F/A-18C Remaster

[Phantom711]

@Cgjunk2

I‘m not an expert on this, but I agree and also disagree with you.

Even though the plans (i.e. blueprints etc.) might be available or you could simply go to that very plane and measure it‘s cockpit with a ruler, it‘s probably just way easier to do a 3D scan of that cockpit and its relatively complex shapes, right?

That being said, this makes sense, if the model doesn‘t exist already which it obviously does for the Hornet.

As for better textures…I gladly take them, but then again, I don‘t see the need. Looks good to me…

Edited September 23 by Phantom711

[Hammer1-1]

On 9/23/2025 at 12:29 AM, Cgjunk2 said:

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.  

its not the accuracy of the dimensions, its getting the full flavor out of the model. You know, little flaws in the panels where one edge might be pried up with a screwdriver, paint chipped around dzus fasteners, dents here and there, rivet squeeze stress marks on skin panels, sealant squeeze out around canopy frames and panels...its every single little detail that can make the cockpit feel alive. Maybe even a paperclip that was painted over right next to the seat tracks, or frayed wire bundles. You know, the little stuff that gets overlooked. This is where that new laser scanning tech really shines and you can see it all over these new models that started with the A-10CII. Id really like to see the F-16 and 18 models scanned and introduced in some point in time if possible.

Edited September 24 by Hammer1-1

[Cgjunk2]

50 minutes ago, Hammer1-1 said:

its not the accuracy of the dimensions, its getting the full flavor out of the model. You know, little flaws in the panels where one edge might be pried up with a screwdriver, paint chipped around dzus fasteners, dents here and there, rivet squeeze stress marks on skin panels, sealant squeeze out around canopy frames and panels...its every single little detail that can make the cockpit feel alive. Maybe even a paperclip that was painted over right next to the seat tracks, or frayed wire bundles. You know, the little stuff that gets overlooked. This is where that new laser scanning tech really shines and you can see it all over these new models that started with the A-10CII. Id really like to see the F-16 and 18 models scanned and introduced in some point in time if possible.

I see.  I do think those are cool details as well.  The Tomcat is full of details like that, and it’s fun to sit in the cockpit in VR to take it all in.  But for some reason, lack of those details doesn’t make me feel like it takes away from the hornet experience.  

Also, ironically, sometimes too much specific detail makes it look less realistic.  In the sense that it might end up looking like a picture of a particular airframe parked in a particular museum.  When something is picture perfect, it cam ironically seem “less crafted”.   It’s fair to say that the tools you use to create cockpits are just tools, but what’s important is the final work and the feeling it gives a user.  It is an art form regardless of the tools used.

But everyone feels differently regarding what makes good cockpits (or good enough).  As long as textures and other details are highly optimized to avoid unnecessary performance loss, it’s hard to be against the idea of improvements.  As long as it doesn’t look worse lol. 

 

 

[Saguanay]

How about the helmet visor actually does it's job and cuts the glare.   Like the MiG29s is.  If you have JHMCS on and raise the visor, it goes away.  Glare is the same.