Ff you could have one thing in the next update it would be…
-
The ATC system in Falcon is not robust enough to need squawk codes
On the contrary. ATC instructions are not perfect but it knows exactly where each AC is at all times. That would requires mode 3 and mode C, IRL. Especially for unrestricted approaches (implemented in 4.33, BTW) where ATC does not give instructions but does clear you to land.
Same goes for AWACs: to ID packages and do a proper check-in, Mode 1 and 2 are usually needed. How do you except him to know exactly who and where you are otherwise ?
Mode 4 implementation would mean :
- implementing Mode 4 failures,
- have a risk of bad replies by friendlies (permanent or temporary, depends on the cause we want to simulate).
- have a risk that enemies with advanced ECM might answer with a bad reply as well (instead of no reply at all).
- implementing changes of keys at a set time.
- implementing Switch On/Switch Off lines. Because yes, you do switch off IFF when entering enemy territory.
- implementing AI behavior if an AC does not have anymore IFF and reenters the line: Weapons-free Blue SAMs zone, BARCAPs and AWACs behavior, safe passage lanes, etc.
That last point is EXTREMELY tricky. How does the safe passage lanes change when the FLOT moves ? Can you make sure that Blue SAMs will not shoot too many allies ? How will a BARCAP or AWACs will ID an AC without IFF, and without risking to get shot down themselves ? Etc.
So NO, IFF, even only mode 4, is NOT easy to implement correctly. I’d love to have it too, but I really dont want to be the one who has to code it.
-
Gold (instead of the current blue) tint for the external view canopy.
While I agree that the modeled canopy color is incorrectly the same for all F-16’s, “gold” is not necessarily the correct tint. There are probably as many different canopy colors as there are F-16 blocks and they get replaced with whatever color is available. In fact, I would argue that gold is in the minority.
-
So IFF can only ID a friendly. If is it a bogey, there is no ID then. (But I might be off for a semantic question as English is not my native language.)
Hehe semantics for sure, I see what you are driving at though so: a Mode 4 IFF interrogation would be a huge help so I could see who is friendles in my sort so I can then go back to focusing on the bogeys
Also if Link 16 is better than Mode 4 IFF interrogation then I would rather have that LOL.
-
On the contrary. ATC instructions are not perfect but it knows exactly where each AC is at all times. That would requires mode 3 and mode C, IRL. Especially for unrestricted approaches (implemented in 4.33, BTW) where ATC does not give instructions but does clear you to land.
Same goes for AWACs: to ID packages and do a proper check-in, Mode 1 and 2 are usually needed. How do you except him to know exactly who and where you are otherwise ?
Mode 4 implementation would mean :
- implementing Mode 4 failures,
- have a risk of bad replies by friendlies (permanent or temporary, depends on the cause we want to simulate).
- have a risk that enemies with advanced ECM might answer with a bad reply as well (instead of no reply at all).
- implementing changes of keys at a set time.
- implementing Switch On/Switch Off lines. Because yes, you do switch off IFF when entering enemy territory.
- implementing AI behavior if an AC does not have anymore IFF and reenters the line: Weapons-free Blue SAMs zone, BARCAPs and AWACs behavior, safe passage lanes, etc.
That last point is EXTREMELY tricky. How does the safe passage lanes change when the FLOT moves ? Can you make sure that Blue SAMs will not shoot too many allies ? How will a BARCAP or AWACs will ID an AC without IFF, and without risking to get shot down themselves ? Etc.
So NO, IFF, even only mode 4, is NOT easy to implement correctly. I’d love to have it too, but I really dont want to be the one who has to code it.
Great points about the other modes, but as a pilot I set the squwak and the mode and the ATC works like PFM IRL
The mode 4 stuff is excellent explanation, thanks for that! I understood the key changes and failure modes, and the problems with having it off when in friendly airplane (which nearly caused a blue on blue Patriot launch in Iraq IIRC)
I was under the impression that mode 4 was left on even in enemy territory due to the encryption. I thought the switch off lanes were for only the other modes. Not as helpful then, I apologize and if someone would have explained that earlier I could have saved lots of Internet time
-
I was under the impression that mode 4 was left on even in enemy territory due to the encryption. I thought the switch off lanes were for only the other modes. Not as helpful then, I apologize and if someone would have explained that earlier I could have saved lots of Internet time
It all depends on the enemy capacities and ROEs. But any IFF left on is a risk of RF emission. If somebody interrogates you, you emit, which means you can be detected.
-
PPL requesting for IFF, please comm with a full explanation on how it should/could be implemented (avionics + AI/Human interaction) … how you imagine it could be in the sim?
This is what is needed.
I don’t know the real world specs, but I have some friends in the USAF who say the “final product” is similar to how DCS A-10 does it. I imagine on the FCR the friendly will be visually different than bogey. The most unrealistic thing about BMS play right now is that you have to declare or buddy spike every single contact. I understand there are intriacies to the real world system that are difficult to model but BMS makes concessions to realism elsewhere, like having f-16 avionics for F-18s and tornados. The idea is to make the end user experience as believable as possible. As is the radar picture is chaos. This is what I would like to see addressed somehow in a future version.
-
Weather, i want to get real waether data into the sim.
Well actually its an massive step forward but this doesnt meant you shouldnt have some goals in the futureOh and collision detection for the auto generated stuff, i can fly through the trees, through beatifull trees but still ghost trees.
Then another Helios specific Topic, which should be wayyyyyyy easier to implement: The possibility to disable Mouse Buttons via config (falcon config or ingame setup, doesnt matter) to have it as a default setting.
While this currently really helps to have the possibility to disable them you still have to remember that you have to disable the mouse buttons when you inside of the cockpit. -
I don’t know the real world specs, but I have some friends in the USAF who say the “final product” is similar to how DCS A-10 does it. I imagine on the FCR the friendly will be visually different than bogey. The most unrealistic thing about BMS play right now is that you have to declare or buddy spike every single contact. I understand there are intriacies to the real world system that are difficult to model but BMS makes concessions to realism elsewhere, like having f-16 avionics for F-18s and tornados. The idea is to make the end user experience as believable as possible. As is the radar picture is chaos. This is what I would like to see addressed somehow in a future version.
This is true…good add.
-
This post is deleted! -
Well, I would also like to a have a lot more free time to learn all the beatifull new stuff …
-
The most unrealistic thing about BMS play right now is that you have to declare or buddy spike every single contact. … As is the radar picture is chaos.
Won’t be a life changer, because (as Cruz said) IFF is only made to ID a friendly over friendly airspace (a non replying contact is not necessarily a bandit, hence, do not allow you to open fire without another ID mean). The AWACS declare remains mandatory.
In that specific area, L16 would be more valuable. But even more complex to implement IMO.
-
Oh and collision detection for the auto generated stuff, i can fly through the trees, through beatifull trees but still ghost trees.
Who cares? … it is a fighter-jet sim, not an heli sim! … Hit box on trees would probably cause a dramatic FPS hit.
-
And…We got some remaining stuff in the MLU M3 manual: falcon.blu3wolf.com/Docs/MLU_M3.pdf
As we can see IAMs are well implemented in 4.33.;)
-
Mode 4 implementation would mean :
- implementing Mode 4 failures,
- have a risk of bad replies by friendlies (permanent or temporary, depends on the cause we want to simulate).
- have a risk that enemies with advanced ECM might answer with a bad reply as well (instead of no reply at all).
- implementing changes of keys at a set time.
- implementing Switch On/Switch Off lines. Because yes, you do switch off IFF when entering enemy territory.
- implementing AI behavior if an AC does not have anymore IFF and reenters the line: Weapons-free Blue SAMs zone, BARCAPs and AWACs behavior, safe passage lanes, etc.
That last point is EXTREMELY tricky. How does the safe passage lanes change when the FLOT moves ? Can you make sure that Blue SAMs will not shoot too many allies ? How will a BARCAP or AWACs will ID an AC without IFF, and without risking to get shot down themselves ? Etc.
So NO, IFF, even only mode 4, is NOT easy to implement correctly. I’d love to have it too, but I really dont want to be the one who has to code it.
The newer jets with the APX-113 can load from the DTC, a set of AUTO POS and AUTO TIM modes and codes, so that if you cross the fence for instance, it shuts itself off, and crossing back to friendly territory, it turns back on. And of course different codes for different times, for MRR, etc…
For your last point, its fair to say that a configurable set of ROEs and an ID matrix would help there. Showed up on radar starting over an enemy airbase? Meets hostile P.O.O. criteria. No or bad IFF reply, does not comply with MRR, NCTR as hostile type, VID as hostile type, spike correlated with hot, high fast mover of hostile type… the ‘fun’ part would be setting it so as to avoid blue on blue I guess. I can see the point about it sucking having to code it. Really the problem is its not just coding IFF, its coding the AI to not know ID automatically. That in turn allows but also requires a lot of those other things.
-
Alright, want to start off saying that I love 4.33. Great addition to the series. To the Dev’s my hat is off to you guys. That you can make such an addition in this labor of love speaks volumes. I thank you.
Now, in the spirit of the thread, these are some things that I noticed during the last few weeks that I’d like to see fixed in an update, they are in no way a “I need this fixed or I can’t fly it” deal. Just some things I’ve spotted. All dealing with the AV-8B+, my new favorite aircraft.
First deals with load out I posted that here
Here is a chart: and a brief synopsis I’ve come up with over the last few days researching located here
A couple other things dealing with the model:
Like from the cockpit, the refueling probe rotates out and around and then into the aircraft and then out into position, counter-clockwise, through it’s extended position, all the way around and then comes to a stop in to position the second time it gets there:
The Speed brake light is connect to the Parking Brake. It’d be nice if was connected to the speed brake instead
Bottom side of the UFCP glare shield is missing a texture
It’d be nice if these two lights went out before take off. The one I could figure out was connected to the ECM state. That could at least be set with the ECM light, or that switch-state for the P NOGO light could be removed, as it’s confusing and doesn’t really make sense
(I have no idea what that other light on the warming panel is for. I’ve seen it out, and I think it’s connected to the RWR somehow):
Then I’d like to see the 4 gear lights go green when the gear are down, even if the 4th one is just cosmetic. Currently, it’s connected to the hook.
Again, I love the new aircraft, and I’m only pointing these minor things out to help with the overall immersion level for this model. Someone obviously put A LOT of time into this. And in my opinion, it’s probably the best non-viper aircraft modeled. These last few things are legitimately just cosmetic. If I knew how or even where to fix them, I’d have presented the solution. But I am not familiar with that territory.
Either way, I love it. And here is proof, I’m flying it in this video.
Thanks, let me know if I can help
-
More realistic A-G radar modes.
Current implementation is horrible, basically it’s the same since old Falcon 4.0 days, in gray instead of green.
Realistic A-G modes should be something like this:
Regards!
-
And better use of multiple SLI/Crossfire GPUs…or did this change in 4.33?
Yep,
That would allow more use of GFX power.Good for any new eye candy that may be in the works. -
More realistic A-G radar modes.
Current implementation is horrible, basically it’s the same since old Falcon 4.0 days, in gray instead of green.
Realistic A-G modes should be something like this:
http://cambertx.com/home/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/F16_Radar1.jpg
https://www.leidos.com/sites/default/files/imported/products/simulation/radsim3/images/ms1_dbs.jpg
Regards!
Yes! The DBS 1 and 2 mode for RT map scaling would be awesome! Use with certain AG weapons can put a dummy iron right where you want it, but it would be best used for LGB weapons.
-
Won’t be a life changer, because (as Cruz said) IFF is only made to ID a friendly over friendly airspace (a non replying contact is not necessarily a bandit, hence, do not allow you to open fire without another ID mean). The AWACS declare remains mandatory.
In that specific area, L16 would be more valuable. But even more complex to implement IMO.
Correct! Just because you do not get a friendly return, don’t mean that is a bad guy. Jet could be ben’t or it could be a civi. A lot of other possibilities as well.
-
AI with an IQ above 80. Don’t get me wrong. The AI in F4 is doing really well compared to the AI in other genres but smarter Sam operators and better Bvr skills would really help