Ff you could have one thing in the next update it would be…
-
This website has every button in the F 16 for the most part and it does talk about the IFF panel. If you Ctrl F IFF it will be the 8 result of IFF that is the AUX COMM panel (IFF panel). http://www.f-15e.info/joomla/technology/avionics/66-iff-system And on this site it talks about how AAI IFF works. Pretty much Mode 4 on board on the jet has a code and if the other aircraft doesn’t have that code then it is a bogey. If you need any more explanation just message me
-
We have all what we need about IFF. Problem is not there.
Use the search function of the forum, you should find many discussion about IFF.
-
This thread is a loaded question.
Multi core support would be a huge leap in performance. Once achieved, FBMS could add the high end GFX (not saying that the GFX are bad now, in fact they are way better than what I expected!) and greater detail without stuffing up just 1 CPU.
Totally agree, but I think something is usually lost in the “I want multicore” request. I could be way off here, but I think there is some limitations to the rendering pipeline inherent in dx11 or older.
According to AMD, DirectX 12 will finally unlock the true potential of multi-core CPUs. The semiconductor giant cited Brad Wardell, CEO of Stardock who pointed out that with DirectX 11 and older, no matter how many processing cores your CPU has, only one of them can talk to the GPU at a time. In a recent interview, Wardell reportedly claimed that neither Microsoft, AMD, or Intel are ready to acknowledge that DirectX 11 was extremely inept at utilizing multi-core CPUs, and that is finally changing with DirectX 12.
http://www.winbeta.org/news/amd-directx-12-will-finally-unlock-true-potential-your-multi-core-cpu
But I do wonder, could you put more and more non-rendering related changes across more cores? I would think, but remember BMS itself wouldn’t be “in charge” of this. I would suspect a lot of that goes to the original engine; of which I have no clue as to how BMS could change/offload.
-
This website has every button in the F 16 for the most part and it does talk about the IFF panel. If you Ctrl F IFF it will be the 8 result of IFF that is the AUX COMM panel (IFF panel). http://www.f-15e.info/joomla/technology/avionics/66-iff-system And on this site it talks about how AAI IFF works. Pretty much Mode 4 on board on the jet has a code and if the other aircraft doesn’t have that code then it is a bogey. If you need any more explanation just message me
By bogey that means unidentified right? which would be enough to presume its’ a hostile? i just had an enemy tank battalion in a BAI sortie declared as bogeys after locking them up with the FCR so presumed they were enemy and i presumed right after reading the debrief.
-
which would be enough to presume its’ a hostile?
Generally speaking, and from what I remember reading. “No”.
The idea is IF IFF is configured correctly, the only thing it does is confirm something is FRIENDLY. Everything else is “unknown”. I.e., what if a friendly sets the wrong codes.
I do think declaring ground units will always be returned as “bogey”, but I wouldn’t just straight up presume bogey means bandit.
-
By bogey that means unidentified right? which would be enough to presume its’ a hostile?
Absolutely not.
One more time. IFF is NOT made to positively ID an enemy, IFF can ONLY positively ID a friendly and is mainly used over friendly territory. IFF has to be switched OFF when passing the switch off line before the FLOT.
Already discussed to death in the forum.
-
Generally speaking, and from what I remember reading. “No”.
The idea is IF IFF is configured correctly, the only thing it does is confirm something is FRIENDLY. Everything else is “unknown”. I.e., what if a friendly sets the wrong codes.
I do think declaring ground units will always be returned as “bogey”, but I wouldn’t just straight up presume bogey means bandit.
Well no, before the enemy tank battalion which were classed as bogeys there were other ground targets which were declared as friendly. Thing is i was declaring with AWACS, if there was JSTAR on station then i’d imagine they’ll know exactly what is what on the ground. Whether friendly or enemy and what it is (T-55 or T-72 etc).
-
It would be nice if, around The Boat, ATC used carrier procedure, a’la Marshall.
-
Regarding the DX11/DX12 portion of the recent posts, I was recently reading that DX12 significantly improves rendering efficiency over DX11, resulting in much better FPS (all other factors being generally equal).
Given that Falcon BMS currently uses DX9, I’m hoping that the BMS devs are at least open to the possibility of “moving up” one of these days. This, in my mind, will justify a BMS 4.4 release!
-
I would believe that presuming the devs decide to give all the effort toward rebuilding the falcon 4 engine to support a higher dx version they may just choose dx11 over 12 for compatibility reasons, dx12 requires newer gpu and the use of Windows 10.
-
I would have to have default Windows 10 supported Hotas Cougar profile. Dunc_DX profile doesn’t work well with Windows 10. I could make it happen with unshifted layer but can’t with shift layer.
Maybe I don’t know how to modify key? I have grounded for a month since I installed Windows 10. -
I would love to see the mission planning map redone. From what I understand it cant be but maybe another map system could be created to mirror the old existing one. Maybe just a pipe dream but a work around sure would be better then the current map.
-
Totally agree, but I think something is usually lost in the “I want multicore” request. I could be way off here, but I think there is some limitations to the rendering pipeline inherent in dx11 or older.
http://www.winbeta.org/news/amd-directx-12-will-finally-unlock-true-potential-your-multi-core-cpu
But I do wonder, could you put more and more non-rendering related changes across more cores? I would think, but remember BMS itself wouldn’t be “in charge” of this. I would suspect a lot of that goes to the original engine; of which I have no clue as to how BMS could change/offload.
Actually, bms does have multi core support (as I have found out). However, it is not optimized for efficiency. This means that 1 core will do most of the work while other cores work smaller code functions of the sim. Not sure on how bms runs it’s processes, but this is what I get generally as the impression. Multi thread/core support needs to be optimized in bms for better use of such technology. That would take some major code work.
Also, a DX12 bms would allow different GFX cards to run together and optimize there functionality. The use of SLI and Xfire would go far if bms could be coded to operate those gfx configurations. Not to mention being able to use photo real normal maps efficiently.
I think these types of improvements are the future of bms. I have waited this far to see bms reach incredible heights! I’m sure the future of bms will not disappoint me!
-
I would believe that presuming the devs decide to give all the effort toward rebuilding the falcon 4 engine to support a higher dx version they may just choose dx11 over 12 for compatibility reasons, dx12 requires newer gpu and the use of Windows 10.
That’s not entirely true. DX12 supports GFX cards back to DX9 (they just can be used with all the DX12 features). The problem is the OS. Win7 will not be getting the DX12 update as I see it. So, everyone would have to upgrade there OS to utilize DX12.
-
I like to have more control on the ground forces in the campaign.
I direct units to new points, but after a while they got there own idea as 2 where 2 go. I remove the ATO controlled from all the units, but the problem continues. Especially with the AD/AA units.
-
Did not realize that DX12 required Win10. Thanks.
-
Maybe we can have a new vortex effect in the intake like in the pic, this vortex “cloud” is generated when bird is on AB and moving with speed less than 250kts IIRC. There are many vids out there too that you can clearly see that.
-
Actually, bms does have multi core support (as I have found out). However, it is not optimized for efficiency. This means that 1 core will do most of the work while other cores work smaller code functions of the sim. Not sure on how bms runs it’s processes, but this is what I get generally as the impression. Multi thread/core support needs to be optimized in bms for better use of such technology. That would take some major code work.
Points taken, but I justed wanted to impress that “a lot” of the “multi core” stuff prior to dx12 is really “stuck” in the rendering pipeline(i’m not a game developer so take that with a grain of salt).
Also, a DX12 bms would allow different GFX cards to run together and optimize there functionality. The use of SLI and Xfire would go far if bms could be coded to operate those gfx configurations. Not to mention being able to use photo real normal maps efficiently.
Forcing afr2 works pretty good for me on old 780ti’s. Though I’m sure always room for improvement.
Vulcan instead of dx12?
-
Points taken, but I justed wanted to impress that “a lot” of the “multi core” stuff prior to dx12 is really “stuck” in the rendering pipeline(i’m not a game developer so take that with a grain of salt).
You are correct. The more pipes in the process, the more speed in overall processing. Better GFX crads are not always the fastest. Things like micro stuttering and artifacts often happen more frequently with faster (overclocked) GFX cards. I will be getting the R9 390x in a month or two. Very stable and very fast. I like to get GFX cards that do not require OC’ing (or very little OC’ing) as that can cause issues like I have mentioned.
Forcing afr2 works pretty good for me on old 780ti’s. Though I’m sure always room for improvement.
See previous post.
Vulcan instead of dx12?
Interesting. I need to read up more on Vulcan before I can say anything much about it. Thanks for the “food for thought”.
-
Advanced link16 for up to 12 a/c for shared HSD target symbol (harpoon, agm88 e.tc)would be nice……
or MAP in HSD if the resolution could be fixed also will be a vary nice tool for operations…