Project Reality Forums

I've only really played Al Basrah and Kashan Desert and haven't seen the Super Hornet yet, I was wondering if this plane is featured in Project Reality?

Cheers,

[F|H]NitroViper007

It is currently not in any pr maps.

it really should be. i dont think the dice model is ugly. with all the marine maps we have it would be pretty suitable. also, im pretty sure the australian forces community mod is going to use the f18.

Combined Arms uses the F/A-18, though it's a 2 seat and i can't remember the letter representing that.

Need a carrier first though.

The E/F versions are the Super Hornet, where the vBF2 one is the A version (Hornet). Problem here being that the Super Hornets operate from aircraft carriers, Nimitz class. The carrier ingame is for amphibious assaults. So in addition to the aircraft itself a new carrier is needed which is not an easy task by any standards.

Besides that the speed is also an issue. The super hornet can go to mach 1.8 where the f-16 only does 1.6, problem here being map sizes. Even 4x4km maps are really too small to portray their real capabilities. That being said we do have the mig-29 in use and it can go mach +2

ADF is selling off all of their ageing F111's. They're being replaced by Superhornets so that should be enough of an excuse for putting them in game.

IF the F-18 is implemented will it have two Mavericks?

Canada uses the CF-18 Hornet

[R-DEV]Z-trooper wrote:Besides that the speed is also an issue. The super hornet can go to mach 1.8 where the f-16 only does 1.6, problem here being map sizes. Even 4x4km maps are really too small to portray their real capabilities. That being said we do have the mig-29 in use and it can go mach +2

I always thought of it as jets going at their combat speed rather than cruising or maximum speed.

'[R-DEV wrote:Besides that the speed is also an issue. The super hornet can go to mach 1.8 where the f-16 only does 1.6, problem here being map sizes. Even 4x4km maps are really too small to portray their real capabilities. That being said we do have the mig-29 in use and it can go mach +2

Indeed, we know how well bf2 likes to handle accurate speed in relation to aircraft. And those speeds are in level flight going full afterburn iirc, not something we do in PR. (Unless pushing the throttle all the way in is going afterburn)

Last I saw, combined arms does actually have a nimitz size carrier in game, complete with cats and arrestor gear. Check with them on that, dunno.

I'm sure we'll get it in normal pr at somepoint

mat552 wrote:Indeed, we know how well bf2 likes to handle accurate speed in relation to aircraft. And those speeds are in level flight going full afterburn iirc, not something we do in PR. (Unless pushing the throttle all the way in is going afterburn)

Last I saw, combined arms does actually have a nimitz size carrier in game, complete with cats and arrestor gear. Check with them on that, dunno.

I'm sure we'll get it in normal pr at somepoint

Yeah carrier ops would be a huge step forward, and also require a carrier for helo ops, and another for the jets, otherwise it'd be quite tk-happy.

This is the F18 featured in CA. It's same model from BF2, but is reskinned.

http://yfrog.com/b5cahornetj

McLuv wrote:I always thought of it as jets going at their combat speed rather than cruising or maximum speed.

As far as I can say that belongs to the range. If you are in a dogfight, you fly at 'corner speed' (speed where your jet has the best turning abilities). If you engage enemies from far away, you try to get as fast as possible to give your missile a higher kinetic energy.

Burton wrote:This is the F18 featured in CA. It's same model from BF2, but is reskinned.

Yfrog - cahornet

Would be great if CA would allow us to use their F/A-18C, only problem is the skin is a Navy VFA-148 which they started on one side, then just pasted it to the other side, thus the Navy wording on the left tail is backwords. I haven't really heard of the Navy giving CAS to the Marines, rather Marine F/A-18s doing so, but since both aircraft operate from the same carriers at the same time, I can see it happening. (But lets go with a USMC Silver Eagles skin, Baby Blue + F/A-18, Fail). If it means anything, I think we should stay with the standard HUD layout with the weapon systems, especially with the Bombs, its almost impossible to hit anything in a effective range with CA's weird HUD.

Carriers on the other hand, we could have a naval operations with the Marines with the Essex side by side with say a Nimitz class carrier with 2-3 F/A-18C's in a 6x6 K/M map which will obviously be partially water against the MEC or Chinese. Only problem is, we don't have a Nimitz class carrier ready for action, CA does have a dedicated aircraft carrier, but its a heavily modified Essex, and the only thing that is good for in real life, is carrying about 3 AV-8B's.

Drunkenup wrote: its almost impossible to hit anything in a effective range with CA's weird HUD.

Not when you know how to use it.

Drunkenup wrote:Would be great if CA would allow us to use their F/A-18C

100% of the content in CA is offered to PR for them to use. The will to use it is really the deciding factor.

Drunkenup wrote:Would be great if CA would allow us to use their F/A-18C, only problem is the skin is a Navy VFA-148 which they started on one side, then just pasted it to the other side, thus the Navy wording on the left tail is backwards.

I feel it necessary to defend myself here, as I did the skin. One side of the tail is reversed because of the really bad way that the skin itself was put together. The number on the nose is also reversed because of this also and the fuel tank underneath has a yellow tip because it uses the same area of the skin as the nose-cone. It's not me being lazy or bad at skinning, it's how BF2 applies the skin to the model. The same can also be said for several other vehicle skins, they will simply reverse some areas to keep the skin cavas size down/ fit as many different parts on as possible.

With regards to the fact that it's a "Marine" FA18, I only went by reference images when I made the skin, no imagination apart from the VFA number which I dedicated to CA's master CAS117.

[R-DEV]Z-trooper wrote:The E/F versions are the Super Hornet, where the vBF2 one is the A version (Hornet). Problem here being that the Super Hornets operate from aircraft carriers, Nimitz class. The carrier ingame is for amphibious assaults. So in addition to the aircraft itself a new carrier is needed which is not an easy task by any standards.

Besides that the speed is also an issue. The super hornet can go to mach 1.8 where the f-16 only does 1.6, problem here being map sizes. Even 4x4km maps are really too small to portray their real capabilities. That being said we do have the mig-29 in use and it can go mach +2

Begging your pardon, but the F-16 is mach 2+, and can outrun a MiG-29. I have two MiG-29 pilots to back me up on that. And F-18 I don't really know.

And while the aircraft are going maybe 1/3 to 1/2 their max speed, the AA weapons, and view distance all have similar limitations.

Sniper_dog14 wrote:The will to use it is really the deciding factor.

Will or wish?

mat552 wrote:Last I saw, combined arms does actually have a nimitz size carrier in game, complete with cats and arrestor gear. Check with them on that, dunno.

I'm sure we'll get it in normal pr at somepoint

Hunt3r wrote:Yeah carrier ops would be a huge step forward, and also require a carrier for helo ops, and another for the jets, otherwise it'd be quite tk-happy.

Carriers of nimitz size really have little place in PR as they are simply too big for the available map sizes even on 4x4km maps they would take up a large proportion of the play area. Similarly the catapult system implemented in CA (whilst no doubt a clever idea) simply doesn't have a place in PR because it is just not needed. Lastly in case I missed it PR already has carrier ops (Muttrah City, Barracuda, Jabal Al Burj) and none of these are large enough to feature jet aircraft.