PDA

View Full Version : F/A-18E/F Super Hornet



Pages : [1] 2 3

Franze
Mar 8 2008, 20:00
The USMC has the AV-8. The USAF has the A-10 (and now an F-16 courtesy of Footmunch! ).

Now, what does the USN get?

F/A-18E/F Super Hornet!
UPDATED! See download link for revised 0.4!
Beta 0.45 for ArmA
http://www.mechmodels.com/mas/screenshots/fz_f18_thg_0319.jpg

http://www.mechmodels.com/mas/screenshots/fz_f18_thg2_0319.jpg

Features
- Remodeled and improved version of the MAS F/A-18E/F from FP

- Firepower! Including the AIM-9M/X, AIM-120C, AIM-7M, Mk82, Mk83, Mk84, Mk20, CBU-78, GBU-10, GBU-12, GBU-16, AGM-65E, AGM-88, AGM-154A, AGM-84D, and AGM-84H.

- Real functioning cockpits - see your fuel level in the cockpit, aircraft status on MFDs, your location on the map, and more!

- Aircraft damage - take hits and be prepared to hear "WARNING: AIRCRAFT DAMAGE" as your computer lists the various systems damaged or destroyed by enemy fire!

- Aerial refueling: both aircraft come with capability to refuel from a F/A-18F with a buddy pod.

- GUI Arming system: Select your weaponry on the fly through an intuitive menu system.

- Standoff weapon targeting features enable you to strike at the enemy without him even knowing about you!

Download it here (http://www.mechmodels.com/mas/downloads/mas_f18_arma_beta045.rar) (Beta 0.45)

Download the F/A-18E/F Squadrons 2 addon (VFA-14 and VFA-41 generic grey) (Version 1.1)
here (http://www.mechmodels.com/mas/downloads/mas_f18ef_sq2_v11.rar).


Mirrors (Beta 0.45):
ArmedAssault.info
http://www.armedassault.info/index.php?cat=addons&id=377

Armaholic.com
http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=2885

BIS.4players
http://ofp.4players.de/sys....ateg=18 (http://ofp.4players.de/sys/index.php?showfile=1&fid=523&p=downloads&area=1&categ=18)

ePrison.de
http://www.eprison.de/files/144/3633

Mirrors F/A-18E/F Squadrons 2 (Version 1.1)
Armedassault.info
http://www.armedassault.info/index.php?cat=addons&id=439

Armaholic.com
http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=2994

BIS.4players
http://ofp.4players.de/sys....ateg=18 (http://ofp.4players.de/sys/index.php?showfile=1&fid=523&p=downloads&area=1&categ=18)

Mirrors (Beta 0.25):

Armed-Assault.de
http://armed-assault.de/downloads/hornet-025b.html (http://armed-assault.de/downloads/hornet-025b.html#download)

Known issues:
- Only one shadow LOD.
- Various shadow issues.
- Cockpit modeling glitches.
- MP starts in aircraft can result in initial errors. These should not cause issues.
- F/A-18F - AI commander is useless.
- Aircraft reliability on dedicated server are questionable.
- Various texture issues.

Beta 0.45
- Modified wreck scripting: aircraft no longer deleted. Deleting aircraft caused performance issues.
- Added switches for wreck script control: fz_f18_nowreck and fz_f18_nowrecksmoke
- Added basic static aircraft types for scenery objects. These are just aircraft with all scripts replaced by a simple
one with basic parameters set. Still classed as aircraft, so will explode when destroyed. Wings can be folded in the same
method as with the standard versions.
- Modified Mk80 drop mode text to display which mode has been selected.
- More bug fixes.

Beta 0.4 Changes:
- Yet more bug fixes.
- Key file now included.
- New GUI system.
- New weapon system: fully-dynamic, highly customizable system.
- Thrust enhancement function: enable to gain acceleration bonus.
- Missile warning will now add firing unit to the fz_f18_harmarray if not already there.

Beta 0.3 changes:
- More bug fixes.
- Modified GUI to be self-contained and available when nearby an ammo truck. Toggle with variable fz_f18_noarming.
- Introduced gunner-variant of F/A-18F.

Beta 0.25 Changes:
- Numerous minor bug fixes.
- New Over-G feature: pull over 7.5Gs for too long and risk damage, pull over 9Gs for too long and risk extreme damage.
- Modified arming menu GUI to include new weapon info selection and pre-selected loadouts.
- Introduced scripts to place pre-selected weaponry on aircraft.

Changes since Beta 0.15:
- Some weapon combinations fixed.
- Ejection seat is armed at all times.
- Wreck function introduced: When aircraft is destroyed and crashes, vehicle is deleted and replaced with a wreck model.
- Aircraft rebalanced: center of gravity is in front of the wheels.
- Reduced maneuverability of aircraft as a result of rebalance.
- Stall speed increased to approximately 100-110kts.
- Afterburner acceleration reduced.
- New keyboard-friendly variants with control sensitivity reduced by 50%.
- Canopy model and texture revised.
- Increased sound coefficient for inside view.

Beta Fixes since 0.1:
- ST errors resolved due to binarization.
- Model sections optimized: Main LOD has less than 20 sections.

Credits

Franze (modeling, texturing, scripting)
EricJ (revised modeling, weapon modeling, texturing)
Hellfire (weapon texturing, testing)
Nodunit (testing)

Special thanks:
RockofSL - fixed the bug I had with cannon firing point. (FP)

Scripts borrowed/based/enhanced upon scripts from the following:
Colonel Klink
BAS
Diesel
Footmunch
Raptorsaurus
DKMM
And anyone else I may have forgotten.

Danickas
Mar 8 2008, 20:04
Wow f-16 and f-18 relased in one day xD. Dwonloading Asap http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif

ArmaVidz
Mar 8 2008, 20:13
SCORE! Great job Franze!(and friends) Thanks  http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/xmas_o.gif

GD Mast
Mar 8 2008, 20:17
Most Excellent!! http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/thumbs-up.gif

GD Mast

Curious
Mar 8 2008, 20:20
Bravo. Jolly good show lads. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/inlove.gif http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/rofl.gif

Mr Burns
Mar 8 2008, 20:29
mmmh, firepower *drools* http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

Mirror @<hidden> Armed-Assault.de (http://armed-assault.de/downloads/fa-18ef-super-hornet-v01-beta.html)

nastros
Mar 8 2008, 20:31
This is brilliant thanks

william1
Mar 8 2008, 20:39
amazing &#33; thanks http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/thumbs-up.gif

MaxRiga
Mar 8 2008, 20:42
awesom job guys &#33; thank you.

echo1
Mar 8 2008, 20:43
Ah, one of my favourites from OFP http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/notworthy.gif Any plans to import your Apache by any chance?

Pauliesss
Mar 8 2008, 20:43
Very nice, thanks &#33; http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/notworthy.gif

RKSL-Rock
Mar 8 2008, 21:04
@<hidden> Franze nice to see it out but I&#39;m afraid I have a list of problems just after 5 mins in the editor... http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/sad_o.gif

1 - Handling is far too light.  It’s possible to turn 90 degrees form the direction of flight in a second or two.
2 - AI does not retract the landing gear.
3 - Its possible to fly with the wings folded up
4 - Its possible to fly with canopy open. (Why didn’t you use the cabin animation source?)
5 - My arma.rpt file hit the 4.1mb mark in 5 mins.  First time I’ve ever seen it go higher than 2mb.  It’s mostly ST Warnings, but given the volume it’s not going to be useable in MP.
6 - Dropping the tanks damages the plane.
7 - Serious Action menu Lag - i.e. press the targeting options and it takes a few seconds before anything happens.

Re #2 Im assuming you&#39;ve used retractinggear=0 to make it carrier compatible?

I can probably help you fix #1,3 and 4 if you like.  It should remove the needs for some of the scripts.  If you are happy for it not to be carrier friendly I can help you with the gear too.

Imutep
Mar 8 2008, 21:05
Great...the next one http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/thumbs-up.gif

Mirror from BIS.4Players.

F/A-18E/F Super Hornet beta0.45 (http://ofp.4players.de/sys/index.php?showfile=1&fid=523&p=downloads&area=1&categ=18)

Regards
Imutep

wld427
Mar 8 2008, 21:14
a bit difficult to handle but once you get used to it, it becomes one hell of an airplane

Thanks
Great work

Stavanger
Mar 8 2008, 21:19
News + Mirror by Combat-Prison.net

F/A-18E/F Super Hornet v0.15 BETA by Franze (http://prison.tibet225.server4you.de/ww2pn/combat/index.php?mod=news_archiv&news_id=232)

best Regards,
Stav.

Edit: new Version online&#33;

Foxhound
Mar 8 2008, 22:11
Frontpaged at the Armaholic.com homepage (http://www.armaholic.com).

The Armaholic.com download page can be found here:
http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=2885

Benoist
Mar 8 2008, 22:12
I must to say that the scripts (specially the damage sistem) are simply great. The textures needs reworking but it&#39;s not a priority for me.
After that, the other thing i have to say is the flying sistem. I know that is a Beta, but is the same hiper-sensible sistem of ArmA, and for that reason I&#39;ll stick with the F-16 until is improved by you or BIS.

Take it as an offense if you want, but know that I&#39;ll be waiting the new version with high hopes.

Franze
Mar 8 2008, 22:27
@<hidden> Franze nice to see it out but I&#39;m afraid I have a list of problems just after 5 mins in the editor... http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/sad_o.gif
Yeah, that&#39;s part of why it&#39;s beta.


Quote[/b] ]
1 - Handling is far too light. It’s possible to turn 90 degrees form the direction of flight in a second or two.


High instantaneous turn rates are possible, but they result in a extreme amount of speed loss as opposed to a relaxed turn.


Quote[/b] ]
2 - AI does not retract the landing gear.


AI will retract the gear unless you&#39;re in the aircraft with them.


Quote[/b] ]
3 - Its possible to fly with the wings folded up


Yes, I haven&#39;t figured out how to handle this yet.


Quote[/b] ]
4 - Its possible to fly with canopy open. (Why didn’t you use the cabin animation source?)


It&#39;s possible to fly without the canopy, yes. If you leave the canopy open and pull speeds greater than 30kts, the canopy will separate from the aircraft.


Quote[/b] ]
5 - My arma.rpt file hit the 4.1mb mark in 5 mins. First time I’ve ever seen it go higher than 2mb. It’s mostly ST Warnings, but given the volume it’s not going to be useable in MP.


I don&#39;t even know what ST errors are or what their cause is.


Quote[/b] ]
6 - Dropping the tanks damages the plane.


Tanks must be dropped while flying level.


Quote[/b] ]
7 - Serious Action menu Lag - i.e. press the targeting options and it takes a few seconds before anything happens.


Not sure on this one? Haven&#39;t noticed any lag with action menu usage or functions.


Quote[/b] ]
Re #2 Im assuming you&#39;ve used retractinggear=0 to make it carrier compatible?


And to prevent exploding when gear fails and you have to belly land.


Quote[/b] ]
I can probably help you fix #1,3 and 4 if you like. It should remove the needs for some of the scripts. If you are happy for it not to be carrier friendly I can help you with the gear too.


I could use some help with #1 without a doubt; I had a lot of trouble getting that just right. Unfortunately it seems what works for me doesn&#39;t work for everyone...

3 I&#39;ll probably come up with something and 4 isn&#39;t exactly a glitch.

@<hidden>

Sorry you don&#39;t enjoy it that much mate.

@<hidden>

No, the Apache will not be ported.

Chip360
Mar 8 2008, 22:57
Oh my goodness gosh&#33; Thank you ever so kindly sir Franz (and all others who contribitued). Brilliant, two jets released within days of each other, this is an excellent start (still beta-y)

http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/thumbs-up.gif

Messiah
Mar 8 2008, 22:59
ST errors are places where the mapping/textures have become/or were mapped stretched.

Suma/Earl (Can&#39;t recall whom) wrote a little piece about them in the editing forum. Essentially, according to what he posted, they &#39;shouldn&#39;t&#39; cause any major problems, except that the normal and specular maps will cease to work, or work incorrectly on ST faces. Whether or not the engine struggles trying to calculate how to normal map these ST faces, I don&#39;t know.

xav
Mar 8 2008, 23:14
Nice to see it in Arma.

I noticed something wrong with the hud: The "level lines" in the hud do not stay parallel to the horizon... unless that&#39;s part of the "Cockpit modeling glitches." you mentionned.

Sakura_Chan
Mar 8 2008, 23:49
was the gun sound designed to wreck speakers or as a joke? Its unusable if you have to turn off your stereo before you fire. Also why do we need a whole new separate category (men, air, armor) just for two planes? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/confused_o.gif

Halochief89
Mar 9 2008, 00:05
Great fighter but yeah there are noticeable bugs. NEXT F22A&#33;&#33;

oyman
Mar 9 2008, 00:31
i didnt make the pic

Sections (http://www.suckysuckylongtime.com/pics/whatthefuckareyouthinking.jpg)

Johannes
Mar 9 2008, 00:40
i didnt make the pic

Sections (http://www.suckysuckylongtime.com/pics/whatthefuckareyouthinking.jpg)
the pilot lod has around 300 sections...



...overkill

layne_suhr
Mar 9 2008, 00:58
BEST ADDON EVER&#33;&#33;&#33;

Fritz160 wolf
Mar 9 2008, 01:37
at last a Fighter bird i can put my Ace combat skills to use in.

watch out ya fancy SLA Sukhoi&#39;s no more harrier hunting for ya http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif

Gibbon
Mar 9 2008, 08:06
The texture is regular but in general is good this addon for beta version.

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j259/gibbon12/Album-Gibbon/nuevo-2-3.jpg

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j259/gibbon12/Album-Gibbon/FirmaArmed.jpg

profesor
Mar 9 2008, 08:47
amazing work http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/notworthy.gif

RN Malboeuf
Mar 9 2008, 09:54
Quote[/b] ]I can probably help you fix #1,3 and 4 if you like. It should remove the needs for some of the scripts. If you are happy for it not to be carrier friendly I can help you with the gear too.
What carrier are you talking about ?

stonesour767
Mar 9 2008, 09:59
for me, when ever i put this empty on a map my character is half way through the floor when i spawn. same with ai and im also standing up in the cock pit with my head out through the canopy and my legs through the bottom of the plane. do you want pictures?

Lugiahua
Mar 9 2008, 11:17
there is only one major bug for me

"the computer always lagged for two seconds when you ejected"

but it&#39;s not a big problem, I still get out plane in time..

warpuppy
Mar 9 2008, 11:29
What is the syntax used to have the wings folded on a emty aircraft?

.kju [PvPscene]
Mar 9 2008, 12:30
people you could actually help him make it better http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif

ArmA.RPT (http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/RPT)

Reduce section count (http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard311/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=76;t=71434;st=0)
Fix ST errors (http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard311/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=76;t=71454)
Synide move uv&#39;s, Merge textures & uv&#39;s... (http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard311/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=76;t=71203;st=0)
Merge textures (http://tactical.nekromantix.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=21287)
how to merge the uv maps and the textures? (http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard311/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=76;t=66797;st=0)

Keep up buddy.

http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

mrcash2009
Mar 9 2008, 13:18
This is cool, but I must ask (and hopefully not come off wrong by saying this) ...

Why is it allot of mods that are not really complete, posted and distributed under the "complete" section?

I would have expected this to be under the other section as WIP? Is beta the new complete? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge2.gif

Still cool though ... just an observation of this and a few other "releases" of late.

http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

lebson506th
Mar 9 2008, 13:31
Beta is the first stage of complete.

Final is the last stage.

Although a Beta is ALSO WIP, Beta is playable, unlike many WIPs.


Anyway. I&#39;m away so i haven&#39;t had a chance to check it out, but it looks great.

mrcash2009
Mar 9 2008, 13:36
Quote[/b] ]Although a Beta is ALSO WIP, Beta is playable, unlike many WIPs.

Ah, a clear defined reply ... cheers, makes perfect sense http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/thumbs-up.gif

xr6turbo
Mar 9 2008, 14:05
It flies superb its a bit arcadish but this way its much more fun. Awesome for just a beta http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

ricnunes
Mar 9 2008, 14:21
WOW&#33; I love this aircraft, even if it&#39;s a beta is IMO the best aircraft released so far for ArmA.
I specially like the "Arming system" where you can freely arm you aircraft by selecting what weapon do you want for each of the aircraft&#39;s pylon (of course not all pylons allow all weapons and this is also well modeled in this F/A-18). This is how all aircraft specially the original ones should have from the begining (when ArmA was first released). BIS, please look at this script while developing ArmA2. This is what ArmA2 should have and not that system were you have diferent versions of the same aircraft (any aircraft can be armed with a diferent array of weapons)&#33;&#33;

I also like the weapons available to choose from, which is quite a big list.

I also liked the flight model and I think that the turn rates aren&#39;t that exagerated at all, the Super Hornet seems to be able to perform such turns in reality.
The only negative thing related to this is that the Super Hornet seems to turn a bit too much while taxiing on the ground.

OldBear
Mar 9 2008, 15:04
Whoops, was playing and I forgot to post the link to our site.
I like this plane &#33;

Hosted on Armed Assault.info (http://www.armedassault.info/) :
http://www.armedassault.info/index.php?cat=addons&id=377

Benoist
Mar 9 2008, 17:39
I have to say that I&#39;m sorry.

A mate (who is a master in LOMAC, Facon and other simulators) show me a video of him flying. It seems that I&#39;m the bad pilot and not the plane, so, I&#39;m sorry.

And I like A LOT the ammo system, it hyper useful.

Franze
Mar 9 2008, 19:15
@<hidden>

Apologies for the sound, but honestly I&#39;m not getting any problems with the gun sound? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/huh.gif
I&#39;ve got hearing problems so it&#39;s difficult for me to perceive annoying sounds. Although I will admit the AV-8&#39;s engine sound really annoys me.

@<hidden>

Did that occur by default or after going up to speed? Sometimes the canopy will stick to the aircraft.

@<hidden>

Because of the nature of the engine, the game doesn&#39;t treat landing on structure objects - i.e. buildings with flat surfaces, etc. - as actual airfields. That means if you try to land with an aircraft that has the standard gear up function, the gear will likely retract if you touch down on such a structure. Thus making you explode. It is assumed that carriers will have to be stationary structures on the water, so to make sure it&#39;s compatible we have to code the aircraft as a fixed-gear aircraft but give it a faux retraction mechanism. It&#39;s also necessary if you want to allow certain conditions to occur - in the case of the F-18, you can lose gear retraction functionality and may have to belly the aircraft in.

@<hidden>

Do you have any mods in use? That sounds like a mod conflict to me - which I could correct with custom crew animations.

@<hidden>

Yes, I think that has to do with createvehicle.

@<hidden>

You can fold the wings in two ways:

Method one - insert this in aircraft&#39;s init field:
[this] exec "fz_f18&#92;aws&#92;foldwing.sqs"

Method two - insert this in aircraft&#39;s init field:
this animate ["l_wingfold",1]; this animate ["r_wingfold",1]

First method plays servo sound, second method animates without any sound.

@<hidden>

Much obliged, I found the ST thread last night but the other resources I didn&#39;t look for. Many thanks. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

@<hidden>

Any addons released in any state are supposed to go in the Complete section. Just the board rules - helps keep things organized.

@<hidden>

Yes, it&#39;s very hit-and-miss. I use all aircraft in ArmA with a stick + throttle so it varies incredibly depending on your setup. I wanted to have something that felt like a real fighter jet, treacherous and complex but in the hands of a master, deadly. There&#39;s definitely a learning period on it.

@<hidden>

Thanks for the kind words & support. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

themaster303
Mar 9 2008, 22:28
nice work &#33;&#33; but can u still leave the keyboard-settings for gears up/down on default ??

with all planes i can raise or lower the gear woth a button hit, with ur plane i have to use the action menu.

greetz

Davey
Mar 9 2008, 22:30
Thanks Franze + team , Waitn along time for this plane. Fly&#39;s very nice, first time i got little OFP feelin in Arma. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/notworthy.gif

RN Malboeuf
Mar 9 2008, 22:55
Quote[/b] ]Because of the nature of the engine, the game doesn&#39;t treat landing on structure objects - i.e. buildings with flat surfaces, etc. - as actual airfields. That means if you try to land with an aircraft that has the standard gear up function, the gear will likely retract if you touch down on such a structure. Thus making you explode. It is assumed that carriers will have to be stationary structures on the water, so to make sure it&#39;s compatible we have to code the aircraft as a fixed-gear aircraft but give it a faux retraction mechanism.
I see you point about compability with possible future addons. but still it&#39;s not 100% clear
I can bet i saw  ported Nimitz on youtube with standart Harriers taking off... And what was ofp solution to make planes land at the carrier ?

commiejoe
Mar 9 2008, 23:01
I know other&#39;s have some issues about the plane but I have to say I like it. However there is one thing which is kind of funny, and that is getting the liferaft even when you eject over land&#33; Other then that I am sure that there will be progress made in further versions&#33; Keep up the good work and the dream for proper jet fighters in Arma&#33;

supergruntsb78
Mar 9 2008, 23:11
i love this plane to bad i am having trouble to make it function with the Mando Airsupport Console

the plane is being created but then starts tumbling down to earth (not realy good pilots with the arma navy it seems :P )

so i wonder what is going on i whould like to see several f18s fly over and toss some bombs on the tagets http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

any ideas are welcome

Franze
Mar 9 2008, 23:37
@<hidden>

It won&#39;t retract the gear via a key because it has it&#39;s own gear up function. To the game, it&#39;s a fixed-landing gear aircraft, not a retracting one.

@<hidden>

I&#39;m not sure if there&#39;s any way to try it, but in FP if we tried to land a standard aircraft like a A-10 onto a carrier deck, the gear would retract while taxiing around or get stuck on touchdown. I&#39;m not sure if this was changed for ArmA but it&#39;s a safe bet it hasn&#39;t. And there&#39;s the "gear up = damage on ground" &#39;feature&#39; too.

@<hidden>

Better to have a life raft when you don&#39;t need it, than to not have a life raft when you do need it. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

@<hidden>

Sounds like the AI aren&#39;t turning on the engine and/or they need more velocity or altitude.

@<hidden>

Glad you enjoy it, rock on&#33; http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

Drake Starkiller
Mar 10 2008, 02:56
Awsome&#33;

Keep up the good work, you did a great Job.

This Addon brings ArmA near to a Flightsimiulation, i like all these featuers and gimmicks.


Its really cool to discover, that you have to land with only the rear gear, after streaking a Su-35 in Dogfight. Not to mention the bruning right engine...


An that the Tanks damage your plane when not dropped correctly, just makes it more real and much more fun to play.

xav
Mar 10 2008, 04:02
I noticed something wrong with the hud: The "level lines" in the hud do not stay parallel to the horizon...

Gibbon
Mar 10 2008, 08:21
@<hidden>

Did that occur by default or after going up to speed? Sometimes the canopy will stick to the aircraft.

Hi.... http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
After going up to speed. There are also problems with the landing train, in the take off the IA doesn&#39;t work.

http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=-f1WKNnOPK0

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j259/gibbon12/Album-Gibbon/FirmaArmed.jpg

mac81
Mar 10 2008, 11:54
Really great job Franze, like your plane also flight dinamic is good maybe is a little powerfull but its ok the handling of the airplane is good.

Like a lot the ejection sequence, first canopy release then seat shoot out and separation between pilot and seat its really cool and also realistic 100 time better than the default one.

The speed reference sistem on the HUD is fine, finally someone who use coerent speeds for all the flight phases especially during approach.
Not like default planes where you don&#39;t know the speed unit K/h, Kts http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/huh.gif? and also on final approach you have to keep something like 200 not to stall (really a shit&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif
Just a clarification (but its really a minor minor thing) on the speed scale of the HUD usually you have the IAS & Mach number instead TAS this is common for all the airplanes from Cessna to hornet.

The only concern i have "but your add on is a beta so maybe you&#39;re working on it" is about the texture. I think it should be improved.I like the A10 & harrier texture i think they&#39;re very well done especcially A10.

Please consider this as a critic also because i&#39;m not an addon maker and so i don&#39;t know how is hard to build up a brand new add on&#33;

Anyway great job http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/thumbs-up.gif

mac81
Mar 10 2008, 11:58
Please consider this as a critic also because i&#39;m not an addon maker and so i don&#39;t know how is hard to build up a brand new add on&#33;
Please DON&#39;T consider this as a critic also because i&#39;m not an addon maker and so i don&#39;t know how is hard to build up a brand new add on&#33;

lebson506th
Mar 10 2008, 12:30
The thing i&#39;ve noticed is that the default game HUD in the top left (Shows Fuel, Damage, Speed, and Altitude) doesn&#39;t show up.

Is this intended?

Yuka
Mar 10 2008, 12:45
From what I&#39;ve read this is going to be a purely amazing Add-On&#33;

I&#39;m looking forward to loading it up when I get home tonite&#33;

Drake Starkiller
Mar 10 2008, 12:48
Quote[/b] ]ReadMe
------------
Known Issues
------------
- MP starts in aircraft can result in initial errors. These should not cause issues.
- Aircraft have not been tested on dedicated server. YMWV.

We Tested it yesterday for several Hours on our Dedi Server, and it seems to work fine.

Regarding the Initi Error: We Encounterd it a few times, mostly when we only had, restarted the mission and not have used "#missions".

And there are some minor sync errors, like Canopy is open for WSO but for Pilot its closed. Or WSO ejects but Pilot stays in Plane with closed Canopy. And on some reason you lose the "Open Canopy" dialog sometimes(I think it was when you get in the plane, move it a bit on ground, stop, get out and when you get back in the dialog has gone)

But as I said, the majority of fuctions work and we had a lot of fun.

1in1class
Mar 10 2008, 14:57
Vary nice jet vary lovely iv got some issue and bugs with it dont know if this was said already but the ejection option does not work iv hit it and nothing happen just it says eject eject over and over, also the all weapont FA-18 with all the other ones i dont have it. It just an invisible person on the ground when i put it on map.

rundll.exe
Mar 10 2008, 16:18
Nice plane but quite buggy...
since its a beta Ill list what I found during verry short test (all in 1.09) or isnt it 1.09 compatible?
-The canopy is missing sometimes (random) at start of mission.
-You can look "trough" the cockpit (transparancy?) to the runway
-I have no engine sound in 1st person view.
-The optics are upside down? (if you click rmb)
-The handling is way to fast imho and/or the engine too powefull.

the_shadow
Mar 10 2008, 16:34
if you start as commander in the F/A-18E and flying you instantly die..

Rubberkite
Mar 10 2008, 16:55
@<hidden>

thank you for this outstanding plane...

I like the flight model improved, (non standar bis)
and also the aircraft trust is good&#33; this is a jet not a chopper and we need power... afterburner helps in some cases http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

The effect (visual) can be improved, and u can show, when no afterburner a little effect, or just a light effect, as seen in the VTE A4 skyhawk.. this would be nice.

We can tell to you a lot of thing, everyone as it&#39;s own desired features in mind.

But the most important thing is fixing the ST error and RPT growing, so we can use your "creature" in MP and dedi server.

ST report could be the result in texture stretch non aligned, the RHS Hind got same problem, there is some people that try to fix these rpt warning, If u need help about fixing please ask me or directly the RHS Hind developer.

this is a new era for Jet addons, your work is outstanding, please take a look at rpt problem.

THANK YOU &#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;
THANK YOU &#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

Rubber

http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

wolfbite
Mar 10 2008, 19:14
Damn this made my weekend.
Its great and i cant wait till its complete.
So far its a good start. Although i must point out
-on one of the lods or whatever it is.. the pilots head pokes through the canopy of the Fa-18/E
-The gun sound is a bit.... erm frustrating. its like just the base sound.
-man loves his dingy (and i love it too)
And for some reason a cant seem to get the weapon loadout mcgiggery to work

xnodunitx
Mar 10 2008, 19:22
And on some reason you lose the "Open Canopy" dialog sometimes(I think it was when you get in the plane, move it a bit on ground, stop, get out and when you get back in the dialog has gone)
That would be correct, whenever the canopy is closed and the jet is gaining speed you lose the function to open it.

@<hidden>, can you provide an example as to how the dynamic reloading is not working, have you tried re-arming at an ammo truck or is something preventing you from doing so?

wolfbite
Mar 10 2008, 20:24
Ooops... ignore my arming lies... I should have read the manual.. Sorry..... hmm would be kool to add your payloads to Bis A-10

Sgt_Eversmann
Mar 11 2008, 08:22
So, I haven&#39;t been much around for quite some time, but when I saw the F/A-18E/F in the News, I had to download and test it.
I&#39;m aware of that it&#39;s Beta 0.1 Version, but I have to say, it is great. Like it really much. Especially the Arming Menu, that I can arm it the way I want with just a few clicks, that is great http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/thumbs-up.gif
The Modell is looking nice, the Cockpit as it is said has some glitches, but there is very much potential in the Plane.
Looking forward to any improvements, don&#39;t loose motivation on this one mates http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/inlove.gif

Rubberkite
Mar 11 2008, 09:58
pls franze

first thing to do is fix ST warning and others rpt growing errors&#33;&#33;&#33;

http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/banghead.gif http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/banghead.gif http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/banghead.gif http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/banghead.gif http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/banghead.gif

wolfbite
Mar 11 2008, 11:28
Sometimes I don&#39;t get the option to eject. Its normally when i do need to eject. Or is this simulation of the ejector seat being buggered?

Yuka
Mar 11 2008, 11:47
Perhaps the ejection seat mechanism has been damaged each time. :-)

LastNinja9
Mar 11 2008, 17:43
I probably have some conflicting addons, which causes the pilot(s) to STAND in the cockpit (holding an invisible rifle).
Does anyone know what addon I should remove (I have too many to list).

GREAT addon, though the sensitivity is too high. You can&#39;t do such rapid turns at high velocity in real life.

Anyway, it really is great work &#33;

Franze
Mar 11 2008, 22:07
@<hidden>

Yes, there&#39;s something up with the horizon animation controllers. As soon as you go beyond 90 degrees in bank or pitch, the horizons appear to be reset. BIS aircraft seem to have this problem as well.

@<hidden>

There&#39;s a problem with the F/A-18F where the human is the commander. The AI refuses to obey movement commands and flies in a odd way. I&#39;m not sure why this is but the solution is not to have a AI as the pilot. This probably has to do with the game not being compatible with commanders in aircraft (AI + AI in a single F/A-18F get the same results).

@<hidden>

TAS in KTS was chosen because the game AFAIK is pure TAS. I could script the speed to be displayed as IAS instead, and mach number would be pretty simple if we assume the air pressure is linear...

Texture - no plans to replace it at this time, sorry.

@<hidden>

Yes, the default game status display is disabled to force reliance on cockpit systems.

@<hidden> Starkiller

Yes, I&#39;d imagine it works fair on a dedicated server, but the RPT errors and lack of binarization will make it tough (or so I&#39;m told) to deploy on a server. The big thing is the scripting takes a lot of resources and pretty much everybody is going to need a monster machine (although you can help control this with clever switch manipulation - fz_f18_aicheck=1 is probably the best, if not well liked, solution to lag issues).

@<hidden>

Did you try to eject while in flight or stationary on the ground?

Also, the F/A-18 Weapons unit will appear invisible because all the weapons are hidden by default.

@<hidden>
Canopy missing at random - can&#39;t put my finger on this. Never encountered it before.

Lots of textures haven&#39;t been changed from FP, so there&#39;s some kind of light transparency in a lot of textures for some reason. Probably correctable through a reconversion with TexView2 but it was low on my &#39;to do&#39; list.

First person sound will be extremely muted. This is an attempt to simulate hearing protection.

Optics upside down? I&#39;ve only seen this in F/A-18F with AI as commander.

Handling and speed: jet capable of 7.5G turns with a limiter, which can be turned off to exceed that limit. Jet also capable of speeds greater than Mach 1.5 when in clean configuration.

@<hidden>

This shouldn&#39;t occur if the human is commander, but human shouldn&#39;t be commander even though it can work that way.

@<hidden>

An engine effect - worth looking into.
RPT errors - I think I can correct these under binarization.

@<hidden>

The crew proxies may not be updated on all LODs (although I thought I got them all, but will check them out anyways).

Gun sound - Maybe this has something to do with sound settings. It&#39;s supposed to sound like a buzz, but it may be very annoying if your hearing is good.

Ejection Seat action not being available - not sure why? If you&#39;re in flight or moving at speed, it should always be available.

@<hidden>

I think this should be correctable if I do custom crew animations. It&#39;s possible that animation mods or replacements change the default animation which I used on the aircraft.

Quick turns are possible in real life, only that the preference is not to do them unless it&#39;s an emergency.

@<hidden>

Thanks for the kind words again&#33; http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif

I&#39;ll try to nail as many of these bugs as possible but I can&#39;t give any promises as to when I&#39;ll have them all fixed.

Halochief89
Mar 11 2008, 22:58
WO I was testing out how fast this guy was once again with a SLA rpg soldier and guess what? He hit me with the RPG when I was going over 500. I was amazed then a second after I crashed. Damn that AI had a lucky shot.

Franze
Mar 12 2008, 01:03
Small update, I figured out why the model had so many sections:

- Faces were not in order
- Some major glitches with the canopy
- Material bugs

I&#39;ve managed to bring the sections down to below 20 in all detail LODs, although cockpits remain high at 30-50 - probably due to diverse texture sets in cockpit. These fixes have brought the ST errors down by 25%, so progress is being made in regards to performance. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

Yuka
Mar 12 2008, 01:08
Small update, I figured out why the model had so many sections:

- Faces were not in order
- Some major glitches with the canopy
- Material bugs

I&#39;ve managed to bring the sections down to below 20 in all detail LODs, although cockpits remain high at 30-50 - probably due to diverse texture sets in cockpit. These fixes have brought the ST errors down by 25%, so progress is being made in regards to performance. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
Well, keep up the EXCELLENT work&#33;

I finally got a chance to give it a solid tryout today and I&#39;m VERY impressed&#33; Now I just need to figure out the best way to implement it into my missions&#33; (I actually need a hand with it if anyone can shoot me a message or post it here...)

I want to make it so when the aircraft (F/A-18) is at it&#39;s designated home airfield it has the menu to rearm/select loadout... how can I make that happen? Please bear with me... I&#39;m new to this stuff&#33;

Franze
Mar 12 2008, 01:29
Well, keep up the EXCELLENT work&#33;

I finally got a chance to give it a solid tryout today and I&#39;m VERY impressed&#33; Now I just need to figure out the best way to implement it into my missions&#33; (I actually need a hand with it if anyone can shoot me a message or post it here...)

I want to make it so when the aircraft (F/A-18) is at it&#39;s designated home airfield it has the menu to rearm/select loadout... how can I make that happen? Please bear with me... I&#39;m new to this stuff&#33;
That is pretty simple:

In the fz_f18aws_tst.intro mission, there are two triggers:

The trigger to add the arming menu should have the following:

Condition:
vehicle player distance ammotruck < 100 and (vehicle player) iskindof "fz_f18e"
Activation:
armact = (vehicle player) addAction ["Arming Menu","dialog.sqs"]

The condition it set so that if the player&#39;s vehicle is within 100m of the unit ammotruck and the player&#39;s vehicle is from the fz_f18e class, it will add the action to use the arming menu. Now to remove the action, you need one more trigger:

Condition:
(vehicle player) distance ammotruck > 100
Activation:
(vehicle player) removeaction armact

Simply make some object at the center of the field - an invisible H object, road cone, etc. and call it "ammotruck". Then change the condition number for distance on both triggers to a greater value - a 500m radius is probably about right for most airfields.

Side note, binarizing the addon removes all the ST errors. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
I&#39;ll have this version uploaded tonight.

EricJ
Mar 12 2008, 01:29
Re: Textures.....

I know it&#39;s not the greatest, however you have to realize something. First off, the A-10 and Harrier that comes in ArmA use a more 3D rendered shadow technique for their skins, so if Franze can do it, that&#39;d help alot as most skins look better with rendered shadowing from the 3D editor. As Franze said, it&#39;s a port of OFP. So if it was created in 3DSMAX, it may be an older version, which doesn&#39;t support such a feature. If it can be added, alot of improvement will be of the texture. It&#39;s a beta, and so therefore it&#39;s not going to be perfect, and the intent at the outset was trying to improve it as much as possible. Unfortunately I think the rendering system in ArmA sucks anyways, LOMAC/Black Shark is far better and is more effective, 24-bit bitmaps are much much better looking IMHO and therefore you lose quality to a degree with the BIS system anyways.

Head sticking out of the canopy? Never once saw that either on the original version or the one I&#39;ve played with.

Franze
Mar 12 2008, 02:34
F/A-18E/F upgraded to Beta 0.15. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

No gameplay changes (that I know of), but binarization results in no ST errors being generated in RPT, and model sections have been optimized (detail lods do not exceed 25 sections). Note that not ALL RPT errors have been fixed, but it&#39;s a massive improvement over beta 0.1&#39;s 4 meg RPTs.

See the main page for downloads or click here (http://www.mechmodels.com/mas/downloads/mas_f18_arma_beta015.rar) to get beta 0.15.

Sgt_Eversmann
Mar 12 2008, 08:00
Great Franze http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/thumbs-up.gif
Gotta test the F/A-18 this evening after work with my Joystick, tested them only with Mouse and Keyboard http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif

Foxhound
Mar 12 2008, 08:37
New version frontpaged at the Armaholic.com homepage (http://www.armaholic.com).

The Armaholic.com download page can be found here:
http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=2885

Gerkahn
Mar 12 2008, 10:38
Hiya, this mod is a brilliant addition to arma but i&#39;ve got one problem that i cant seem to find the cause of, when i select the track gps target in flight, a gps target appears level with my horizon and not on the ground at the grid coordinate i clicked? any idea what might be causing this?

Deadeye
Mar 12 2008, 10:51
ArmedAssault.info Mirror updated :

http://www.armedassault.info/index.p....lang=en (http://www.armedassault.info/index.php?cat=addons&id=377&setlang=en)

Yuka
Mar 12 2008, 11:51
Thanks for the help, Franze&#33;

I can&#39;t wait to load the new version&#33; It&#39;s going to boost the level of gameplay on my server and in my missions by a huge factor&#33;

Daniel
Mar 12 2008, 11:56
Quote[/b] ]No gameplay changes (that I know of)

Any plans to alter the cannon sound? Cause it&#39;s hurting my speakers a little.

Rubberkite
Mar 12 2008, 12:08
@<hidden>


thank you for answer.

here some multimedia material to give you an idea for what I say about engine.
hope to help you in your work http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhm6lPrLi78

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWaZSoC_Ohc&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pn9HYrqQ6O8&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcFWP_TvNjM&feature=related


this show night afterburner that looks more on blue..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHL94qQgl_8&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnXBasZ5yBc&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qRNZYwsKII&NR=1


OK now the ArmA Example

I do two short video to show you two feature in arma..

the engine light effect
http://www.alessiobaruffi.it/engine.avi

and the turbine progressive opening...
http://www.alessiobaruffi.it/progressiveopening.avi


******************************************************************************************
**

now IF u want, me and my friend Alef (that is good programmer and help me in scripting editing )
try to improve the liferaft function using the surfaceIswater command.

and the createvehicle start only if the pilot ejects in the water, also a smokeshell red will be added in the pilot inventory so
it can throw for pilot rescue prupose...

tell me if u like,


this is for let you more time to fix other issues..

1in1class
Mar 12 2008, 14:54
Franze yes i can eject now its working http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif could you make like an few of the jets carry some of the diffrent weapons instead of haveing to run the script? Like just add a few more F/A-18s to the BLUEFOR? Nice work on this jet vary good love your work your AH-64s are vary nice to keep it up http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

HeAvY TrAnCe
Mar 12 2008, 17:13
franze, the pilot/co-pilot should work if you set it up like the su34... it seems to work fine and everyone know that if you set your player to a higher rank, he is commander automatically... so there you go... but yea, on my machine, when you are commander, the jet just flies in circles to the right.... and gains altitude...

wolfbite
Mar 12 2008, 18:33
w00t an update awesome o. will check it out...

the_shadow
Mar 12 2008, 21:02
AI seams to have huge problems controlling this jet at slow speeds.
it constantly flaps it´s fins up and down making it pitch up and down constantly.

maybe you could fix this?

eddyD
Mar 12 2008, 22:52
i was testing a F/A-18E and the textures look nice
but i change little bit , not most
look here
http://edit.hostbasket.com/eddyd.be/franze_f18.jpg
hope you like it

pm if you want them

Franze
Mar 12 2008, 23:16
@<hidden>

Once you activate a targeting function, it creates a target 1000m from your position in the direction you need to face to score a hit on your intended target. You simply point your aircraft in that direction, acquire the target, and fire with the associated weapon. The target will automatically be moved to the position as soon as you fire.

@<hidden>[CAS] Daniel

Yes, I have a couple guys working on some new sounds for general FX, M61 included. For now, the config should be in cpp format, so you can change the sound if you want to.

@<hidden>

We chose a relatively mild burner + burner can FX for simplicity&#39;s sake. Cameras tend to exaggerate the effect, but there is room for improvement. Burner can petal motion - undecided at this point.

@<hidden>

You can change the loadout in the init field of both aircraft. Next release I may make some canned scripts which will give certain default loadouts to the aircraft. Keep in mind that the aircraft can load some 70+ combinations of weapons, so making a loadout for every possible combination is far too cumbersome.

@<hidden> TrAnCe

The commander function of the F/A-18F is intended for multiplayer scenarios involving two players. The reason for commander instead of gunner: gunner has absolute control over weapons. In a single player situation this may be OK, but multiplayer, when latency is factored in, it makes it difficult to coordinate. By having a commander with certain functions and a pilot with absolute weapon control, it makes it much easier to get around pesky network problems. We may make an AI-compatible F/A-18F where the commander is replaced by a gunner - perhaps a new variant with duplicate pilot controls to simulate the training rigs.

@<hidden>

I&#39;m aware of the issue but I&#39;m not sure as to the cause. I believe it may have to do with the control sensitivity, to which the AI doesn&#39;t use efficiently. I&#39;ll see what I can do.

@<hidden>

If you get ahold of me, I can send you the PSD templates we use on the external model. I have a standard grey VFA-14 markings set around somewhere. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

MattXR
Mar 12 2008, 23:16
wow looks awesome with those textures.. you are quite an artist.

urbanwarrior
Mar 13 2008, 01:05
is this designed for a stick instead of a keyboard or something? I&#39;ve tried to like this jet because it looks great and it had such a lot of effort put in to it, but i really dont enjoy flying it at all, its very twitchy and difficult to control, especially when trying to aim it to use the cannon

Rubberkite
Mar 13 2008, 08:46
is this designed for a stick instead of a keyboard or something? I&#39;ve tried to like this jet because it looks great and it had such a lot of effort put in to it, but i really dont enjoy flying it at all, its very twitchy and difficult to control, especially when trying to aim it to use the cannon
The mouse, is the way http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

when you need precision adjustment for rockets or gun, use the mouse instead keyboard...

your signature must be changed... in waiting 1.11 http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

@<hidden> pls answer me, for the question about liferaft, so if you want we do some tweak for you, so u have time to fix other issues.

-HUNTER-
Mar 13 2008, 15:30
Very nice&#33;

I like the weapons and the possibility to just try some loadouts and then land and get another. good&#33; Very good&#33; Keep it up&#33; http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/yay.gif

But I hope you guys are going to check the config for the flight model, because you can pull insane turns in this. I know jets are
agile as F888 but this is a bit too much. Craaazy aerobatics display though&#33; http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/crazy_o.gif

HailStorm
Mar 13 2008, 17:37
is this designed for a stick instead of a keyboard or something? I&#39;ve tried to like this jet because it looks great and it had such a lot of effort put in to it, but i really dont enjoy flying it at all, its very twitchy and difficult to control, especially when trying to aim it to use the cannon
it&#39;s less of the mod, more the ArmA engine - namely, prioritizing flightpath over nose position (in a lateral direction) and the lack of a sensitivity slider for joysticks. (i&#39;ve got mine externally set to 2% strength effect and it&#39;s still overresponsive for ArmA&#33; )



a couple bugs i found:

- AA weapons are pretty strong against vehicles - any of the AA missiles can take out a tank in a single hit (with a small delay before blowing up) also, the cannon seems to be quite effective at killing tanks too (though not sure if this reflects real 20mm rounds)

- &#39;repairing&#39; within the loadout console (or manually at a truck) does not repair any specific severe damage (eg. engine out, hydraulics failure), or re-fill fire extinguisher bottles once they&#39;ve been used.

- the jet seems to have a very rearwards centre of gravity. though this may reflect the real thing, but i usually inadvertently sit the aircraft on it&#39;s tail on landing.

- it doesn&#39;t have a &#39;dead&#39; model - it uses the intact graphic. actually, it&#39;d be better if it didn&#39;t have a model at all - just a crater (or maybe a small bit of wreckage) where it *was*

- if you fly around without a canopy, it&#39;s still as quiet in first person as with one.

- [edit] one of the missions included in the download is unplayable - "F-18E Airstrike" is missing file &#39;fz_f18sq2&#39;


though these aren&#39;t &#39;bugs&#39; per se, these are a few things i thought would be good to implement:

- it&#39;d be nice to link the &#39;WARNING&#33; EJECTION SEAT&#33;&#39; action to the standard &#39;eject&#39; function - it&#39;s often way to cumbersome to have to find the action on the menu, and usually i just bind the action to a button on my controls - but it doesn&#39;t work for this.

- it&#39;d also be good if an engine fire didn&#39;t completely destroy the jet - i didn&#39;t mind it taking out ALL my systems, but i found it weird that i just suddenly died metres from completing a glide approach.

not sure how easy it would be to implement those changes, but nonetheless, great job guys&#33; it was worth the wait&#33;

urbanwarrior
Mar 13 2008, 17:44
Cheers for the responses, think i will stick with the F16 for now, great job on the jet just a shame about the control side of things.

p.s. sig has been updated kite http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif

the_shadow
Mar 13 2008, 17:58
@<hidden>

I&#39;m aware of the issue but I&#39;m not sure as to the cause. I believe it may have to do with the control sensitivity, to which the AI doesn&#39;t use efficiently. I&#39;ll see what I can do.
i agree on that.

personally i think making the sensitivity more in line with the AV8 or Footmunchs beautiful F16 would be more apropriate.
but thats just my thoughts...

also, i dont think it should be able to fly quite as slow as the F16 (after all, it´s a much bigger and heavier plane)

Rubberkite
Mar 13 2008, 18:17
Control can be optimized, but the jet can fly fast and do thight turn, the standard bis model is slow and the turn radius works like an big airline jet...

these are agile fighters and the speed / trust needs power &#33;&#33;

if the island is not&#39; big for faster jet, do they slow is not a solution...

I like afterburner and manovrability, the problem is the lack of blackout / redout sistem so u can do over G manovres...


The reammo system could be done "open source" so new planes can use it for chose weapon pylon load..

this work is nice, and is the right way, for me to realize a good jet. with a good fly manovrability

http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

@<hidden>

http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif also I&#39;m waiting for the new patch that is upcoming... I HOPE

Rubberkite
Mar 13 2008, 18:19
the AA sidewinder and other missles can lock and destroy land vehicles, this is an ArmA problem not for the F18 mod.

ricnunes
Mar 13 2008, 19:01
also, i dont think it should be able to fly quite as slow as the F16 (after all, it´s a much bigger and heavier plane)
Actually the F/A-18 is able to fly quite slower than the F-16, since it has bigger wings and bigger flaps areas which mean that the F/A-18 generates a bigger lift when compared with the F-16 (and many other fighters as well) and bigger lift means lower stall speed which by it&#39;s turn means that the F/A-18 can fly slower than the F-16.
In part it also means that it can execute manouvers with higher angle of attack than the F-16 which mean that the F/A-18 can outmanouver the F-16 in a turn manouver.
Also remember that the F/A-18 was designed to land in an aircraft carrier which means that such aircraft are usually designed to have slower stall speeds than their land based counterparts.

But I do agree that the F/A-18 (ArmA Mod) Stall speed is a bit exagerated, since you can fly this F/A-18 traveling in speeds around 90 Kts, no way the F/A-18 (or any other flighter) can fly so slow at least with almost 0 degrees of angle of attack.
I would say that the Stall Speed (flying with near 0 degrees of angle of attack) would be something near 110+ knots.

Other thing that I find a bit wrong with the F/A-18 is the following:
- Acceleration with afterburner seems too fast.
- Acceleration without afterburner seems too slow.
- I agree that the pitch controls are a bit too sensitive, but the turning ability seems IMO to be right. The F/A-18 and specially the Super Hornet is capable of very impressive (and very tight turn) manouvers&#33;

HeAvY TrAnCe
Mar 13 2008, 20:27
@<hidden>

I&#39;m aware of the issue but I&#39;m not sure as to the cause. I believe it may have to do with the control sensitivity, to which the AI doesn&#39;t use efficiently. I&#39;ll see what I can do.
i agree on that.

personally i think making the sensitivity more in line with the AV8 or Footmunchs beautiful F16 would be more apropriate.
but thats just my thoughts...

also, i dont think it should be able to fly quite as slow as the F16 (after all, it´s a much bigger and heavier plane)
you mean "as fast" right? The f16 is wayyy faster than an fa-18... check out the time to climb ratio.. plus the thrust to weight ratio...

HeAvY TrAnCe
Mar 13 2008, 20:29
my bad i misunderstood what the guy meant... srry...

@<hidden>, can you delete my first post? I didn&#39;t mean to double thm up.. my bad... http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/huh.gif

HeAvY TrAnCe
Mar 13 2008, 20:33
also, i dont think it should be able to fly quite as slow as the F16 (after all, it´s a much bigger and heavier plane)
Actually the F/A-18 is able to fly quite slower than the F-16, since it has bigger wings and bigger flaps areas which mean that the F/A-18 generates a bigger lift when compared with the F-16 (and many other fighters as well) and bigger lift means lower stall speed which by it&#39;s turn means that the F/A-18 can fly slower than the F-16.
In part it also means that it can execute manouvers with higher angle of attack than the F-16 which mean that the F/A-18 can outmanouver the F-16 in a turn manouver.
Also remember that the F/A-18 was designed to land in an aircraft carrier which means that such aircraft are usually designed to have slower stall speeds than their land based counterparts.

But I do agree that the F/A-18 (ArmA Mod) Stall speed is a bit exagerated, since you can fly this F/A-18 traveling in speeds around 90 Kts, no way the F/A-18 (or any other flighter) can fly so slow at least with almost 0 degrees of angle of attack.
I would say that the Stall Speed (flying with near 0 degrees of angle of attack) would be something near 110+ knots.

Other thing that I find a bit wrong with the F/A-18 is the following:
- Acceleration with afterburner seems too fast.
- Acceleration without afterburner seems too slow.
- I agree that the pitch controls are a bit too sensitive, but the turning ability seems IMO to be right. The F/A-18 and specially the Super Hornet is capable of very impressive (and very tight turn) manouvers&#33;
yea of course, watching the blue angels peform is one thing... and they are hydraulically controlled so they are capable of turning that fast... but what you want is user friendly control of the aircraft... just because (in real life) it can turn and bank like that doesn&#39;t mean that it has to in the game... its way too hard to control in game... way too sensitive...

urbanwarrior
Mar 13 2008, 22:12
allthough the f18 has larger wings you&#39;ll find it has a larger wing loading value than the f16. The f16 also has a power to weight ratio higher than 1 so its capable of ballistic flight, the hornet is not. The f16 is considerably lighter aswell so for outright turning ability i would doubt the f18 is that much better if at all.

xnodunitx
Mar 13 2008, 23:26
yea of course, watching the blue angels peform is one thing... and they are hydraulically controlled so they are capable of turning that fast... but what you want is user friendly control of the aircraft... just because (in real life) it can turn and bank like that doesn&#39;t mean that it has to in the game... its way too hard to control in game... way too sensitive...
Theres a button up there labelled Edit, I suggest you look into that before you get a warning from the mods.

We tend to atleast attempt to make our addons as close to the real thing as possible, maybe not texture wise but in performance yes. If that means making it less user friendly but more maneuverable and to the the real thing then thats just one of the quirks.

Franze
Mar 14 2008, 01:12
@<hidden>

In a word, yes, it was designed with a joystick.

Also, the P/W ratio of the F-16 hinges on which engine it has. The GE produces some 3,000lbs extra thrust over the P&W engine. The P&W engined F-16s have worst P/W ratio to the Super Hornet, while the GE engines give the F-16 a slightly higher than 1-to-1 thrust ratio. Which one I&#39;d have my money on depends on the scenario. The F/A-18E/F has a better radar than the F-16 does, which - when coupled with some low-observable technologies that the F-16 lacks - give it an edge in long range engagements. Close-in is definitely the advantage for the F-16, so as long as extreme AoA maneuvers are not being pulled.

With that in mind, the F/A-18E/F is not a lightweight fighter. It&#39;s heavier than the F-15C is, and only marginally lighter than the F-15E. The F/A-18E/F also has a max takeoff weight at least 20,000lbs greater than the F-16.

@<hidden>

Sorry, I forgot to respond to that. I can handle a couple extra lines of script for the life raft, but I think the smoke grenades should be something for you to think about rather than something to be added later. Unless your meaning is a automatic smoke grenade when over water, then I think I&#39;d agree with that. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

Blackouts + Redouts may be possible with some cutscene tricks. In the FP version of the aircraft, if you were one of the F-18 pilots I created and you flew without your oxygen mask above 10,000ft, you would black out after a certain period due to lack of oxygen. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

It would be possible to replicate this function using the G-meter animation controller to identify just how many G&#39;s the aircraft is pulling - assuming the G meter function is accurate.

Loading system - the problem is it&#39;s complex and one-of-a-kind built specifically for the F-18. If others want to use that functionality, they only need my permission to use it. I don&#39;t think the ability to cycle weapon combinations is good for your run-of-the-mill aircraft.

@<hidden>

I&#39;ve spent the past 6 months trying to get the agility to where I like it (key word, &#39;I&#39; ), but I&#39;m planning on a keyboard-only subvariant which handles horribly like the AV-8 and A-10. It&#39;s not the ideal solution but perhaps it&#39;s a middle ground we can all agree on.

@<hidden>

AAMs are strong enough to pretty much wipe out any aircraft in a certain blast radius. The problem is that this power puts the weapon at the equivalent of a couple FFARs in game-power terms. On the other hand, if you want to blow the equivalent of rockets on ground targets, then I guess thats ok; just that when the MiGs show up, you&#39;ll be in trouble.

The repair function doesn&#39;t reset the display or fire extinguishers unless you&#39;ve taken damage greater than 25%. I need to script a "breaker" function that trips whenever damage is taken.

Center of gravity - already fixed.

Dead model - didn&#39;t do one because I was lazy. But I prefer your idea of simply making a burned crater with pieces of debris as opposed to the dead model. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

No canopy = same sound - known issue. Undecided fix at this point.

Ejection function - the eject function is gone because the aircraft is locked when the canopy is closed. This is why the ejection seat is a different action. I&#39;m not sure if I want to change this one as I&#39;m reluctant to &#39;unlock&#39; the aircraft. (If you lose the canopy, the eject function remains and ejection seat doesn&#39;t take as long to activate).

Engine fires - With steadily increasing damage from fires, the effect is that it will eventually consume the aircraft unless extinguished.

@<hidden>

I&#39;m not sure but I think stall speed may be hard coded. I tested the A-10 and it stalls at approximately the same speed as the F-18 does (150kmh vs the F-18&#39;s 120kmh). I&#39;ve modified the characteristics on the F-18 slightly to try and bring that higher but it hasn&#39;t done much apart from making the aircraft feel heavier (which is probably a good thing).

@<hidden> TrAnCe

Depends on the altitude and payload of both aircraft. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

Clean, the F/A-18E/F is usually placed in the realm of Mach 1.6-1.8 at 40,000ft. The F-16 is placed at above Mach 2 at an equivalent altitude. At sea level I&#39;d imagine both aircraft have almost identical speeds. So "way faster" is relative depending on what you have them doing.

Handling seems to be a matter of preference - I&#39;ve received about as many responses negative to the handling as I&#39;ve had positive to the handling.

-HUNTER-
Mar 14 2008, 15:51
@<hidden>

I&#39;ve spent the past 6 months trying to get the agility to where I like it (key word, &#39;I&#39; ), but I&#39;m planning on a keyboard-only subvariant which handles horribly like the AV-8 and A-10. It&#39;s not the ideal solution but perhaps it&#39;s a middle ground we can all agree on.
Ive flow it allot more now I can do CRAAZY stuff that really isnt supposed to go like that. I mean some of that isnt possible without
uber stalling out. I mean really impossible stuff, with real aircraft. Perhaps something to take into consideration? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/huh.gif

I know this is still WIP and with steady hand it flies nice, but if I pull on the stick harder or slam it, impossible stuff happens, but I keep flying.
< with the other aircraft we have now, that isnt the case, which is good. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif Im trying to get some video footage of the things Im talking about, try some aerobatics and do some rolls and sharp turns out of rolls.


Its a very nice addon though, personally I think the wheels and suspension are brilliant. Have you thought of airbrakes for landing or even better wheel brakes for landing would that be an option?

And the AGM154&#39;s are awesome. Ive tested them with releasing at 3000 then whent to 5000, 7000, and 10000 away from the target. All four impacted right on target. And blasted everything else with fragments.

Allthough It takes a while for them to glide to the target. On the 10000m run I bailed out of the aircraft over the target for a good view of the impacts, quite high up, but I had allready landed before the thing impacted/ blowing and I got pwned by myself. What is the max range that you put into the config for these?

And is the air to air refueling working? Had it in the basket but nothing happened? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/huh.gif http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/crazy_o.gif

http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/thumbs-up.gif http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/thumbs-up.gif Keep it up&#33;

ricnunes
Mar 14 2008, 17:04
allthough the f18 has larger wings you&#39;ll find it has a larger wing loading value than the f16. The f16 also has a power to weight ratio higher than 1 so its capable of ballistic flight, the hornet is not. The f16 is considerably lighter aswell so for outright turning ability i would doubt the f18 is that much better if at all.
Well yes, the F/A-18 (both Hornet and Super Hornet) have a big advantage over the F-16 in turning or horizontal manouvers since the F/A-18 is capable of higher angle of attack manouvers. This means that if you put an F/A-18 and an F-16 side by side and put them in a dogfight with each other, the F/A-18 would definitly point it&#39;s nose first into the F-16 than vice-versa.
But you correct when you say that the F-16 has a higher thrust to weight ratio than the F/A-18 (even if this can obviously vary depending on the fuel and weapons load that each aircraft carries), but a higher thrust to weight ratio doesn&#39;t mean higher horizontal turning capability but instead it gives an advantage over vertical (or energy) manouver therefore the F-16 should have an advantage (in vertical manouvers) over the F/A-18.

havocsquad
Mar 14 2008, 17:18
My educated assessment is the current version 0.15 is way to squirrely in manuvering to be effective.

My specifics:

Roll is okay, elevation is extremely sensitive and wrong.

The aircraft needs to accelerate slower on the ground (increase weight or friction?) (if possible).

Afterburner acceleration needs to be reduced by 10 to 20%

Regarding the manuverability arguement, for my own personal only testing I tried to edit the elevatorcoefficient line for the F/A-18E base model in the config.  This was to possibly give some helpful feedback on good values that work for most in simulating the F/A-18E/F.

However, it seemed any time I made a very minor change in the number (elevator coefficient from 1.7 down to 0.7), ArmA revolted against me giving me a landing gear config error when I packed it and tested it.

Any clue on why?

1in1class
Mar 14 2008, 17:47
On the weapons load out how do i make the jet have diffrent weapons what do i put in the int line?

HailStorm
Mar 14 2008, 17:47
Ive flow it allot more now I can do CRAAZY stuff that really isnt supposed to go like that. I mean some of that isnt possible without
uber stalling out. I mean really impossible stuff, with real aircraft. Perhaps something to take into consideration? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/huh.gif

I know this is still WIP and with steady hand it flies nice, but if I pull on the stick harder or slam it, impossible stuff happens, but I keep flying.
< with the other aircraft we have now, that isnt the case, which is good. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif Im trying to get some video footage of the things Im talking about, try some aerobatics and do some rolls and sharp turns out of rolls.


Its a very nice addon though, personally I think the wheels and suspension are brilliant. Have you thought of airbrakes for landing or even better wheel brakes for landing would that be an option?

And the AGM154&#39;s are awesome. Ive tested them with releasing at 3000 then whent to 5000, 7000, and 10000 away from the target. All four impacted right on target. And blasted everything else with fragments.

Allthough It takes a while for them to glide to the target. On the 10000m run I bailed out of the aircraft over the target for a good view of the impacts, quite high up, but I had allready landed before the thing impacted/ blowing and I got pwned by myself. What is the max range that you put into the config for these?

And is the air to air refueling working? Had it in the basket but nothing happened? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/huh.gif http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/crazy_o.gif

http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/thumbs-up.gif http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/thumbs-up.gif Keep it up&#33;
i don&#39;t think franze can really change that - all that&#39;s included in the config are roll rates - how it actually flies through the air is all up to the game engine, which, lets face it, is atrocious. i think if you upped the roll rate on any of the aircraft in-game it would fly in a similar fashion. (note: i mean roll rate in terms of aircraft rotation in all directions, not just bank)

the fact you can twist and turn this jet all over the shop but the flightpath doesn&#39;t seem to react much to it is mostly due to the bad setup of the flight model by BIS, and not franze deciding it feels good that way.

it&#39;s unfortunate that this mod is getting a lot of bad press because of the handling, but as far as i can see all it&#39;s really done is highlight the faults of the BIS flight model (and lack of sensitivity controls), which none of the mod team are responsible for.

personally, i don&#39;t mind the squirrelly behaviour of the hornet - with some practice, i can fly it just as well as any other jet (not that any of those jets are actually flown properly - the flight model is a different matter however, IMO, and i won&#39;t complain about it here.)

imo it&#39;s better to know that if i need to very quickly position the jet to get out of a bad situation, i can, as opposed to it being limited to the point where i could fly like that anyway by just using less stick. and AFAIK, the real hornet is capable of such turning manuevers, so i&#39;d prefer to learn to get good on something &#39;realistic&#39;, as opposed to something being nerfed so i can pick-up-and-go with it right off the bat.

with the A2A refuelling, you have to go though the action menu once your maintaining position somewhere near the refuelling hose basket - you&#39;ll find an option to refuel just under the action &#39;retract refuelling probe&#39; if memory serves. it&#39;s hard to notice because the action doesn&#39;t suddenly jump out at you when you&#39;ve got all the parameters correct.

RKSL-Rock
Mar 14 2008, 17:53
[i don&#39;t think franze can really change that - all that&#39;s included in the config are roll rates - how it actually flies through the air is all up to the game engine, which, lets face it, is atrocious. i think if you upped the roll rate on any of the aircraft in-game it would fly in a similar fashion. (note: i mean roll rate in terms of aircraft rotation in all directions, not just bank)

the fact you can twist and turn this jet all over the shop but the flightpath doesn&#39;t seem to react much to it is mostly due to the bad setup of the flight model by BIS, and not franze deciding it feels good that way.

it&#39;s unfortunate that this mod is getting a lot of bad press because of the handling, but as far as i can see all it&#39;s really done is highlight the faults of the BIS flight model (and lack of sensitivity controls), which none of the mod team are responsible for.

personally, i don&#39;t mind the squirrelly behaviour of the hornet - with some practice, i can fly it just as well as any other jet (not that any of those jets are actually flown properly - the flight model is a different matter however, IMO, and i won&#39;t complain about it here.)

imo it&#39;s better to know that if i need to very quickly position the jet to get out of a bad situation, i can, as opposed to it being limited to the point where i could fly like that anyway by just using less stick. and AFAIK, the real hornet is capable of such turning manuevers, so i&#39;d prefer to learn to get good on something &#39;realistic&#39;, as opposed to something being nerfed so i can pick-up-and-go with it right off the bat.

with the A2A refuelling, you have to go though the action menu once your maintaining position somewhere near the refuelling hose basket - you&#39;ll find an option to refuel just under the action &#39;retract refuelling probe&#39; if memory serves. it&#39;s hard to notice because the action doesn&#39;t suddenly jump out at you when you&#39;ve got all the parameters correct.
Yes he can.  Its all about the Geo LoD.  The Config variables should only be used for trim corrections. I gave Franze a very quick tutorial on trimming up aircraft a while ago.  

If it works for me and the dozen or so others ive helped i dont see why it cant be fixe don this.... BUT as Franze said. This plane is set up how he likes it.

@<hidden> Franze If you would like me to make a more neutral flight model for it let me know and i&#39;ll sort it out.

havocsquad
Mar 14 2008, 18:29
I&#39;m just wanting the pitch to be fixed where when I command the stick to full pitch, it feels closely like an agile turning aircraft and not a latch flipping instantly up at 90 degrees.

I used to do this feedback work for some of Footmunch&#39;s planes by modifying the configs to find a good result, but this ArmA config.cpp error is bugging me.

wolfbite
Mar 14 2008, 18:54
I Think i just pulled of the most awesome emergency landing... thanks for this great addon man...

Just so you know... One of the agm65/ Dumb bomb loadouts has them stuck on the same rack together

1in1class
Mar 14 2008, 19:44
can some one help me on this what do i put in the int line for adding diffrent weapons? How do i do this?

urbanwarrior
Mar 14 2008, 20:01
allthough the f18 has larger wings you&#39;ll find it has a larger wing loading value than the f16. The f16 also has a power to weight ratio higher than 1 so its capable of ballistic flight, the hornet is not. The f16 is considerably lighter aswell so for outright turning ability i would doubt the f18 is that much better if at all.
Well yes, the F/A-18 (both Hornet and Super Hornet) have a big advantage over the F-16 in turning or horizontal manouvers since the F/A-18 is capable of higher angle of attack manouvers. This means that if you put an F/A-18 and an F-16 side by side and put them in a dogfight with each other, the F/A-18 would definitly point it&#39;s nose first into the F-16 than vice-versa.
But you correct when you say that the F-16 has a higher thrust to weight ratio than the F/A-18 (even if this can obviously vary depending on the fuel and weapons load that each aircraft carries), but a higher thrust to weight ratio doesn&#39;t mean higher horizontal turning capability but instead it gives an advantage over vertical (or energy) manouver therefore the F-16 should have an advantage (in vertical manouvers) over the F/A-18.
I agree with some of what you said but i still dont think an F18 is going to have an advantage over an F16. The falcon can hold higher g than a hornet and wont bleed speed fast as it will have more thrust by comparison. all this and the falcon only looses 500kg&#39;s of payload to a hornet. goddamn wikipedia rocks&#33;

ricnunes
Mar 14 2008, 21:50
I agree with some of what you said but i still dont think an F18 is going to have an advantage over an F16. The falcon can hold higher g than a hornet and wont bleed speed fast as it will have more thrust by comparison. all this and the falcon only looses 500kg&#39;s of payload to a hornet. goddamn wikipedia rocks&#33;
But you can bet that the Hornet will definitly outturn the F-16 in horizontal turns. Also the Hornet can hold the same number of G forces has the F-16 (more than 9 Gs), what happens is that the F/A-18 is limited by default by the flight control software to attain a maximum of 7.5Gs but this limit can be overiden by the pilots anytime he/she wants. I also read somewhere that the Swiss Air Force F/A-18s have this G limit software disabled, which means that those Hornets don&#39;t have the 7.5G limit.
Also, just because it has better Thrust to Weight and better acceleration doesn&#39;t mean it&#39;s more agile or it turns better, or else the Mig-25 would be one of the most agile fighter aircraft in the world which is not (by the contrary). Agility, has more to do with aerodynamics than with anything else.
Finally, be carefull about the sources when you search for information. For example in Wikipedia, if you look at the F-16 entry you&#39;ll see that it says that the max speed of the F-16 is Mach 2+ (which is correct) and 2414 km/h which is definitly wrong. The maximum speed of the F-16 in Km/h is around 2160 km/h (and definitly not 2414)&#33; Regarding maximum payload, the data that I have indicates that the "normal" hornet is able to carry more 700Kg&#39;s of payload compared to the F-16 but if instead you compare with the Super Hornet the diference incresses to 2600Kg&#39;s which is much more, but again the Super Hornet is a considerably larger aircraft than the F-16 and even than the "normal" Hornet.

urbanwarrior
Mar 14 2008, 23:04
yeah i noticed some conflicting info on wikipedia, infact the internet as a whole really. as a matter of interest i actually found a link referring to an instance where a f18 got a gun kill on a F22 recently so it must be pretty maneovreable. but yes you are correct, in horizontal turns it can sustain higher turn rates but its all pretty pointless anyway because its not the 60&#39;s anymore and as we all know the hornet would kill an f16 before either of them even seen each other. hornet=over horizon engagement falcon=fail

Franze
Mar 14 2008, 23:13
@<hidden>

Almost all the extreme maneuvers you can pull with the aircraft result in it stalling out, but it can recover that energy pretty quickly. Regardless, the current version I have is rebalanced and the &#39;stall&#39; speed is at least 20kts higher. It handles about 20% heavier with this new balance.

Something else to keep in mind, the sensitivity is also due to the speeds possible with afterburners engaged. Clean, the in-game aircraft with burners on can close in at around 800kts.This is just shy of 1500kmh. At that speed the controls are a bit less responsive than they are at the lowest apex; so when I got the sensitivity to where I wanted it, I was taking into account the maximum speed more than the minimum.

AGM-154 are &#39;powered&#39; even though they&#39;re described as glide bombs. So they fly at a relatively low speed to make up for it and will fly for about 18-24km before they run out of juice - at a speed of approximately 300kmh.

Air to Air refueling is not 100% accurate - you get within a certain distance of the drogue and you have to hold it steady long enough to activate the refuel action. You get fuel in 15% blocks, so hit it several times to fully refuel.

@<hidden>

Sensitivity will stay on the primary type, but I&#39;ve already made a simple subtype that&#39;s identical but with a 30-45% reduction in control authority across the board. I&#39;m not sure if this will be satisfactory for mouse-n-keyboard users (I tried both with the mouse and I honestly don&#39;t have any trouble with full authority or reduced).

I don&#39;t know what would cause the config error as it shouldn&#39;t be that critical of minor changes.

@<hidden>

You can modify the standard loadouts by placing this in the init line:

for F/A-18E:
<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">
this removeweapon &#34;fz_f18_aim7&#34;; this removeweapon &#34;fz_f18_aim120_4&#34;; this removeweapon &#34;fz_f18_aim9x_2&#34;
[/QUOTE]

for F/A-18F:
<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">
this removeweapon &#34;fz_f18_aim120&#34;; this removeweapon &#34;fz_f18_mk83hd_4&#34;; this removeweapon &#34;fz_f18_aim9x_2&#34;; this removeweapon &#34;fz_f18_agm88&#34;
[/QUOTE]

Clears the default weapons load. From there you can add a variety of weapons (see the weapons section of the readme) with the syntax placed right after the above:

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">
; this addmagazine &#34;fz_f18_magname&#34;; this addweapon &#34;fz_f18_weaponname&#34;
[/QUOTE]

This can be duplicated for as many weapons as you want. Not all weapons are compatible with one another, so there may be errors (e.g., fz_f18_agm84_4 and fz_f18_agm84_2 on the same aircraft will not work right).

@<hidden>

It&#39;s more or less a matter of preference; I had wanted an aircraft that was maneuverable but &#39;draggy&#39; - capable of feats of agility but difficult recovery from those feats. The geometry and the control sensitivity reflect this (to a degree).

@<hidden>

Something neutral would be nice, although you are correct in that I really did make it fly the way I wanted it to. My wants and needs aren&#39;t exactly the same as the next persons&#39; wants and needs. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

@<hidden>

Do you know which combination this was? There&#39;s several sets of dumb bombs available.

@<hidden>

Suggest you recheck the max TO values on Wikipedia for the Super Hornet and F-16 - the Super Hornet takes off with 10,500kg greater than the F-16. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

Also, the G limit on the F-16 is fixed at 9Gs max last I checked. The FLCS will not let the pilot exceed 9Gs, period (this may be outdated info but it&#39;s what I have). The F/A-18E/F is limited to 7.5Gs but that can be overridden at the risk of airframe damage - I&#39;m not sure how the FLCS works on the F-18 series but I believe that once you opt to go higher than 7.5Gs, you can pull all the way to 10Gs.

wolfbite
Mar 14 2008, 23:20
Mk-82&#39;s and mavericks... i think it was Mk-82&#39;s on the inside mavericks for the rest

Bingham67
Mar 14 2008, 23:29
Nice work Franze anyone with any ideas cant seem to get this working with mando air support console. ?

It just drops from sky straight off although will do a perfect run if it dosnt recognise the loadout but it dosnt drop bomb of course.

Thanks in advance.

urbanwarrior
Mar 14 2008, 23:34
Franze i checked wikipedia again and it says 11 hardpoints with a payload capacity of 8050kg, i may be wrong but thats what i&#39;m seeing, and thats only 500kg more than a F16-D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superhornet

mrcash2009
Mar 15 2008, 00:19
Quote[/b] ]@<hidden>

Something neutral would be nice, although you are correct in that I really did make it fly the way I wanted it to. My wants and needs aren&#39;t exactly the same as the next persons&#39; wants and needs. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

But if the most of the next persons wants/needs are addons matching reality in a military simulator, I do hope you actually do tone it to that way of flying ... its superb but I don&#39;t use it simply becuase of the way it feels when flying.

As its early beta I assume its going to be tuned ... other wise its one hell of a great "looking" fighter http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge2.gif http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif

Franze
Mar 15 2008, 00:50
@<hidden>

I need a better description of what&#39;s going on - is it falling until it crashes or is the behavior different?

@<hidden>

I can find no stats on Wikipedia&#39;s F-16 page for hardpoint capacity.

Using maximum takeoff minus empty weight, the F-16 has a &#39;capacity&#39; of 10930kg vs the F/A-18E&#39;s 16036kg - a little bit more than 5000kgs greater than the F-16&#39;s capacity. IMO this is more accurate because fuel is a big factor, and both aircraft rarely deploy without some auxiliary tanks.

@<hidden>

Again, this is how I thought a fighter should feel. I get into the Su-34, A-10, or AV-8 and I feel helpless, not in control. I wouldn&#39;t want to get into a shooting match with any of these - they aren&#39;t docile, easy-flying trainers; they&#39;re treacherous, wild war-horses and I wanted the F-18 to reflect that.

Nonetheless, it has been addressed: there are now two reduced-agility, less-treacherous versions that can barely turn at all now.

Bingham67
Mar 15 2008, 00:55
Hi thanks for the reply Franze its dropping out the sky i tried with a few of the loadouts but still crashes to ground.

But it seems to do a run ok on 2x something or more loadout but the plane wont drop any bombs. I tried the plane and default bomb Bo_GBU12_LGB and still no joy cant quite work out why not releasing bombs from plane.

RKSL-Rock
Mar 15 2008, 00:59
Quote[/b] ]@<hidden>

Something neutral would be nice, although you are correct in that I really did make it fly the way I wanted it to. My wants and needs aren&#39;t exactly the same as the next persons&#39; wants and needs. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

But if the most of the next persons wants/needs are addons matching reality in a military simulator, I do hope you actually do tone it to that way of flying ... its superb but I don&#39;t use it simply becuase of the way it feels when flying.

As its early beta I assume its going to be tuned ... other wise its one hell of a great "looking" fighter  http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge2.gif   http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif
@<hidden> mrcash2009 I&#39;m looking for the same thing myself.  BUT the ArmA Flight model is limited so you can’t expect F4 flight physics.  I&#39;ve now got 16 [BETA] fixed wing aircraft into ArmA and the feedback I&#39;ve got from the RKSL Beta team has been very good far. I&#39;m confident that we can strike a balance that should satisfy most people.  

I’m working on an expansion of our Dynamic Rotor System; its something that simulates the effects of G-loads on both fixed wing and rotary aircraft.  It has the effect of allowing very high agility at lower speeds and G loads but imposes a more restrictive envelope when under load.  It should/might/could/maybe make up for some of ArmA’s flight model deficiencies but it still needs more work.

@<hidden> Franze I&#39;ll have a look in the morning (GMT) and PM you the results.

Franze
Mar 16 2008, 01:27
@<hidden>

I think what&#39;s happening with the F/A-18E/F + Mando Air Support is the bombs are coming in contact with the jets and blowing them up.

I set the bomb pos in the script to be 3 meters less than the default and it worked just great.

EDIT: As a side note, if you try to use any of the bombs I have, you better plan the attack well. The bombs tend to overshoot by about 300-400m - I blew myself up by accident&#33;

[HAC]_mainframe
Mar 16 2008, 11:56
Guys you broke the sound barrier http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif
Very cool features and functionalities, some bugs true but until it becomes un-beta http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge2.gif it is a very good toy&#33;

wolfbite
Mar 16 2008, 13:44
Yah yah jus checked it... Mk-82&#39;s on the inside pylon and the rest Maverics ends up like this http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/5881/fa18errortx8.png

Franze
Mar 16 2008, 15:19
@<hidden>

Already fixed yesterday but thanks regardless. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

Bingham67
Mar 16 2008, 15:57
@<hidden>

I think what&#39;s happening with the F/A-18E/F + Mando Air Support is the bombs are coming in contact with the jets and blowing them up.

I set the bomb pos in the script to be 3 meters less than the default and it worked just great.

EDIT: As a side note, if you try to use any of the bombs I have, you better plan the attack well. The bombs tend to overshoot by about 300-400m - I blew myself up by accident&#33;
lol

Ok thanks very much for taking time to look big help. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif

MaxRiga
Mar 16 2008, 16:12
I love the model physic and I know it was the best u could do in ArmA ( since ArmA has it&#39;s own limitations ).

but still, the model looks too maneuverable http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/icon_rolleyes.gif I think this kinda maneuvers u could hold for Su37 and Mig29, but not f18 http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif)))

ricnunes
Mar 16 2008, 17:07
but still, the model looks too maneuverable  http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/icon_rolleyes.gif I think this kinda maneuvers u could hold for Su37 and Mig29, but not f18 http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif)))
The F/A-18 is just as maneuverable as the Su-37 (without Thurst-Vectoring of course) and the Mig-29.
Actually I read some years ago in an AirForcesMonthly Magazine issue, that a comparative was made between a Swiss Air Force F/A-18 and a German Air Force Mig-29, and the F/A-18 proved to be more maneuverable than the Mig-29 (in horizontal manouvering).

But I still agree that the pitch is a bit too sensitive.

Mandoble
Mar 16 2008, 17:08
EDIT: As a side note, if you try to use any of the bombs I have, you better plan the attack well. The bombs tend to overshoot by about 300-400m - I blew myself up by accident&#33;
Are the bombs of your model overshooting the target by 300m using mando_bombs ?

ricnunes
Mar 16 2008, 17:23
@<hidden>

Suggest you recheck the max TO values on Wikipedia for the Super Hornet and F-16 - the Super Hornet takes off with 10,500kg greater than the F-16. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
Actually what I think that urbanwarrior is pointing out is the maximum payload weight only and not maximum takeoff weight.
The maximum payload weight is the maximum quantity in weight of weapons that an aircraft can carry.
The maximum takeoff weight is something like "empty weight"+"maximum fuel load"+"maximum payload weight". Since the F/A-18 (both Hornet and Super Hornet) are heavier and carry more fuel than the F-16 a comparison in terms of payload must be made using the maximum payload weight value and according to the values that I have the "normal" Hornet (F/A-18C/D) carries in terms of maximum payload weight more 700Kg&#39;s than the F-16 (which doesn&#39;t difer much from to urbanwarrior&#39;s values) BUT instead if you compare the F-16 to the Super Hornet than this diference incresses to something like 2600Kg&#39;s.

We must be carefull when using for comparison the "F/A-18A/B/C/D Hornet" or the "F/A-18E/F/G Super Hornet" because despite sharing a similar name and a similar airframe design those 2 aircraft are in fact completly diferent aircraft. For example the Super Hornet is 25% larger than the Hornet.

EricJ
Mar 16 2008, 19:32
Think it was more like 33% more but it&#39;s only a matter of conjecture. Anyhoo Franze did alot of research into the Super Bug so in a sense, he&#39;s tracking on what&#39;s going on. Besides he has both NATOPS manuals for the Super Bug, so he&#39;s not going totally in the dark http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif

MaxRiga
Mar 16 2008, 19:33
but still, the model looks too maneuverable  http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/icon_rolleyes.gif I think this kinda maneuvers u could hold for Su37 and Mig29, but not f18 http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif)))
The F/A-18 is just as maneuverable as the Su-37 (without Thurst-Vectoring of course) and the Mig-29.
Actually I read some years ago in an AirForcesMonthly Magazine issue, that a comparative was made between a Swiss Air Force F/A-18 and a German Air Force Mig-29, and the F/A-18 proved to be more maneuverable than the Mig-29 (in horizontal manouvering).

But I still agree that the pitch is a bit too sensitive.
i&#39;ve made simple search in google and found this guys arguing about the same theme - which plane is most maneuverable -

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread292441/pg1

U can find different ideas and meanings but there wasn&#39;t f18 even close http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif

Bingham67
Mar 16 2008, 19:47
EDIT: As a side note, if you try to use any of the bombs I have, you better plan the attack well. The bombs tend to overshoot by about 300-400m - I blew myself up by accident&#33;
Are the bombs of your model overshooting the target by 300m using mando_bombs ?
Been going through it and missiles are missing the target but these hit fine which are bombs from what i can see.

fz_f18_gbu16 gbu12, 10
fz_f18_mk84 83,82

Oh and the mk84 is freaking awesome it is now my bomb of choice all the above hit perfect for me superb Mando and Franze thanks again for help. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/yay.gif http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif

Franze
Mar 16 2008, 22:50
Beta 0.2 uploaded. See first page or get it here (http://www.mechmodels.com/mas/downloads/mas_f18_arma_beta02.rar).

Changes since Beta 0.15:
- Some weapon combinations fixed.
- Ejection seat is armed at all times.
- Wreck function introduced: When aircraft is destroyed and crashes, vehicle is deleted and replaced with a wreck model.
- Aircraft rebalanced: center of gravity is in front of the wheels.
- Reduced maneuverability of aircraft as a result of rebalance.
- Stall speed increased to approximately 100-110kts.
- Afterburner acceleration reduced.
- New keyboard-friendly variants with control sensitivity reduced by 50%.
- Canopy model and texture revised.
- Increased sound coefficient for inside view.

Now, to catch up with things...

@<hidden>

In terms of overall agility, the F/A-18E/F should be in the same ballpark as the MiG-29C. I&#39;d put it in the same realm as the Su-27S given that they are very similar in weight and loading. That&#39;s not bad for an aircraft that has to have all the assorted equipment for carrier ops as well. The Su-33 gained two metric tons to get a carrier-capable Flanker and has much less combat capabilities compared to even the legacy Hornet.

I&#39;m sorry, I don&#39;t buy into the "MiG-29 and Su-27 are superior to all other combat aircraft" doctrine. I like both aircraft and most of their family members, but they are not the end-all, be-all fighter jets that the Sukhoi or Mikoyan people believe.

As for which would win in a fight... Why, whichever one I&#39;m flying of course&#33; http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif

@<hidden>

Using the mando_bombs_mapdlg, bomb runs and air strikes with my bomb types resulted in the bombs overshooting the target by at least 300m. I think it&#39;s because a lot of my bombs are not as draggy as the bo_gbu12_lgb.

@<hidden>

That makes more sense, I get it now. On the other hand, seldom do these aircraft deploy with maximum payloads, so perhaps it&#39;s a moot point. I&#39;m thinking of the F-15E, it can stuff some 50,000lbs of fuel and weaponry onto it&#39;s airframe, yet it rarely loads that maximum. There might also be some carrier-based limitations on the Super Hornet&#39;s maximum load as well.

Mandoble
Mar 16 2008, 23:36
Drag should not matter, as the script "moves" the falling bombs (mando_drop_bomb code inside mando_bombs.sqf). The reason should be another, I&#39;ll see if I can do a test with your plane.

wld427
Mar 17 2008, 00:04
Great job Franze. You are really getting this baby tuned in&#33;

Chip360
Mar 17 2008, 01:20
I was sitting in the Commander seat of your F-18 the other night (with an ai pilot flying) and he wouldnt listen to anything I said, I tried setting waypoints to search and destroy and even commanding him to target specific vehicles but he kept flying in circles :?

Do you know whats wrong?

Edit: Also, do you think it&#39;s possible you will be making more pre-selected Configurations for your Aircraft? (and maybe even making it fall under the "air" category instead of "mas_Aircraft" ?)

Drake Starkiller
Mar 17 2008, 01:27
Nice Update&#33; I like the wrecks and the new Flightmodell.

ConfuciusOFP
Mar 17 2008, 02:28
just got this bug :S bit wierd, considering it didnt happen b4. also a bit offtopic but, franze i would love u longtime if u made a similar arming system for the a10, cuz goddamn the stock one needs it.

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x27/Impaledskull/f18bug.jpg

the guy stands in the cockpit, on start of mission even. i tried gettin out n back in n this is what happened.

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x27/Impaledskull/f18bug2.jpg

edit: btw its only the pilot in both the E n F models, no conflicts show up so its very odd, here&#39;s another screeny of the great pilots view. dont think he&#39;d die or anything...

Franze
Mar 17 2008, 03:03
@<hidden>

If you&#39;re commander of a F/A-18F and the AI is driving, he ignores all commands from you except fire commands. It&#39;s some limitation where fixed wing aircraft can&#39;t have properly functioning commanders.

Pre-selected configs - I&#39;d rather not because it&#39;s a mess to organize. I want to make some updated weapon scripts but the old action menu weapon scripts are still there and they should work on both aircraft (default weapons only though). You can try these lines in the init of either jet:

4xMk84, 2xMk83, 2xAIM-9X, 2xAIM-120
[this] exec "&#92;fz_f18&#92;arming_aws&#92;load_mk844_mk832_side2.sqs"

10xMk20, 2xAIM-9X, 2xAIM-120
[this] exec "&#92;fz_f18&#92;arming_aws&#92;load_r8_s2_side2.sqs"

2xGBU-10, 2xAGM-65E, 4xMk82HD, 2xAIM-9X, 2xAIM-120
[this] exec "&#92;fz_f18&#92;arming_aws&#92;load_hb2_m2_r4_side2.sqs"

I meant to make more straightforward combination scripts to use but forgot to do it. The three above are real old but should still work. They take two seconds to put all the weapons on though, so keep that in mind.

As for the vehicle class, given that there&#39;s two jets plus about 5-6 subunits, it makes more sense to group them all in one section instead of spread throughout the menu. They&#39;re all related anyways.

@<hidden>

That doesn&#39;t make any sense; I made some new custom animations for the crew in hopes that any animation mods wouldn&#39;t affect the aircraft. If the commander position is ok, then... http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/huh.gif

Try using a radio command with this in the onactivation field:

player switchmove "fz_f18_pilot"

and see what happens. If the position remains the same as in your pictures, I&#39;d try reinstalling the addon.

As for the A-10 - that&#39;s a lot of work. It can be done but the A-10 can carry quite a few weapon types, not including any MERs.

4 IN 1
Mar 17 2008, 03:13
thx for the update, the FM seems to be more close to the real stuff now

one question: do you plan to set up a few master loadout for different type of mission like one for CAS, one for CAP and such in the load out menu? while i like the features that i can change different loadout for each port one by one, it some time makes a pain in ass to reselect all of them when sh*ts starts to hit the fan

Franze
Mar 17 2008, 03:19
Not a bad idea: having a quick selection for various mission types would get my vote. The only problem is defining what weapons would be loaded for which type. For CAS we can take something along the lines of 10xMk82/Mk83/GBU-12/GBU-16 or 6xAGM-65E, etc.

I&#39;m not sure of any reference points here as standard mission loadouts seem to vary not only from unit to unit, but from conflict to conflict.

EricJ
Mar 17 2008, 03:20
@<hidden>

In terms of overall agility, the F/A-18E/F should be in the same ballpark as the MiG-29C. I&#39;d put it in the same realm as the Su-27S given that they are very similar in weight and loading. That&#39;s not bad for an aircraft that has to have all the assorted equipment for carrier ops as well. The Su-33 gained two metric tons to get a carrier-capable Flanker and has much less combat capabilities compared to even the legacy Hornet.

I&#39;m sorry, I don&#39;t buy into the "MiG-29 and Su-27 are superior to all other combat aircraft" doctrine. I like both aircraft and most of their family members, but they are not the end-all, be-all fighter jets that the Sukhoi or Mikoyan people believe.

As for which would win in a fight... Why, whichever one I&#39;m flying of course&#33; http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif
I agree man, I&#39;ve flown the Su-33 in Flanker 2.51, and LOMAC. If the flight model is anything close to the real thing, then it&#39;s just one of the best aircraft. If you can handle a big plane, then it&#39;s your friend. Just always keep it in mind, but I&#39;ve tangled with F-16s, F-15s and Tomcats, and won most of the time. So I agree man, it&#39;s only relative but then again watching the MKI fly under the hands of the Indians... it&#39;s a beast...

But back on topic.. I&#39;ll download the updated one sometime Franze and give it a go... been doing some other stuff lately..

Franze
Mar 17 2008, 03:31
After I read Fulcrum: A Top Gun Pilot&#39;s Escape from the Soviet Empire I almost wouldn&#39;t fly anything else in LOMAC except for the MiG-29A. The Flanker(s) are great in there but there&#39;s no doubt they take a fine touch.

EricJ
Mar 17 2008, 03:32
Hardly man, they&#39;re smooth http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif

ConfuciusOFP
Mar 17 2008, 03:40
alrite man ill give it a go, btw bout the a10&#39;s, i know it would be a massive pile of scripting but i think the community needs it because nothing compares to the A10 in the ground attack role, n i think it suits arma better than most multi role fighters or whatever, because arma is more ground based than airbased, btw, dont hear this as a complaint about ur fa18 whatsoever, i love the bird, just love the a10 more lol. yes, im a ground attack nut, anyway, back ontopic i had another interesting bug, not sure if it exists in current version, where i would target something with gps, and what would happen was, the target would appear 1000m infront of the aircraft, n i would have to disable targeting for it to appear on target, it would also say weapon released, weapon being whatever it was that i was dropping. the weapon would hit the target but it was a bit annoying.

edit: nah i tried that command, the guy gets in, gets stuck at the end of the get in anim in the cockpit, and when i try the trigger he just stands there with the normal standing anim, like, weapon in hand. VERY strange

Franze
Mar 17 2008, 04:05
The GPS target function is designed to work without being within visual range of your target area. You pick the area you want a GPS weapon to target (AGM-84H or AGM-154A), acquire the target, then launch the weapon. The GPS targeting is designed to be used against high-value targets in high-threat areas, so being able to launch a weapon outside of their threat range is a big plus.

I understand ArmA is primarily a ground-based simulation, and that&#39;s part of the reason why the F/A-18E/F has a huge variety of ground attack weaponry vs the 4 AAMs for air combat. Nonetheless, I do like the A-10, so there is a possibility for it.

Re the error - try this instead:

player switchmove "fz_f18_commander"

If that one works, then somehow the pilot animation must&#39;ve gotten corrupted. How is beyond me.

ConfuciusOFP
Mar 17 2008, 04:07
ill check it out, btw, if u did start work on the a10, msg me, i would be be willin to help out with anythin to do with it lol. i&#39;d just about marry it if ya made it. i just think it deserves better than what BI gave it, no offence to BI, the model is great but its way undergunned.

edit: the second command didnt work, same effect as the first. its all very odd cuz i didnt have the problem b4.

edit again: found and fixed the problem, was a conflict with the FFN conflict anim replacements, as soon as i removed it, there was no problems. just one thing, with the cbu 87 n the mk20, are they meant to look exactly the same? i thought that the cbu was green IRL, i could be wrong, but regardless, aside from in the arming view, theyre named the same. also, another thing ive found with certain weapons, the same weapons on different hardpoints are counted as different weapons, not a huge problem but just thought i&#39;d mention it.

ConfuciusOFP
Mar 17 2008, 04:12
my bad double post

Bingham67
Mar 17 2008, 04:39
Wow nice update Franze great work thanks. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif

Chip360
Mar 17 2008, 04:41
Thanx Franze for your reply, and for the weapons scripts,
I can let the Ai use them now : )

Franze
Mar 17 2008, 05:12
@<hidden>

No, I haven&#39;t started on it, but I am entertaining the possibility. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif

I don&#39;t understand how a animation mod could have a conflict with the custom animations I did. They should be insulated from external mods like that - unless there&#39;s something I don&#39;t know about animation classes.

The CBU-78 isn&#39;t the same as the CBU-87 - the CBU-78 uses the Mk20 dispenser to deliver mines, while the CBU-87 uses a different dispenser to deliver submunitions. The CBU-87, CBU-89, and CBU-97 all use the same 1000lb-class dispenser.

Some weapons are separate to reduce workload. I.e., there is no fz_f18_mk82hd_6 weapon - the fz_f18_mk82hd and fz_f18_mk82hd_4 are used instead. It has to do with lazyness on my part for an easier to script and code result. The weapon scripting system in use on the F/A-18E/F is somewhat outdated in that the new demonstrators I have model weapons on a per hardpoint basis for simplicity.

In effect, I plan all future systems to have weapons cycled through hardpoints; while this is more complex to play with, it is vastly easier to code and script in and reduce errors and workload in making sure all weapons are compatible. By having all the possibilities coded on a hardpoint, there becomes almost no limit to mixing and matching. Exceptional cases - such as four Mk84s in a symmetrical arrangement - would simply be coded as a separate weapon.

@<hidden> & Bingham67

Glad you&#39;re enjoying them&#33; http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

ConfuciusOFP
Mar 17 2008, 05:47
well as i said b4, whether its the fa18 or the a10 or any future aircraft, msg me anytime n ill help as best i can with whatever, altho im no mean scripter,modeller or texturer lol. as a tester i hope i can prove my worth. been waitin for a weapon system like this to come along for a loooooooooong time.

Big
Mar 17 2008, 06:32
Armaholic mirror updated:

- F/A-18E/F Super Hornet (http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=2885) (<12MB packed using 7zip, anyways u can also use winrar to extract it)

Rubberkite
Mar 17 2008, 10:04
Good Franze http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

every days the plane is best of the previous http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

I ask you if is possible to have a config selectable afterburner trust power, or if u can keep for who like the full powered one an alternate version.

I really like flylow in the mountain with afterburner 100%.

I understand that this could be hard to do, and there is no problem if u can&#39;t do this ( tuned version )

... I try to complete your MP mission but when Me and one friend join the objective destroy armour is done without destroy nothing just entering the mission.

I also ask you ( I see in the past thread a similiar question ) is possible to set the wings folder in the map placed plane with an int command?

When I&#39;m WSO how can I set the GPS target, I must open the game map with M and after point somewhere that I think is near enemy, and after the pilot what must do ?

I check again in readme if there is stored the targeting istruction, if not please write some line to explain it.

THANK YOU&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

mrcash2009
Mar 17 2008, 13:14
I get the same with FFN mod here to as like ConfuciusOFP.

Its odd like you say how that conflicts ... it maybe not your issue as its another mod, but any chance of seeing how you could get them to sit happy with one another? I love both of them, as I dont fly much FFN takes priority, but i really want this running too.

EricJ
Mar 17 2008, 13:45
I really like flylow in the mountain with afterburner 100%.

When I&#39;m WSO how can I set the GPS target, I must open the game map with M and after point somewhere that I think is near enemy, and after the pilot what must do ?
Unfortunately ArmA maps will never be as huge so...

Yes, you have to go in the Map and click a point.  It&#39;s alot more exciting doing it all by yourself http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif And then you fire it and it takes awhile for it to get there (glide bomb) so if you want a quick boom.... won&#39;t see it till later depending on the range you launch it from.

-HUNTER-
Mar 17 2008, 14:52
Right, Ive just read thrue the whole topic and nobody mentioned it I think. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/huh.gif But Ive had my canopy fly off while taxiing.

I was taxiing to the runway with the canopy open, and I wasnt going that fast, and the canopy flew off as if it had actually broken off. Did you implement that? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/crazy_o.gif

That was really cool, I slammed the brakes and sat there thinking did that just happen? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/rofl.gif http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/rofl.gif Then turned arround to get the other jet, with canopy firmly closed I tried again.

http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

Franze
Mar 17 2008, 15:31
@<hidden>

Most of my addons are for personal use but if I need another tester, I&#39;ll let you know. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

@<hidden>

Thanks for the mirror&#33;

@<hidden>

A selectable low rate/high rate afterburner would be possible but at the same time it might get a little complex. I&#39;ll look into it.

The MP mission may not work properly. I didn&#39;t have anybody to test it with when I made it, so it&#39;s possible I need to look into the triggers.

You can fold the wings by placing this in the init line:

Method one (servo sound) - insert this in aircraft&#39;s init field:
[this] exec "fz_f18&#92;aws&#92;foldwing.sqs"

Method two (silent) - insert this in aircraft&#39;s init field:
this animate ["l_wingfold",1]; this animate ["r_wingfold",1]

If you&#39;re as WSO and you select a GPS target, the pilot has to decide whether to engage it. If he knows it&#39;s there (may be some latency before he sees it), then all he has to do is acquire it with the correct weapon and fire.

@<hidden>

Part of the problem is I don&#39;t know why there&#39;s a conflict. There shouldn&#39;t be - it would appear the animations are being deleted or ignored for some reason. If it were a conflicting name, I don&#39;t think the animation would be the standing-weapon pose (which you can get if you try to animate someone with a non-existing animation). I&#39;ll look into it but I don&#39;t know if it&#39;s something I have to do or FFN has to do.

@<hidden>

The canopy breaks off when your speed exceeds 30kts. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

Agent13
Mar 17 2008, 15:41
Hi Franze,

Long time observer on these forums, but first time poster.

Like the F-18 a lot and have a couple of questions

Are you considering making the F-18G "Growler" with jamming pods, etc.

Secondly I&#39;ve had a look through the other posts and have not seen this mentioned. The Arming GUI is great, but is there anyway to disable it in flight. As I have found that you can rearm in mid-air, I don&#39;t know if anyone else has come across this or it maybe just a problem of running on my system.

Agent13

Franze
Mar 17 2008, 15:52
@<hidden>

F/A-18G - no, because there&#39;s not much to be done with a jamming aircraft. However, the possibility is open for the future.

Sometimes the Arming GUI action isn&#39;t removed - i.e., if you get in the aircraft when within the action radius, then get out, it won&#39;t remove the action from the airplane (unless a trigger or switch is set up to remove the action in question). I need to make a more complex trigger setup so that the actions can be properly removed from the aircraft.

@<hidden>

I get the same animation problem with some of my other addons with custom crew animations. It may have something to do with how I inherit from the base crew class. I&#39;ll let you know how it goes.

Drake Starkiller
Mar 17 2008, 16:02
Quick Question, are there any plans to make also a Marine Corps version?

mrcash2009
Mar 17 2008, 16:28
@<hidden>

Ok mate, I did post in the FFN mod thread about this as they found a fix/workaround for a similar HUEY problem .. might want to check it out and see how they fixed that as it bears a similar resemblance to the odd anim position issue with your addon too.

Franze
Mar 17 2008, 16:38
@<hidden>

It looks like what the FFN mod does is replace the base CfgMoves classes. So in effect, with the FFN mod installed along with the F-18, the animations are inheriting from a non-existing class.

EDIT: Yes, that was it. I tested a different animation inherit and sure enough, that worked. I&#39;ll see if I can make a quick fix for it.

EDIT2: Ok, here we go - F/A-18E/F Animation fix for use with FFN Mod (http://www.mechmodels.com/mas/downloads/fz_f18_ffnfix.rar)

A simple fix that changes the base class from which the custom animations inherit from. Don&#39;t use it unless you have FFN animation mod installed.

@<hidden> Starkiller

The Marines only use the legacy Hornets, so no. Sorry. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/sad_o.gif

Rubberkite
Mar 17 2008, 16:59
Thank you Franze http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

For me is enought if when you relase the final version, if is possible, to relase a version, or just a config.cpp line to comment/uncomment that allow more power to the afterburner.
*

This plane for me is the point to reference for future creation I tell this in the past and I will belive in the future.

*

If u need testing you mission in dedicated server, we got one for lanparty and we can test mission or other stuff if u want.

send me what u need to test and I give feedback to you.

use this : rubberkite@<hidden>

william1
Mar 17 2008, 17:02
thanks Franze , i was going to prepare a fix for that issue with FFN but yyou save me the work , i will put the link to the fix in the FFN thread http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

havocsquad
Mar 17 2008, 17:13
Won&#39;t the Super Hornet be a USN only aircraft since from that last time I heard the USMC was going to an all F/A-35 force. Most of which would be the F/A-35B for Amphibious Operations off of LHD&#39;s. However, a few USMC F/A-35 squadrons might be based on Carriers as a B or maybe C variant.

The USN would have a mix of the Super Hornet and F/A-35C&#39;s.

wika_woo
Mar 17 2008, 17:14
Sweet stuff, can&#39;t wait to fly it around.

http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/notworthy.gif

Rubberkite
Mar 17 2008, 17:15
there are in future plan, tracer for the gun ?

or is possible to use six tracer or other stuff ?

Franze
Mar 17 2008, 17:33
@<hidden>

Do you want more power in the afterburner or less? I&#39;m a little mixed up here... I was thinking of scripting a function to toggle between a high power setting for the afterburner and a low power setting, selectable in-flight.

It&#39;s been tested a few times in a dedicated server so it should work fine - with a few errors of course.

The gun derives from the base M197 class, and the ammo from the B_20mm_AA class. I don&#39;t use custom tracer colors so maybe it will work with tracer mods - I haven&#39;t tried any.

@<hidden>

No problem, a simple fix. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

@<hidden>

Yes, I think that&#39;s the USMC&#39;s plan. As for the Super Hornet being a USN-only aircraft, I think that hinges on whether or not the RAAF is still going through with their order. I also read that the USN might be buying some more Super Hornets in case the F-35 hits more delays.

Regardless, I think the USMC is committed to the F-35 right now.

Rubberkite
Mar 17 2008, 17:52
I read this to your last 0.20 version:

- Afterburner acceleration reduced.

so I ask if it&#39;s possible for who ( Like me) prefer the boost from the afterburner, to use the old style power on your last work.

by a config line or other way u found,

... we play on Lan in 4 or 6 player and really if u need something to test we will do it for you with pleasure http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

for tracer now I try to set six tracert placing the lines in the config

Sgt_Eversmann
Mar 17 2008, 18:11
Isn&#39;t it possible to bind scripts to keys?
so by pressing E you eject.
pressing U Afterburner is activated?
that would be nice http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

think the Afterburner acceleration in 0.15 was abit uber. gotta test later how it is now http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

MattXR
Mar 17 2008, 18:31
Afterburner seems perfect now, in this version.. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

Also like all the fixes great job.

Franze
Mar 17 2008, 19:07
@<hidden>

Acceleration is reduced, but maximum speed is only partially reduced. You can still make some 750kts with a clean airframe.

@<hidden>

Yeah, I forgot that actions could be bound to specific functions. I don&#39;t know if the same is true for useractions in the config though.

ricnunes
Mar 17 2008, 19:18
i&#39;ve made simple search in google and found this guys arguing about the same theme - which plane is most maneuverable -

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread292441/pg1

U can find different ideas and meanings but there wasn&#39;t f18 even close http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif
Don&#39;t get me wrong, but I don&#39;t find a discussion between a few guys on the Internet a "credible way" to search information or to backup claims about aircraft (or other stuff). Honestly, I prefer to read more "professional" articles such as found on military aircraft magazines such as "AirforcesMonthly" or "Combat Aircraft" or publications such as "Janes".
I also find really odd that those guys discuss which aircraft is more manouverable mentioning the F-16 and F-15 and leaving out the F/A-18 when the later is more manouverable/agile in terms of horizontal manouvers than the later ones. Of course if you go to vertical manouvering the F-15 and F-16 (as well as the Mig-29 and Su-27) should have an advantage over the F/A-18 but nevertheless they seems to center their discussion about more on horizontal manouvering than vertical manouvering.
Don&#39;t be fooled, the F/A-18 in terms of horizontal manouvering in a threat the be recon with and from what I read (again in other publications and also real pilot claims) seems to point out the F/A-18 is one of the best fighters in terms of horizontal manouvering, perhaps the best if we exclude fighters equiped with TVC (thrust vectoring control) engines such as the F-22 or the SU-30MKI, which by the way is what those guys seem to center in with their discussion.

Mandoble
Mar 17 2008, 19:27
Got some time to test fz_f18f_aws_kb with fz_f18_mk84 bombs and mando air support console. The accuracy is 100% (bombs spawned at model coords [5, 0, -3] and [-5, 0, -3]). Perhaps too accurate for the lethal area of the bombs (a single hit destroys 3 tanks in an area of 100m radius with direct hit over a single one).

But, for some reason, some times after spawning the plane, setting up its vectorDir, vectorUp and velocity vector, everything aligned with the target, the plane tends to turn right or left, missing the alignement before reaching the automatic guidance range (where the script takes full control of the plane). Is there something "pushing" the plane in some direction once plane is spawned in the air or modifying its vectors or direction?

Edit: init.sqf used for the test.
<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">
mando_support_left_WEST = 8;
mando_airsupport_type = &#34;fz_f18f_aws_kb&#34;;
mando_airsupport_range = 3500;
mando_airsupport_bomb_alt = 150;
mando_airsupport_bomb_type = &#34;fz_f18_mk84&#34;;

player addAction &#91;&#34;Air Support console&#34;, &#34;mando_airsupportdlg.sqf&#34;&#93;;
[/QUOTE]

Franze
Mar 17 2008, 19:37
@<hidden>

Thanks for kicking me in the butt, I&#39;m now adding shortcuts to my custom actions to keys. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif

@<hidden>

I think we have to remember that maneuverability is relative. I don&#39;t think the Super Hornet is the most maneuverable aircraft in the world, but I think within certain limits it can hold it&#39;s own against contemporary aircraft.

EDIT

@<hidden>

No, there shouldn&#39;t be anything active that adjust velocity. Velocity changes only occur when the burners are on or the engines have taken damage.

ricnunes
Mar 17 2008, 19:53
@<hidden>

That makes more sense, I get it now. On the other hand, seldom do these aircraft deploy with maximum payloads, so perhaps it&#39;s a moot point. I&#39;m thinking of the F-15E, it can stuff some 50,000lbs of fuel and weaponry onto it&#39;s airframe, yet it rarely loads that maximum. There might also be some carrier-based limitations on the Super Hornet&#39;s maximum load as well.
Yes, you are correct at 100%. A discussion about "maximum payload weight" is definitly more about an academical scenario than a realistic one since NO fighter aircraft ever (or rarelly ever) carries a maximum payload of weapons for a vast number of reasons such as:
- Limits the manouverability/agility of the aircraft
- Limits the range of the aircraft
- A maximum payload weight is rarelly reached because an aircraft have a limited number of pylons and the pylons have a limited weight and number of weapons capability.
- etc...

Sgt_Eversmann
Mar 17 2008, 19:57
@<hidden>

Thanks for kicking me in the butt, I&#39;m now adding shortcuts to my custom actions to keys. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif
no problem mate http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/thumbs-up.gif

ok tested it http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
Flies much better than last time, the afterburner is better too&#33;
Just a thing: When I put thrust to 100% the acceleration is abit low and the maximum speed I can reach without afterburner is about 300 or so...maybe you can tweak this so that the plane goes around 500, better acceleration and so on, think the overall flight behaviour is better then because you fly with more speed...atm it feels abit like you have just one engine that gives you the thrust&#33;

Beside that, I quite like the F/A-18, nice work so far&#33;

Davey
Mar 17 2008, 20:03
Lo Franze ,i got first personview,instead of cockpit view in your latest version (beta0.2). versions b fore idont have that prob. sry dont know how 2 make a screen.Pilot is on top of the cockpit . Dave

Davey
Mar 17 2008, 20:26
Whit animation fix FFNmod its ok now http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

EricJ
Mar 17 2008, 20:34
@<hidden>

Do

Yes, I think that&#39;s the USMC&#39;s plan. As for the Super Hornet being a USN-only aircraft, I think that hinges on whether or not the RAAF is still going through with their order. I also read that the USN might be buying some more Super Hornets in case the F-35 hits more delays.

Regardless, I think the USMC is committed to the F-35 right now.

Quote[/b] ]The Joint Strike Fighter program is facing &#036;38 billion in cost overruns and could be delayed by more than two years, according to a government report urging defense planners to re-evaluate the program.

The delays could affect the Navy’s schedule for the carrier variant of the plane. The service is already facing a fighter-jet gap with F/A-18 Hornets projected to die out before they’re replaced by the JSF. Service officials say they plan on buying more F/A-18 E/F Super Hornets to bridge the gap.

The almost &#036;1 trillion program — the largest in defense history — has already ballooned more than &#036;23 billion during the past year of development because of changes in procurement costs, according to the Government Accountability Office’s March 11 report.

Additionally, three separate defense offices found that initial cost estimates for the program were understated by &#036;38 billion and that development will be delayed by 12 months to as much as 27 months, the GAO said.

It’s a red flag warranting an independent, life-cycle cost-estimate review of the entire program, the GAO said. Such a review should come before a review already planned for 2013.
Shift from testing could create problems

Last year, program managers put into place a Mid-Course Risk Reduction Plan, since they feared almost-certain cost overruns in the plane’s development phase. That plan shifted money away from testing and toward management reserves, which cover expenses related to technical issues that can emerge in development — engineering drawings, production materials and labor, for example. But the decision to put that plan into place came with a consequence, the GAO said.

Moving the money increased the risk of not completing testing on time, and not finding design problems early enough to prevent them from becoming costly, the report states. Furthermore, the report says the plan did not take up the issue of why the cost overruns were occurring in the first place.

“Two-thirds of budgeted funding for JSF development has been spent, but only about one-half of the work has been completed,” the GAO reported.

Concerns such as these in early government assessments could spell trouble for the services counting on the aircraft in the long term, said Bob Work, a defense analyst for the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.

The JSF program’s reach across the services is wide. The fighter’s F-35A version, which will perform conventional takeoffs and landings, and the F-35C carrier variant are favored by the Air Force and Navy, respectively. The Marine Corps wants the F-35B short- takeoff/vertical-landing variant.

The Navy Department plans to buy 680 F-35s, which covers both Navy and Marine versions. The first operational Marine version is scheduled to join the fleet in 2012, and the first aircraft carrier version in 2015, Lockheed Martin spokesman John Smith said.

Smith said he didn’t have a Navy/Marine breakdown of the total 680 number, but Marine Maj. Eric Dent said the Corps plans to buy 420 aircraft.
Delay may be disaster for Corps

Delays with JSF delivery will exacerbate the problem of aging aircraft, Work said.

“How the JSF goes will really have an impact on all the services’ plans,” he said.

Furthermore, significant delays could threaten the Corps’ STOVL version, already under the gun because of disagreements among Navy and Marine leaders as to how it should be incorporated into the fleet, Work said.

“The Marine Corps has pretty much bet the farm on JSF,” Work said.

The magnitude of the JSF program prompted a congressional mandate that the GAO review its progress incrementally. The attention could be just beginning.

“Any hint of an overrun is just going to raise the level of scrutiny and interest,” Work said.

Despite the findings in the GAO audit — one of about a dozen assessments the program undergoes each year — the JSF program remains on target, countered a project spokesman.

Even if the total cost for the F-35 over its planned 35-year service life does adds up to &#036;1 trillion, as the GAO report indicates, that’s still less than the total cost for operating all the varieties of aircraft it’s replacing, Smith said.

The F-35 Joint Program Office prepares an annual Selected Acquisition Report, which estimates the procurement cost, Smith said in an e-mail. The next report will be issued “in the near future,” he said.

“The bottom line is — and I’m not being flip about it — we have to take a step back and, if you remember our job is to produce all these things we described and do it in a responsible manner, this is one of the most cost-effective programs out there.”

So yeah man, there are some issues with the JSF...

the_shadow
Mar 17 2008, 21:57
i dont know if this might be a addon conflict bug or if it´s related to the addon itself.
but the pilot of the planes are standing on top of the cockpit glass :P

looks quite wierd.
other than that the keyboard version works quite good with AI..

and i´d like if there was a way to add invisible targets in the mission editor for the planes to attack..
targets that would be destroyed after 1 or 2 hits (depending on weapon fired)

Sgt_Eversmann
Mar 17 2008, 22:00
i dont know if this might be a addon conflict bug or if it´s related to the addon itself.
but the pilot of the planes are standing on top of the cockpit glass :P

looks quite wierd.
other than that the keyboard version works quite good with AI..

and i´d like if there was a way to add invisible targets in the mission editor for the planes to attack..
targets that would be destroyed after 1 or 2 hits (depending on weapon fired)
thats a bug with some replacement pack or so...FFN or how it&#39;s called. read back some posts and you will find a anwser to your problem http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif

Erm, download Map_misc, they have invisible targets&#33;

Franze
Mar 17 2008, 23:05
@<hidden>

I don&#39;t know how much more thrust and speed I can give it without afterburner - I think it&#39;d take some geo lod modifications again but I&#39;m not exactly sure how it works with aircraft. RockofSL probably knows but I haven&#39;t spent that much time playing around with geo lod (pain in the butt&#33http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif.

@<hidden>

I have these functions bound to my actions:

Afterburner - VehicleTurbo
Gear Up/Down - Same
Drop tanks - Binoculars
Eject - Ejection Seat

Any objections to those assignments and/or ideas for other assignments?

Also, one other thing: For pre-selected loadouts, which weapons do you all prefer for the following profiles:

CAS
CAP
Strike
Anti-Tank

Yuka
Mar 18 2008, 00:08
I get an error/warning when I load a mission that I added this add-on into... but only when running on a dedicated server:

&#39;_wep6 = _deadcarg &#124;#&#124;select 5&#39;
Error Zero divisor[QUOTE]

Franze
Mar 18 2008, 00:17
@<hidden>

"In order to make the aircraft work properly on a dedicated server, you will have to have one BLUFOR soldier (preferrably
a fz_f18_weps unit preloaded) named as "fz_weaponcmd". This is necessary for the weapon proxies to work."

Sometimes that error shows up in other instances but it can be ignored (script moving faster than the game, etc). On a dedicated server if you get that error constantly, you&#39;re probably missing the above unit.

Yuka
Mar 18 2008, 00:32
Thanks&#33; I tried to be a good boy and read the instructions that came with the add-on... and I did read it, I just didn&#39;t remember that part&#33;

Renegade Commando
Mar 18 2008, 01:28
How about making it possible to ditch the aircraft into the sea, i.e. making an emergency landing on water and stay afloat long enough for you to get into the life raft?

Oh, and the pitch ladder is supposed to be aligned with the horizon, right now it turns the opposite direction of what it&#39;s supposed to.

Franze
Mar 18 2008, 01:43
@<hidden> Commando

Fixed HUD horizon. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

Emergency float... Dunno. Better to eject most of the time and if you impact the water at almost any speed you&#39;re automatically dead. I don&#39;t know how far I&#39;m willing to go to change that.

Hunin
Mar 18 2008, 02:10
For the preset loadouts it depends on how realistic you want to have it.
The most realistic choices are not the best gameplay choices.
For example the real Hornets almost always fly with droptanks.
Sahrani is not large enough to justify droptanks ( other then having more AB time that is http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/yay.gif ).

I&#39;d like it to be as realistic as possible nonetheless and that why my list looks like this:

CAP
Amraam*4, Aim-9*2, Fuel*3

CAS/Multypurpose
AGM-65E*2, Mk-20*4, Aim-120*2, Aim-9*2, Fuel*3

CAS/AntiArmor
AGM-65E*4, Mk-83*4, Aim-120*2, Aim-9*2, Fuel*1

Strike/Interdiction
GBU-10*2, GBU-16*2, Aim-9*2, Fuel*1
or Mk-84*2, Mk-83*2, Aim-9*2, Fuel*1

GeneralCarver
Mar 18 2008, 02:17
Alright, I tried using this in multiplayer and we got some really crazy syncronozation problems.

We tried combining the F18s into Domination.  Players were moving and interacting in the game and it was not being syncronized between everyone (you would move, but others would not see it).  Once the F18s were destroyed, all was fine.  Very strange.  

This occured on a dedicated server.  We never had this before, so its not our server.  I&#39;m not going into details.  I&#39;m experienced in scripting, addon installing/use and I know we were using the addons correctly, we had access to the loading menus for weapons and everything.

All I want to know is if anyone else has experienced this in multiplayer and also to let the developer know this might be a problem.

Franze
Mar 18 2008, 03:00
@<hidden>

Yes, that&#39;s exactly the problem. We don&#39;t really have any load limits, so we can pretty much take the max we want at all times. Thanks for the input. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

@<hidden>

Try two variables in global space:

This one first, disables looping scripts unless the aircraft is local -
fz_f18_aicheck = 1

If that doesn&#39;t work, this one kills all scripts -
fz_f18_noscripts = 1

If either of those do anything, it will help me pinpoint the issue.

layne_suhr
Mar 18 2008, 05:15
The engine and Gun sounds are too low, you can only just hear them, and i can hear them normal at full volume&#33;&#33;&#33; :hm:Using 1.09b

ANZACSAS Steve
Mar 18 2008, 07:31
Hi m8,

Good work with the f18.
I too wish it was a bit faster without AB.

I am not sure if everyone knows but 1.09 beta patch "broke" the inside sound coeffiecient parameter but i think its the sound occlusion parameter,which will annoy everyone using any vehicles in 1.09.

Sgt_Eversmann
Mar 18 2008, 08:10
@<hidden>

I don&#39;t know how much more thrust and speed I can give it without afterburner - I think it&#39;d take some geo lod modifications again but I&#39;m not exactly sure how it works with aircraft. RockofSL probably knows but I haven&#39;t spent that much time playing around with geo lod (pain in the butt&#33http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif.

@<hidden>

I have these functions bound to my actions:

Afterburner - VehicleTurbo
Gear Up/Down - Same
Drop tanks - Binoculars
Eject - Ejection Seat

Any objections to those assignments and/or ideas for other assignments?

Also, one other thing: For pre-selected loadouts, which weapons do you all prefer for the following profiles:

CAS
CAP
Strike
Anti-Tank
I tested Footmuch F-16 yesterday too, and I have to say it handles better and even without afterburner you can get to a speed about 600 or more on 100% thrust, also acceleration is good.
Give RockofSL the Model, just let him do what he thinks is best and then compare his result with yours and decide which one is better http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif (Just an idea, don&#39;t want to tell you how to do things http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif )

@<hidden>:
SEAD (Harm + MK20s)

Yuka
Mar 18 2008, 11:57
A little bit more thrust without AB would be nice. I found I had to take gentle turns to avoid bleeding off too much energy. If I had to make evasive manuevers, I felt like I was falling out of the sky and the stick got heavy.

I&#39;m not sure if what it is set to now is realistic... but if it is... kudo&#39;s to the real deal F/A-18 pilots.

ricnunes
Mar 18 2008, 13:30
Ok, I tested the version 0.2&#33; Awesome work there, this version definitly feels much better than previous ones (which were already great) specially in terms of Pitch sensitivity, Stall Speed, reduced afterburner aceleration, etc...
Thanks very much Franze. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif

But I also agree with was said before, the aceleration without afterburner seems too slow and it definitly need improvement (I think that I&#39;ve already sugested this before).

Inkompetent
Mar 18 2008, 14:06
A little bit more thrust without AB would be nice. I found I had to take gentle turns to avoid bleeding off too much energy. If I had to make evasive manuevers, I felt like I was falling out of the sky and the stick got heavy.

I&#39;m not sure if what it is set to now is realistic... but if it is... kudo&#39;s to the real deal F/A-18 pilots.
The amount of speed the aicraft bleeds isn&#39;t the F/A-18&#39;s fault. It&#39;s the flight model in ArmA that bleeds ridiculously much speed at high-G turns (and which allows ridiculously high Gs in turns, since no sane pilot would go over 9-10 Gs, and for example the F-16 can&#39;t even turn more than 9G. The flight computer makes it impossible).

However the flight model is getting improvements in the next patch. Hopefully including weaker turn rates and less speed-bleeding.

Yuka
Mar 18 2008, 14:17
However the flight model is getting improvements in the next patch. Hopefully including weaker turn rates and less speed-bleeding.
And fixed rudder&#33; Hopefully&#33;

Inkompetent
Mar 18 2008, 15:12
Yep. Fixed rudder is on the list, so finally it should be possible to gun-strafe with the A-10 with some sort of accuracy.

the_shadow
Mar 18 2008, 16:30
i dont know if this might be a addon conflict bug or if it´s related to the addon itself.
but the pilot of the planes are standing on top of the cockpit glass :P

looks quite wierd.
other than that the keyboard version works quite good with AI..

and i´d like if there was a way to add invisible targets in the mission editor for the planes to attack..
targets that would be destroyed after 1 or 2 hits (depending on weapon fired)
thats a bug with some replacement pack or so...FFN or how it&#39;s called. read back some posts and you will find a anwser to your problem http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif

Erm, download Map_misc, they have invisible targets&#33;
ok, thanks...

btw, i use map_misc but i dont get AI to attack the targets.

Franze
Mar 18 2008, 18:11
@<hidden>, Yuka, & ricnunes

Footmunch&#39;s F-16 is a different can of worms, honestly. Essentially, my aircraft is treated as a fixed-gear aircraft, so the game thinks it&#39;s more draggy than it really is. This unfortunately means that the aircraft is slower and bleeds speed faster in turns. The benefit is you won&#39;t explode if you land without putting your gear down and the aircraft will be able to operate from carriers. Considering that the F/A-18E/F are pretty draggy in real life too, I think it&#39;s a fair compromise.

I&#39;d like to squeeze more acceleration out of it without afterburner but that&#39;s a little bit out of my hands. I&#39;m unwilling to lose the carrier compatibility and "ditch" capability.

I think we all have to admit that the fixed wing physics engine in ArmA does need some work, too.

the_shadow
Mar 18 2008, 18:26
i was thinking.. the AGM-154, shouldnt that work as a slow missile? i noticed AI used it as a bomb... dropped it like 300m away from the target..

and btw, it´s GPS guided right? so it would need the gpstarget array?

i have some difficulties figuring out how that works exactly...
could you explain it?

Yuka
Mar 18 2008, 18:55
Yep. Fixed rudder is on the list, so finally it should be possible to gun-strafe with the A-10 with some sort of accuracy.
Is there an official list? I haven&#39;t seen it.

Searching now....

Franze
Mar 18 2008, 19:04
@<hidden>

AI won&#39;t use the special weapons (AGM-154A, AGM-84D/H) properly. They&#39;ll treat them as standard weapons and use them as such. Guidance is purely manual - someone on the aircraft has to use the GPS target function and click the map area for the target.

I did find out a possible workaround for the human/AI in F/A-18F though: if the AI is the commander of the group and is also the pilot, the plane won&#39;t get &#39;stuck&#39; and you can command him to use weapons and vice versa.

Rubberkite
Mar 18 2008, 19:24
Hi Franze I&#39;ve added the following code to enable six tracer
( off course they are already installed )

but this dosen&#39;t work?

This solution works for some other addons but not here, do you have some info for me to solve this and enable tracer ?



<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">
class fz_f18_m61 &#58; B_20mm_AA {
hit = 50;
indirectHit = 3;
indirectHitRange = 0.5;
thrust = 510;
explosive = 0;
minRange = 100;
minRangeProbab = 0.4;
midRange = 500;
midRangeProbab = 0.9;
maxRange = 1500;
maxRangeProbab = 0.8;
cost = 10;
airlock = 1;
laserLock = 0;
irLock = 1;
SIX_tracerEnable = 1;
SIX_tracerColor = &#34;R&#34;;
SIX_tracerPer = 6;
SIX_tracerSize = &#34;Medium&#34;;
SIX_tracerLife = 1.445;
};[/QUOTE] http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/rofl.gif

ArmaVidz
Mar 18 2008, 19:44
I wanted to get some air-to-air going on so I switched the F-18&#39;s to the opfor side in the config and went at them with the F-16&#39;s.

One thing is painfully evident: If we don&#39;t get the chaff system on other jets, one missile and those without the evasion systems go down. Great plane to fly against, the Ai use the evasion systems well.

Question: Do you know the areas around the instruments in the cockpit seem to be semi transparent? (You can see right through the plane).

Great work Franze, thanks for putting this out there.

the_shadow
Mar 18 2008, 20:21
@<hidden>

AI won&#39;t use the special weapons (AGM-154A, AGM-84D/H) properly. They&#39;ll treat them as standard weapons and use them as such. Guidance is purely manual - someone on the aircraft has to use the GPS target function and click the map area for the target.

I did find out a possible workaround for the human/AI in F/A-18F though: if the AI is the commander of the group and is also the pilot, the plane won&#39;t get &#39;stuck&#39; and you can command him to use weapons and vice versa.
would it be possible to add some kind of script system to mark the targets for AI when making the mission in the editor?
or make it possible for a soldier on the ground (FAC) to "send" the target´s gps coordinates to the planes?

sort of like an artillery script but with the special weapons on the F18..
then we could also make JDAM´s http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif

MattXR
Mar 18 2008, 20:47
Yeah these jets are awesome http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/notworthy.gif

Sgt_Eversmann
Mar 18 2008, 22:08
@<hidden>, Yuka, & ricnunes

Footmunch&#39;s F-16 is a different can of worms, honestly. Essentially, my aircraft is treated as a fixed-gear aircraft, so the game thinks it&#39;s more draggy than it really is. This unfortunately means that the aircraft is slower and bleeds speed faster in turns. The benefit is you won&#39;t explode if you land without putting your gear down and the aircraft will be able to operate from carriers. Considering that the F/A-18E/F are pretty draggy in real life too, I think it&#39;s a fair compromise.

I&#39;d like to squeeze more acceleration out of it without afterburner but that&#39;s a little bit out of my hands. I&#39;m unwilling to lose the carrier compatibility and "ditch" capability.

I think we all have to admit that the fixed wing physics engine in ArmA does need some work, too.
ok no problem Franze.
If that&#39;s the way it works on Carriers its ok, better that way then http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

NoRailgunner
Mar 18 2008, 22:19
Those fuel MFD shows only internal fuel - would be "nice to have" that externals tanks get+show "empty" first if they in use.

Now Bluefor (US) have air superiorty till OPFOR activate some missile scripts from Mandoble. (Hopefully someday there will be little countermeasures for all ArmA military air vehicles on all sides as replacement&#33; )

Mandoble
Mar 18 2008, 23:34
Now Bluefor (US) have air superiorty.
<span style='color:blue'>Really ?</span> (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMSyMPqDi7U&feature=user)

OPFOR is in fact far from being even matched with near 20Km away air-air interceptions, anti-radar, cruise missiles, RWR able to track up to four incoming missiles, chaff/flares, plane guidance from gunner weapon consoles ... Ask Deanos http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge2.gif

Kaio23
Mar 18 2008, 23:57
Just thought I&#39;d pop in since me and Franze have been talking for awhile.

http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/685/nimitzatseagj5.jpg

I am currently working with some people on getting a working Nimitz port into ArmA, and the Hornet works superbly with it. Was very nice to see this ship out at sea with Franz&#39;s birds on it http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4VJETXfCK4

A video of the F/A-18 landing on the Nimitz, version 0.15. The rocking back and forth was fixed in 0.2 once the center of gravity was changed, so just ignore that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGapZZ5WYLw

Landing with version 0.2.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHnnZDcK2Ys

Taking off

http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/notworthy.gif to Franz for a great add on.

wld427
Mar 19 2008, 00:07
Franze i am using the KB version on my server and it gives me an error.

"wep6 = = _deadcarg &#124;#&#124;Select5
error zero divisor"

and the weapons do not show on the wings.The AIM-9s are on the wingtips and Aim 120s on side of fuselage....but
any idea what i might have screwed up to make this happen?

I copied and pasted straight from your example mission.

Rubberkite
Mar 19 2008, 00:19
wep6 = = _deadcarg &#124;#&#124;Select5
error zero divisor"

Same as mine tested tonight

pls some one help me with tracer enabling

thank you.

Franze
Mar 19 2008, 03:32
@<hidden> & wld427

I&#39;d have to download SIX tracers but I haven&#39;t done that and I can&#39;t promise that I will for a couple days.

The error message is due to not having a BLUFOR unit named "fz_weaponcmd" on the map. It isn&#39;t required for single player but multiplayer dedicated servers will require it.

@<hidden>

Corrected that bug by reconverting textures with TexView2. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

@<hidden>

The external tanks are indicated just below the internal fuel gauge. You don&#39;t draw off of the external fuel - you draw off of internal and then replenish internal by dropping tanks.

@<hidden>

Sweet... You can engage from a greater distance than the average size of most maps. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

Fortunately the F/A-18E/F have JSOW and AGM-84H on their side&#33;

@<hidden>

Hope to have an update again soon - expanded the arming GUI, various bug fixes and other tweaking.

havocsquad
Mar 19 2008, 06:00
The version with the "keyboard" handling, that was a much better representation than the standard AWS version.  I  could pull expected high G manuvers with good turning rate and get the expected amount of resistance.  It seems those who want to turn on a dime using the standard "loose" version are going to pay a steep penalty in airspeed.

Baron von Beer
Mar 19 2008, 06:12
I could be mistaken, but believe the event handlers will block the tracers. (Xeh use needed). This is the case with Mapfact aircraft.

Franze
Mar 19 2008, 06:52
@<hidden>

That&#39;s sort of the point - only pull back when you need it, not when you want to. If you&#39;re flying along in the KB version and you need to make a quick, instantaneous pullout, chances are you&#39;ll go right into the dirt.

That said, I&#39;m implementing a G-force script on the aircraft right now that should help to prevent too much abuse with the stick. Pull over 7.5Gs for too long and risk damage&#33;

@<hidden> von Beer

I&#39;d need to call some additional eventhandlers then?

Mandoble
Mar 19 2008, 06:55
Not sure if it has been pointed out before, but having the back seat as commander instead of gunner might be an issue. Does the commander send attack/engange orders to the driver of his vehicle? Did some tests and it seems there is an "authority" problem within the plane. Is there any known advantage with driver+commander combo for air units instead of the "standard" driver + gunner?

Franze
Mar 19 2008, 07:08
@<hidden>

The only advantage is the pilot in multiplayer games gets control of the weapons regardless of who&#39;s in the back seat. If the WSO were the gunner, then when a human gets into the back seat the pilot loses weapon control. This is kind of a pain in the butt because the pilot directly controls where the weaponry goes, unlike a helicopter where the gunner generally controls the direction.

I tried several methods, such as making the gunner not the primary or giving the pilot all the weapons, but these had some nagging side effects such as the weaponry not showing or the gunner dying for no reason. I decided the WSO position was primarily for multiplayer anyways, so put fixing AI issues with it at the bottom of the list.

As I said a page ago, for some reason, if the group commander is in the pilot&#39;s seat, they don&#39;t seem to have issues with it.

Mandoble
Mar 19 2008, 07:15
Cannot you add a "Manual Fire" action for the pilot where he gets control of the weapons?

Franze
Mar 19 2008, 07:59
Last I checked, not with a human gunner. The moment a human gets into the gunner seat, pilot can&#39;t take manual control of weapons until he gets out.

MattXR
Mar 19 2008, 13:44
Last I checked, not with a human gunner. The moment a human gets into the gunner seat, pilot can&#39;t take manual control of weapons until he gets out.
Not if the pilot gets in first and takes manual control then if the gunner gets in his controls don&#39;t work properly and pilot still has control.

i think.

havocsquad
Mar 19 2008, 13:44
@<hidden>

That&#39;s sort of the point - only pull back when you need it, not when you want to. If you&#39;re flying along in the KB version and you need to make a quick, instantaneous pullout, chances are you&#39;ll go right into the dirt.

That said, I&#39;m implementing a G-force script on the aircraft right now that should help to prevent too much abuse with the stick. Pull over 7.5Gs for too long and risk damage&#33;

@<hidden> von Beer

I&#39;d need to call some additional eventhandlers then?


Strange, I never have those problems when I fly with the (KB) version.  For me it does quite well anytime I needed to pull out of a bad situation.  Maybe 5 to 10% more elevator coefficient needed, but its reasonably close.  Then again though, not very many people have over 1,100 flight hours in modern combat sims.

-HUNTER-
Mar 19 2008, 15:30
The upgraded flight characteristics are an definate improvement over the 0.15 ones. Very nice you changed that a bit. Its a little bit less nervous.

However there still is some strange behaviour with sharp turns and then climbing. Moving quickly over three axis...

But its getting there for sure&#33;


Could you provide my allittle information about the AGM84 because Ive not figured out why it doenst arrive at the target many times. What is the max distance you put into the config, and what is the best suggested release speed and altitude?

The AGM154 is F...... awesome really I think that is awesome having a stand off distance near to 8000.

Can that weapon also be armed with another warhead in RL??? Because I dont allways need the bomblets crapping the whole area. But just a solid hit direct on target with the stand off distance. Havent got anything else that will fly that far.

Also the 2000lb weapons are nice to really drop the bomb.

Very cool addon, cant wait for the next upgrade.

http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/xmas_o.gif

edit

I had my canopy fly off when I was taxiing. I wanted to do the "cool" taxi to the runway, and close canopy there. And I didnt even taxi that fast but the canopy flew of. As if it had broken of its hinges due to the wind. Did you actually implement that? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/crazy_o.gif Or is it uber coincidence..? At the time I was like http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wow_o.gif Did that just happen. And I sat there for a bit, and turned arround to get the other jet. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif

Blue_Flight
Mar 19 2008, 16:01
Franze, my compliment for your hard work, but especially for your positive reactions about bug reports and that you will support the addon further.

Could you please think of an audio warn signal for enemy radar or missile tracking in the next version?
Actually if a missile is fired at you, there is the text message on the screen and the chaffs and flares fired, but you hear no acoustic warn signal..i´m pretty sure the real F/A-18 E/F has this feature http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif

NoRailgunner
Mar 19 2008, 17:48
Quote[/b] ]Any objections to those assignments and/or ideas for other assignments?
Recon Super Hornet - with multi-function reconnaissance pod (SHARP).
Now the situation is BLUFOR has air superiorty - it&#39;s a must have to equip Shilkas manually with Mando Missiles (fake Tunguska).

nastros
Mar 19 2008, 19:43
Quote[/b] ]Any objections to those assignments and/or ideas for other assignments?
Recon Super Hornet - with multi-function reconnaissance pod (SHARP).
Now the situation is BLUFOR has air superiorty - it&#39;s a must have to equip Shilkas manually with Mando Missiles (fake Tunguska).
agreed this bird is very hard to take down the only thing ive found to work against it is another f 18 and even then its hard cos of its countermeasures. It is by far the best thing to hit arma so far and has really improved the airsupport available all we need now is a carrier to launch them from and to test the tail hook http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

Mandoble
Mar 19 2008, 20:01
Now the situation is BLUFOR has air superiorty - it&#39;s a must have to equip Shilkas manually with Mando Missiles (fake Tunguska).
BLUFOR air superiority? nah, Deanosbeano Su30 is already integrated with mando missile addon 2.3 http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif

Su30 ArmA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMSyMPqDi7U)

Actually far more mature than the current F18 / F16.

Franze
Mar 19 2008, 23:02
Ok, updated to Beta 0.25. Download it here (http://www.mechmodels.com/mas/downloads/mas_f18_arma_beta025.rar) or see the main page.

Changes:
- Added Over-G feature.
- Various bug fixes, including transparent texture bugs and animation issues.
- Arming menu GUI improved.
- Introduced pre-selected loadouts to GUI. To use, simply click the loadout button and then load the weapons.
- Pre-selected loadouts are available in script form. To use, place this in the init line:
<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">
&#91;this&#93; exec &#34;&#92;fz_f18&#92;arming_aws&#92;load_***.sqs&#34;
[/QUOTE]

*** can be one of the following:
cas - Loads pre-selected CAS
cap - Loads pre-selected CAP
strike - Loads pre-selected Strike
extended_cap - Loads Extended CAP
extended_strike - Loads Extended Strike
tanker - Loads aircraft as a tanker (only applies to F/A-18F)

@<hidden> Rochelle

I&#39;ve never seen that in action before. When I get a human gunner, I lose control of my weapons period.

@<hidden>

Depends on which AGM-84 version you&#39;re using. The AGM-84D will only work on sea-borne targets. The AGM-84H will work on land based targets with the GPS function... Should be able to hit targets from a fairly long distance.

The AGM-154 variant that was going to have a penetrating 500lb warhead was canceled. So there&#39;s only the AGM-154A and AGM-154C, both deploying submunitions.

The canopy must be closed if you plan on going faster than 30kts. If the canopy is open and you go above that speed, it breaks off.

@<hidden>

Implemented in 0.25 now. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

@<hidden>

Another solution is to recycle the weapons from the aircraft itself. Use the fz_f18_aim9m_2 weapon in conjunction with ZSUs and they make an effective low altitude deterrent.

@<hidden>

Actually, a few solid 23mm hits from the ZSU-23-4 will take it out or at least severely damage it. Triple-A is by far more effective than missiles. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

@<hidden>

Sweet&#33; A little complicated but that&#39;s not a bad thing. Keep it up&#33; http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

Mandoble
Mar 20 2008, 00:36
In fact Im trying to integrate that in the F18F too, but it is only usable with both driver and commander being humans as currently the pilot ignores all the doMove commands comming from the WSO consoles, so you end turning and turning and turning forever.

Franze
Mar 20 2008, 01:08
Can the pilot be the group leader or does the script require the WSO to be the group leader? I think you should be able to perform a doMove on the pilot if he&#39;s the group leader.

I will look into making a different F/A-18F version where the WSO is the gunner.

Stavanger
Mar 20 2008, 01:15
Version 0.25 added

Mirror by Combat-Prison.net (http://prison.tibet225.server4you.de/ww2pn/combat/index.php?mod=news_archiv&news_id=232)

Regards,
Stavanger

Mandoble
Mar 20 2008, 01:46
I did try even with different groups for pilot and commander, and no luck, but in this case the pilot is at least able to follow waypoints. Curiously, with enemy tanks nearby, the pilot decided to empty his gun firing at the sea. Might be he "thinks" he has a moveable turret for the gun?

So far, this is all I get: <span style='color:blue'>F18F and MMA 2.3</span> (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALLXTYXV0dY)

Franze
Mar 20 2008, 02:14
Pilot went fishing with M61... That&#39;s new.

What I meant to try was both crew members in the same group, but pilot as commander of the group. That seemed to work when I tested it, even though the pilot only followed fire commands.

I think another F/A-18F is on the agenda, set with a gunner in the rear seat instead of WSO, and some minor mods of the rear cockpit to turn it into one of the dual-control variants.

OldBear
Mar 20 2008, 06:50
Mirror updated to 0.25 on Armed Assault.info (http://www.armedassault.info/) :
[URL=http://www.armedassault.info/index.php?cat=addons&id=377]

Hoot
Mar 20 2008, 07:31
Same goes for http://www.armed-assault.de (http://armed-assault.de/downloads/hornet-025b.html#download).

Sgt_Eversmann
Mar 20 2008, 10:07
thanks for the update franze, will test it this evening when I have time to http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/thumbs-up.gif

Big
Mar 20 2008, 10:57
Armaholic mirror updated too:

- F/A-18E/F Super Hornet v0.25 (http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=2885) (<12MB packed using 7zip, anyways u can also use winrar to extract it)

Vultar
Mar 20 2008, 11:14
LOLLLLL&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;
When I saw first time the pic on first site, I fought its a real life pic to compare with your addon hahaha xDDDDD
What does it means? I am stupid or this addon is superior mega great? xD
But wt* you are doing?&#33;?&#33;?&#33; You wanna make ArmA a flight sim?&#33;?&#33;&#33;
xD

Commando84
Mar 20 2008, 14:03
Vultar ARma has potential for many things http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

Franze
Mar 20 2008, 15:33
@<hidden>, Old Bear, Hoot, & Big

Thanks for the mirrors. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/thumbs-up.gif

@<hidden>

Close... But not quite. Just giving air support some more (and better) teeth. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

1in1class
Mar 20 2008, 16:07
Nice work your work is top line here http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif Love it, but for the weapons GUI for adding diffrent weapons to the jet is there a way you can just make it work via option in game? Like haveing the GUI built in to the jets so there would be no script adding all the time. Just placeing the jets in game and haveing that option to the GUI, haveing it like in the pbo file.

IceBreakr
Mar 20 2008, 16:44
Did anyone test 0.25 on dedicated? Does it work or CTDs may appear? Otherwise, 0.25 is working great in SP&#33;

wika_woo
Mar 20 2008, 17:11
I must say, these Jet&#39;s are some serious fun&#33;

especially in the editor around the afghan desert..

http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/rofl.gif