin makers.
    Hornet texture is a matter of skill of the skin maker.

4. The F16 textures are too large and cause  photoreal / decal noise. becase big textuer need big hi-res decal
    In particular, many user F16 skins have color errors, such as purple.

5. Many people mistakenly believe that higher resolutions are not always better. Creating high-resolution skins  requires at least 128GB RAM,
   Creating a high-resolution skin requires 15GB SSD per folder.

Edited September 12 by lee1hy

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

Sure, an F-18 remaster would be great - AFTER we get an UH-1, Mi-8, F-86, MiG-15, L-39 remaster, and AFTER the Yak-52 is finished.

Oh and AFTER we get a proper cockpit for the “remastered” F-5, obviously!

Edited September 12 by Raven (Elysian Angel)

[Flаnker]

16 минут назад, lee1hy сказал:

Personally, I think the fa18 texture is fine. The uv layer size is very appropriate. The reason is that when attaching various photoreal // decals, if the texture size is too wide like f16, a lot of noise of texture and .  I think razabam's template is very well made. If the size is too large, there will be serious performance issues and not good for skin makers.
big textuer need big high-res decal 

Do you mean the various emblems on the plane? I think that's not a problem. Since they have to be drawn manually

[amalahama]

There are a lot of missing avionics features, included in the F-16 and later addons, that I'd expect to be implemented in the Hornet too

[Hammer1-1]

Can we expect the Hornet (and a few other recent out of EA planes) to get a 3D scan and render with quality like the current F-4E and now the Mig-29A? Are there any plans to update these models?

Edited September 20 by Hammer1-1

[Cgjunk2]

Are the F-18 cockpit dimensions known to be inaccurate?  I was under the impression it was pretty accurate in that regard.
 

As far as rendering, textures and art looks great to me on the Hornet.  The new Fulcrum and Hornet look similar to me, with maybe the Hornet a having slight advantage in clarity and performance (FPS) in VR.

Quality is always subjective though, and it’s a balance in terms of ensuring the final product is well optimized.  Insane levels of details are not fun if it ends up being a low-fps hog.   Case in point, the F5 remaster got the royal treatment in terms of graphics, but the lower frame rates make it less fun to fly.  

My personal opinion (again, in VR) is that the Hornet is the gold-standard module in terms of cockpit art, quality, and efficiency.  I think the Mig29 has come close to matching it. 

 

Edited September 21 by Cgjunk2

[SuperSSL]

17 minutes ago, Cgjunk2 said:

Are the F-18 cockpit dimensions known to be inaccurate?  I was under the impression it was pretty accurate in that regard.

As far as rendering, textures and art looks great to me on the Hornet.  The new Fulcrum and Hornet look similar to me, with maybe the Hornet a having slight advantage in clarity and performance (FPS) in VR.

Quality is always subjective though, and it’s a balance in terms of ensuring the final product is well optimized.  Insane levels of details are not fun if it ends up being a low-fps hog.   Case in point, the F5 remaster got the royal treatment in terms of graphics, but the lower frame rates make it less fun to fly.  

My personal opinion (again, in VR) is that the Hornet is the gold-standard module in terms of cockpit art, quality, and efficiency.  I think the Mig29 has come close to matching it. 

The MiG-29A looks to be significantly higher fidelity than the F/A-18C from everything I've seen.

VR is a whole other conversation. There are fidelity and performance issues unique to that interface.

[AKULA_OPTIMUS]

The map MFD has been broken for... 4 years now? They just don´t care.

[NineLine]

58 minutes ago, AKULA_OPTIMUS said:

The map MFD has been broken for... 4 years now? They just don´t care.

You can be disappointed, but please don't make false statements. We do care, but it is more a matter of resources. I will chase up any plans on any MFD issues. But please keep it constructive. 

Could you DM me the bug report you are referencing? Thanks.

[AKULA_OPTIMUS]

I have done it, several times (and many others), and you always say the same, but the bug is still there. 4 YEARS, and you haven´t even attempted to fix an error that prevents the basic use of an instrument on one of your main modules, how is that caring? You surely do for many things, but not for this one, I don´t understand, it seem like the easiest of fixes to do related with maps scale.

No I wont DM, cause the last time I did the same and there was no answer for weeks. So I do it here:

From 2021:

 

Please, don´t say is reported (again), to do nothing about it for years.

 

 

 

[NineLine]

Its actually a terrain issue, believe it or not, I am following it up to see what is going on. But the terrain builders, both us and 3rd Parties, need to supply the map levels for each. So while not specifically a F/A-18C bug it does affect it. I am trying to chase up where we are at on this. 

[AKULA_OPTIMUS]

Yes, that seems to be the problem, but still, is only broken in the Hornet, not on other airframes that can also display maps in their cockpits. Mission editor is fine too, you can see the map at any scale. Could be a map issue, but it only manifests on the F-18 for some reason.

As far as I know, only happens on Syria and Marianas, (which is an ED map, that´s why it seems so strange to me). I also don´t understand the completely lack of priority with this bug, when less important others are fixed in weeks. I know is not a main issue, but it will be really nice to see it sorted out. Thank you for the answer

 

[Hammer1-1]

On 9/21/2025 at 4:14 PM, Cgjunk2 said:

Are the F-18 cockpit dimensions known to be inaccurate?  I was under the impression it was pretty accurate in that regard.
 

As far as rendering, textures and art looks great to me on the Hornet.  The new Fulcrum and Hornet look similar to me, with maybe the Hornet a having slight advantage in clarity and performance (FPS) in VR.

Quality is always subjective though, and it’s a balance in terms of ensuring the final product is well optimized.  Insane levels of details are not fun if it ends up being a low-fps hog.   Case in point, the F5 remaster got the royal treatment in terms of graphics, but the lower frame rates make it less fun to fly.  

My personal opinion (again, in VR) is that the Hornet is the gold-standard module in terms of cockpit art, quality, and efficiency.  I think the Mig29 has come close to matching it. 

 

its not that its inaccurate, its that its far more detailed.

[Cgjunk2]

4 hours ago, Hammer1-1 said:

its not that its inaccurate, its that its far more detailed.

I would think that laser scanning/photometry is more useful in situations when shape or dimensions are unknown, irregular, or difficult to obtain.  

That may be the case with the F18, but it would be surprising to me.  I would think, you could do an accurate job by just measuring panels, curves, and distances within the cockpit.