FA-18 Model Avaialble in Future?

[SUBS17]

And think about some of the terrain fixes and adjustments they'll be doing for the chopper addon. Maybe low LOD's for more objects, which (hopefully) would help w/better framerates.

 

Don't forget colimation with Track ir

[diveplane]

i was really hoping for addons for the f16 and mig for flamming cliffs,is this going to be a complete

new game engine? for these 2 jets and the 1s we already know?

[GGTharos]

Yes, that will be a completely new engine ... there will be no other jets added to LOMAC AFAIK.

[Guest Cali]

Yes, that will be a completely new engine ... there will be no other jets added to LOMAC AFAIK.

 

Well that sucks!

[GGTharos]

Not really :)

 

A new game engine with campaign and events and scripting is needed, and the AI needs some major brain surgery ... so it would suck more to just add those to LOMAC than to do the next project.

[D-Scythe]

The next project could take several years, ;)

[wolf8218]

or decades... seeing as the transfer from Flanker 2.0 to Lock on took around 5 years. (i think)

[SUBS17]

I'd at a guess say around 2-3 years since ED already has achieved alot so far and everything can be used to build on(like a template) to create a much better sim.

[britgliderpilot]

I'd at a guess say around 2-3 years since ED already has achieved alot so far and everything can be used to build on(like a template) to create a much better sim.

 

Except the aforementioned (and badly needed) changes to the AI, campaign, mission editor . . . . . .

[SUBS17]

Crazy as it may sound I actually prefer lockons mission editor over any other flight sim. You're right about the ai though, dc would be cool I wouldn't be surprised if it had one as dcs fit best with multirole aircraft. F4s proof of that.

[214th_Silverfox]

Matt I sent you a message via PM.

[Blaze1]

New Unclassified Manuals

 

Hello All

 

Regarding the difficulty in accurately modelling the Hornets systems. The four tacmans are classified, however it seems the navy are switching to a format similar to the USAF with the NATIP and NTRP documents which have both classified and unclassifed variants as the -34's, does this help with future plans?.

 

Blaze

[britgliderpilot]

Hello All

 

Regarding the difficulty in accurately modelling the Hornets systems. The four tacmans are classified, however it seems the navy are switching to a format similar to the USAF with the NATIP and NTRP documents which have both classified and unclassifed variants as the -34's, does this help with future plans?.

 

Blaze

 

It certainly helps with gathering information :)

 

As to whether we'll get a Hornet in the end . . . . there are more factors at play than just whether there's the info available, of course. More info never hurts, but the future projects list is always either secret, incredibly murky, or a combination of the two.

[hitman]

Or they just dont wanna do it.

[tflash]

This thread should definitely become so long that ED has no other option than making a flyable Hornet! :D

[VMFA-Blaze]

Or they just dont wanna do it.

 

As far as I know, Ed has quite a lot of data available at the present..

 

But I don't think that they've actually reached a decision as to whether they will add this bird into the lineup...

 

As we've discussed this in several other threads I think... The naval aspect of this simulation has been moved to the back burner for now...

 

 

~S~

 

Blaze

[Blaze1]

Fingers crossed some time in the future ED decide to pursue a Hornet sim.

[phant]

...Regarding the difficulty in accurately modelling the Hornets systems. The four tacmans are classified, however it seems the navy are switching to a format similar to the USAF with the NATIP and NTRP documents which have both classified and unclassifed variants as the -34's...

 

Hi Blaze1

 

Can you link an official/unofficial source about that?

 

Thank's in advance! :smilewink:

 

Bye

Phant

[GGTharos]

On the other hand, you could just look the manuals up on eflightmanuals.com and buy them ... ;)

[EricJ]

Mmm... may be some parts of the manual? Even some pictures scans would be very usefull.

 

Still a no go, it's still considered S/NF even copies. Most manuals have a warning about copying, reproducing classified material. Maybe somebody in the FSB? :)

[Blaze1]

Hi Blaze1

 

Can you link an official/unofficial source about that?

 

Thank's in advance! :smilewink:

 

Bye

Phant

 

Sure: https://airworthiness.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fuseaction=FAQ.home&faqid=6&btn=NATIP

 

Here are some of the topics you can expect to find in the unclassified Harrier AV-8B NATIP (NTRP 3-22.4)

 

1. Section 2.1.2 Air-to-Surface RADAR Modes and Operation

2. Section 2.4 Angle Rate Bombing System (ARBS)

3. Section 2.5 Stores Management Control Set (SMCS)

4. Section 4.1 Suspension / Carriage Equipment

5. Section 4.2 Air-to-Ground Stores

6. Section 4.5 Fuzing

7. Section 5.1 Weapon System Theory

8. Section 5.2 Controls & Displays

9. Section 5.3 Target Designation

10. Section 5.4 Delivery Modes

11. Section 5.5 Reversion Modes

12. Section 5.6 RADAR Attack Considerations

13. Section 5.7 Weapon Jettison

14. Section 5.8 Bombing

15. Section 5.9 Rocketry

16. Section 5.10 Gun Theory

17. Chapter 8 Weaponeering

 

Cheers

[Olgerd]

Hello All

 

Regarding the difficulty in accurately modelling the Hornets systems. The four tacmans are classified, however it seems the navy are switching to a format similar to the USAF with the NATIP and NTRP documents which have both classified and unclassifed variants as the -34's, does this help with future plans?.

 

Blaze

 

This definitely helps. But this does not mean automatically that we will get the information in some near future. Actually we got very usefull set of F/A-18A/B tech manuals. So Alpha/Bravo models are an option to implement.

 

Actually just technical manuals should helps us. For example - unclassified 'NAVAIR A1-F18AC-FRM-000 FA-18AB FAULT REPORTING MANUAL' contains very complete description of F/A-18A/B digital indicators symbology.

[Blaze1]

Still a no go, it's still considered S/NF even copies. Most manuals have a warning about copying, reproducing classified material. Maybe somebody in the FSB? :)

 

High Eric :)

 

I have seen documents on the net in which the author refered to classified manuals. My understanding is that even though a manual may be classified (SECRET) it may have many sections within that are infact unclassified. So if one sentence in a 500 page document is secret (assuming all other sentences are unclassified) the entire document is labelled (SECRET)?

In the case I mentioned above the author used unclassified sections of the USAF MCM 3-1 (now AFTTP 3-1) to write the document.

 

Cheers

[Blaze1]

This definitely helps. But this does not mean automatically that we will get the information in some near future. Actually we got very usefull set of F/A-18A/B tech manuals. So Alpha/Bravo models are an option to implement.

 

Actually just technical manuals should helps us. For example - unclassified 'NAVAIR A1-F18AC-FRM-000 FA-18AB FAULT REPORTING MANUAL' contains very complete description of F/A-18A/B digital indicators symbology.

 

Hello Olgerd:)

 

Yes unfortuately it will probably be a number of years before the unclass NATIP manuals find their way into the public domain.

 

Regarding the technical manuals, I don't know much about these. I assume they don't contain operational procedure from the pilots/WSOs perspective? Or is the NATOPS/NATIP developed from the tech manuals in which case it could be information overload:book: :thumbup: ?

I any case I'm happy yourself and the team are finding the tech manuals useful. It looks like you've been shopping at CHQ:smilewink:

 

Blaze1

[phant]

...Actually just technical manuals should helps us. For example - unclassified 'NAVAIR A1-F18AC-FRM-000 FA-18AB FAULT REPORTING MANUAL' contains very complete description of F/A-18A/B digital indicators symbology.

 

Olgerd, is this interesting?

 

Look from page 106.

 

Bye

Phant