Ff you could have one thing in the next update it would be…
-
I’ve got one (at the risk of inviting a clip across the ears): if there was one thing that I’d do on BMS it would be to revamp the UI, in particular and very especially the planning map. I would in the first instance allow the map to be set to high fidelity resolutions so we could get zoom in close and get rid of the ugly cubes of fuzzy colour and keep it crisp and sharp. But ultimately, I would like to completely redo the map and replace the current one with a suitably crisp and sharp topographical map with clearly define topographical features and all the paraphenalia of a modern military planning map. In short, Bring the standard of the map up to the rest of this incredible simulation. That’s what I would do if I had the skills, and what I would advocate for around any BMS planning table. It would so much to contributing to keeping this sim alive and let’s face it, we should be spending a lot of time at the map planning out missions.
Apoll
-
M3 let you indicate things too like nordo, emergency, even hijack (?) (!!!) haha
-
-
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 ?
AWACS doesn’t use M1, and M2 is secondary. M4 is used in conjunction with radar return to know “Exactly” where you are. Unless you want to revisit the L16 topic, which is also used.Mode 4 implementation would mean :
- implementing Mode 4 failures,
How is this different than any other system in the game? It works or it doesn’t - have a risk of bad replies by friendlies (permanent or temporary, depends on the cause we want to simulate).
I’m curious what any of these causes could be? Aside from operator error? It gets a code, it replies to the code. Otherwise it’s just a failure–same as above bullet–either way a failure is a failure and there are simple ways to mitigate this
with the criteria AI uses to engage based on the suggestion of a matrix of some sort for engaging which uses IFF as one factor in the determination process, not the only factor - have a risk that enemies with advanced ECM might answer with a bad reply as well (instead of no reply at all).
Is this level of Electronic Attack on the docket for BMS? If so then why haven’t we already done HAVEQUICK? SATCOM? L16? and Compass Call area jamming? implemented the KY58s for crypto? All of which are 100x easier - implementing changes of keys at a set time.
This seems pretty easy, it changes at midnight. If the humans don’t follow suit, the AI shoots at them - implementing Switch On/Switch Off lines. Because yes, you do switch off IFF when entering enemy territory.
I keep seeing this argument everywhere, but true RF detection based on electron radiation and physics models isn’t modeled in BMS, otherwise the AWACS would be visible from 200 miles on the FCR and your datalink
would drop when you got out of range–it’s a moot argument, it doesn’t need to be turned off by the AI or humans in the game - if you really want the added realism then you have to apply this same logic to responding to radio calls, using the
radar, lighting, datalink, and all the other EMCON variables that the AI ignores - 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.
This might be the only real argument on the list, and is probably the only legitimate reason I can see to implement M2 in addition to M4– 2 systems on different busses means less chance of total failure. But it still goes
back to the changes you make in AI. Just like any other failure that occurs before you leave the line, the AI has to have a process which uses IFF as one factor, not the only factor, in declaring a hostile
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.
This is so far beyond the scope of things I’m not sure where you are going with it. Safe passage lanes and FLOTs are tactics, geography, ROE based, which are not implemented in the game on a universal level. Trying to implement them on the current campaign engine makes no sense at all, whether we had IFF or not. That bit aside, ground units have a threat matrix just like aircraft, and for some units it includes IFF. However, they also have the ability to use other more sophisticated equipment to traverse the matrix which can’t be integrated into aircraft. You could leave most of the ground units out of the IFF discussion and keep them at is it a bad guy or good guy mentality with no loss to realism or playability.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.
…
- implementing Mode 4 failures,
-
In fairness, the use of safe passage and other positional ID techniques is an obvious way to adding to the AI ID matrix, which you just above commented needed to be more than just IFF.
-
In fairness, the use of safe passage and other positional ID techniques is an obvious way to adding to the AI ID matrix, which you just above commented needed to be more than just IFF.
In theory, but that theory requires every player in the sim to understand the ideas, and follow the ideas, and use a threat matrix, and have them set by the game instead of using STPT lines. I understand the reason for them in real life. In the sim I don’t think they are a viable option. The matrix has to be independent of the “Whole environment” and applicable to the contact in question, or the immediate area around the contact in question, regardless of whether it’s the AI following safe lane rules or a human just running from some migs. That’s why I think things like RWR status, radar returns, VID or TGP are better options to base the matrix on.
-
If you see my post on the matter, I think it all needs to come together. In your example though, a human running from some MiGs could respond to radio challenges from AI CAP aircraft. If they run through an area designated as SAM freefire, then that’s that. I dont see MRR as being incompatible with the sim. It would simply require a lot of work - much the same as it requires work to have BARCAPs protect friendly forces rather than a specific geographic area.
-
If you see my post on the matter, I think it all needs to come together. In your example though, a human running from some MiGs could respond to radio challenges from AI CAP aircraft. If they run through an area designated as SAM freefire, then that’s that. I dont see MRR as being incompatible with the sim. It would simply require a lot of work - much the same as it requires work to have BARCAPs protect friendly forces rather than a specific geographic area.
I’m not saying it can’t be done, but I think the work/benefit ratio is a little off when there are other factors which can be used. It makes sense for an AWACS AI matrix to be different and use things like High Fast Flyer, departure location, aggressor tactics, FLOT penetration, etc… But it seems like taking a steep learning curve for new players and turning it into a vertical line. Now we’re saying to avoid being shot down you have to figure out how to trick the friendly AI into not shooting at you because you don’t understand the advanced tactical ideas of battle space management? Or the game bugged and erased your DTC and now you can’t see any of the lanes, or the friendly free sam zones? Responding to the AI via the comm interface is an option, but odds are if you’ve lost the bus for the IFF you likely lost the power to the radios as well. Damage to the aircraft tends to lean a little more toward catastrophic from one bullet as opposed to only losing half the systems because the bullets were all on the right side affecting only the right bus.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to say the MRR isn’t a good addition to a matrix in theory, I just don’t have enough faith in the player base as a whole to be able to effectively use it, particularly for new players. People have been flying for years and still can’t figure out how to setup the datalink for two flights in a package, or why they can’t use certain AGM65 models at night, it just seems like a lot of tactical theory to throw at people when it’s the AI at the heart of the problem. If it were only FvF I can definitely see it being more viable, but we’re entering thin ice when we start to base AI engagement decisions on more-than-trivial human operations.
-
Well, I can see where you are coming from, WRT the AI. I disagree completely on the argument about learning curve. If making the sim have a certain learning curve and give the player the fighter pilot experience was the goal, BMS would have been based on HAWX, not F4.
If you lost your DTC, scrub the mission. If you need to fly back, do so holding hands with another jet which still has theirs. If you are damaged as a flight lead, your AI wingie should be able to contact the ABM owning the airspace and respond to rayguns. I think making the AI need to ID targets is going to make this difficult in the first place. Perhaps it would be better to make the concept work first with say IFF, NCTR, Rayguns, and ELINT/Spike status. MRR/Positional ID could then be worked in later.
-
Well, I can see where you are coming from, WRT the AI. I disagree completely on the argument about learning curve. If making the sim have a certain learning curve and give the player the fighter pilot experience was the goal, BMS would have been based on HAWX, not F4.
If you lost your DTC, scrub the mission. If you need to fly back, do so holding hands with another jet which still has theirs. If you are damaged as a flight lead, your AI wingie should be able to contact the ABM owning the airspace and respond to rayguns. I think making the AI need to ID targets is going to make this difficult in the first place. Perhaps it would be better to make the concept work first with say IFF, NCTR, Rayguns, and ELINT/Spike status. MRR/Positional ID could then be worked in later.
I think that’s probably a better plan– one step at a time. I also considered holding hands, and trying to contact the controller as options, but it seems like a lot for the AI. How do you tell it if you’re holding hands or in a furball? How does the AI know it should accept a BUDDYSPIKE call from an aircraft it didn’t send a raygun to just because they’re in the same vicinity? Trying to implement the different scenarios into the AI to distinguish all the different configurations of aircraft that qualify as combat vs safe flight would likely double the code of the entire BMS project.
My comment about the learning curve was more about the theory part of it. The functionality of the game is intense, and it’s one of the drawing qualities of the game. But it requires you to learn the mechanics and aerodynamics of the aircraft, not the theory of military tactics. It may not go very well, but you can play the game without understanding anything going on in the campaign. The closest you really have to get to theory is weapon employment for AA tactics, and that’s a little more feasible for someone playing a flight sim touted for being realistic-- but it still isn’t really tactical theory or airspace management, it combat tactics. If people understood those things a little more then the last multiplayer event wouldn’t have been such a huge cluster… with everyone doing whatever they wanted instead of trying to fly as a team. Maybe some day it could be done-- but people don’t like to be told where they can and can’t fly, that’s why we can’t leave the squadrons set to AI generated flights, or get 2 flights to coordinate before attacking the same ground targets.
-
I kinda think that for AWACS, if you are close enough to be merged/holding hands, you should not be distinguishable from the other aircraft. For AI, if they cant use other methods, they either abort or go to VID as ROEs are set by the player. Hmm. That would require the AI to get a lot smarter, so as to have #1 ID and #2 shoot in a timely manner.
-
A lot smarter. Especially if no AI AWACS. How does MAGIC tell AI it’s two friendlies? In the spirit of the original post– That’s what I would like to see, being able to identify yourself as a MAGIC in the campaign and give directions to AI friendlies as well as humans. Move steer points for CAP areas, vector for intercept, or provide assistance to human players, move tankers around, get AI CAS to hold in certain areas until needed-- All the stuff AWACS can really do. Someone else mentioned a dedicated AWACS mode, which would be nice if you could limit it to one person at a time on a MP game. But if that isn’t feasible I would be happy just getting the logic correct on the UI Map so the aircraft actually show up when they’re airborne instead of staying hidden until their scheduled takeoff time.
-
I dont see a reason to limit it to one player at a time. You dont typically have one guy owning all of koreas airspace.
-
Then you have to use multiple freqs for different areas. And your controllers have to understand handoffs, and freq changes, and coordination– nightmare! I couldn’t get pilots to respond to check in calls or rayguns, let alone keeping up with freq changes.
-
There is already multiple frequencies in the UI IVC support. Make that option avaliable in this new AWACS screen so they can set their freq whenever they need and then there is no issue. Players can learn to deal with freq changes. My wing does it all the time.
-
Well, when BMS makes avionics changes to make it more realistic, the increase in learning curve is shrugged off with “this is the way it works for real”. I dont see why procedure changes to the sim should be shied away from because of it being harder than the current procedure.
-
TE’s are an important part of the overall fun people are having with BMS. As a mission builder, any change that allows me to build in new ideas into a mission is important for me, and for all who fly BMS. One little bug in TE’s in particular should be fixed. I would like to be able to build missions, where you actually have to search a battalion between point A and B, and destroy it. Or to be able to put in suprise sam sites on ingress, or put unknown heavy AAA defenses at certain points. However, though i am able to build these missions, and then start the mission on my own, i cannot see the units that i have ‘hidden’ (not spotted by friendlies yet). BUT, and this is the problem, whenever a client connects to such a mission, he automatically spots and sees, ALL enemy units on the ground. The spotted feature isn’t shared over the network, spoiling the entire mission.
If this could be fixed, it would open up a whole new range of possibilties to mission builders, and this will benefit and increase the fun in flying such missions, for all pilots. It would introduce the ‘unknown’ factor in TE’s, making it way more exiting for pilots than having perfect knowledge of all ground units.
-
M4/M5 work on crypto that changes daily. To keep some of the responsibility on the player, you could do something similar to the new laser codes. In the briefing there could be a code, which would be entered via the IFF pages (2 codes actually in case you fly across the Z day).
Valid for a rotating M1 in example. But for encrypted code, it is not pilot’s responsibility. Realistic do not mean “more complex” than in real.
All what you say guys is interesting. But I am afraid that all the idea are too complex to be considered in a short/medium term (too many change en many areas: AI brain, avionics, data structure, UI, comm’s frag … etc …) IMO, do hold your breath too much. But ideas and proposal are noted.
Thank you for participation.
-
TE’s are an important part of the overall fun people are having with BMS. As a mission builder, any change that allows me to build in new ideas into a mission is important for me, and for all who fly BMS. One little bug in TE’s in particular should be fixed. I would like to be able to build missions, where you actually have to search a battalion between point A and B, and destroy it. Or to be able to put in suprise sam sites on ingress, or put unknown heavy AAA defenses at certain points. However, though i am able to build these missions, and then start the mission on my own, i cannot see the units that i have ‘hidden’ (not spotted by friendlies yet). BUT, and this is the problem, whenever a client connects to such a mission, he automatically spots and sees, ALL enemy units on the ground. The spotted feature isn’t shared over the network, spoiling the entire mission.
If this could be fixed, it would open up a whole new range of possibilties to mission builders, and this will benefit and increase the fun in flying such missions, for all pilots. It would introduce the ‘unknown’ factor in TE’s, making it way more exiting for pilots than having perfect knowledge of all ground units.
Try MC (Mission Commander) … maybe you can do it under MC.
-
The ATC system in Falcon is not robust enough to need squawk codes
Could you please clarify what “robust” means to you ?