F/A-18C Remaster

[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 

[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 Saturday at 04:48 PM 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 21 hours ago 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