Ff you could have one thing in the next update it would be…
-
If all that stuff isn’t classified, I’m really curious where I can read it.
-
If all that stuff isn’t classified, I’m really curious where I can read it.
As mentioned, it’s not classified but the documents are pretty controlled (i.e. -1, -34-1, etc.) However, the real world implementation of that stuff is classified. I don’t see why we cannot integrate some of that stuff into the sim. For example, L16 would be such a game-changer in terms of how this sim is played. The flight model is pretty damn similar to the real jet (obviously some minor differences in there), but the avionics needs to be updated a little bit.
-
Ok, I’ll bite, how about: Hot chicks waiting for us when we RTB?
-
Can’t you get your own food?
-
I suspect it’s not that easy to implement it, but one small feature I believe could come in useful, would be a digital readout next to sliders, maybe with possibility to write in that box to fine-tune the value.
In my opinion, it could be especially useful for visibility sliders, where you don’t really have a clue where the VFR/IFR division is, or where to set the marker to have visibility that is both bad and good enough for IFR procedures like RATD, SID, ILS, …
+1 this one. We need to be able to set the exact mileage not just slide up and down the slider. We need to know if it’s 2 SM, or 10 SM or more!
-
well thats a nice wishlist! If even some of those things get implemented, Ill be happy. All of them would be like having all my birthdays at once….
With the Z axis, could you explain whats wrong with it, and how it affects radar and TGP mech? I could see the x and y axes getting improvements in that area, but whats wrong with the Z axis?
as above, none of those things are classified. Some of the details that would be needed to make some of those things work 100% true to real are classified, but are not mentioned above. Lots of details that would be needed to make some of those things better than in BMS are not found by googling, and depend on having up to date documentation. That documentation is not classified, but in most cases is not approved for unlimited distribution, either.
I’m willing to help implement these features; just need to find out who to talk to…
-
Ok, I’ll bite, how about: Hot chicks waiting for us when we RTB?
Friend, you’re on santa’s hotlist today
-
I reckon that a F-16E/F Block 60 is out of the question in future BMS itereations because a) UAE aren’t part of any TO currently available for BMS (if I’m not mistaken), b) access to sufficient data is probably classified and c) coding the rather advanced avionics and EWS could prove impossible?
In any case, those large MFDs, the AESA and the EWS make it quite the punch.Cheers
Edit: I tried finding out if the thread already covered this question, but typing Block 60 int othe search function yields no results.
-
Good Day, Kansas. While the Block 60 has not been discussed (in my memory , at least) AESA has. The consensus was that it wasn’t going to happen, and you were pretty close with B and C.
While I’m here-I know we’re a Viper sim, but how about an actual Hornet 'pit, switchology wise. -
Edit: I tried finding out if the thread already covered this question, but typing Block 60 int othe search function yields no results.
“f-16blk60”
https://www.benchmarksims.org/forum/showthread.php?12077-Block-60&highlight=blk60
https://www.benchmarksims.org/forum/showthread.php?9132-Moving-map&highlight=blk60
https://www.benchmarksims.org/forum/showthread.php?9945-F-16A&highlight=blk60
…
-
Thank you, I typed in other combinations and phrasings without good results.
-
If I could have one thing it would be an F/A-18E & F with RL avionics, not avionics from the F-16s, so, same displays as RL F/A-18E & F
-
If I could have one thing it would be an F/A-18E & F with RL avionics, not avionics from the F-16s, so, same displays as RL F/A-18E & F
+1.
-
If I could have one thing it would be an F/A-18E & F with RL avionics, not avionics from the F-16s, so, same displays as RL F/A-18E & F
As much as I think this is a good update, I think the F-16 avionics has a long way to go and should be modeled correctly first.
-
As much as I think this is a good update, I think the F-16 avionics has a long way to go and should be modeled correctly first.
Agreed seeing as this is F-16 sim. I love the Hornet as much as the next guy (F-18E/F NATOPS is still the only tactical flight manual I’ve truly read cover to cover) but Hornet updates should always be secondary to F-16 updates.
-
It’ll be great to have the F-2 Viper Zero since it’s a derivative of the F-16!
-
Personally, I’d like to see future updates head in a different direction than they have.
Right now, development is pretty focused on the aircraft. Most changes seem to be on avionics, flight models, that sort of stuff. What I’d really like to see would be for effort to be moved towards, well, everything that’s not the airplanes. That is, the war simulation, the ATO, AI, all that.
With regards to the AI, one thing I want to see is for them to be more “alive”. Right now, I have no reason to “care” at all for them. They’re just a name and a kill-count, nothing more. If you look at some older titles like Falcon 3, Fleet Defender, Gunship 2000, and others, the AI pilots (and RIOs in FD) are much more human. They get promoted, win medals, get fatigued, and can be “trained”. In FD, for example, the player was encouraged to take their fresh AI crews to the training range between campaigns to help them survive the wars.
Another little niggle with the AI is that they fly… “unnaturally”. Specifically they suffer from a problem that AI in many sims do, where they respond to orders and threats and such immediately, as if they sensed that the order was coming. It would feel much better if the AI had a touch of human slowness added to them, in that it might take a second or two to consider things. As an example, imagine you’re flying home after a mission with three AI wingmates. Now when you either call inbound or order them to RTB, they all, at the exact same moment, turn in sync towards the base. It just doesn’t feel right. If they spent just a (randomized) couple of seconds “thinking” about the order, it would feel so much better. Same with ordering them to attack a target, for example. I’d expect a human to wait a moment as they look at their FCR to see what I’m having them attack, and another moment to start setting up.
The war in general I think could use a lot of work. Rules of engagement, better ATO management, and so on. Proper rules of engagement would add not only a ton of realism, but would make it much more interesting deciding whether or not to kill things. As for the ATO, I’d really like to see proper planning of air assets - that is, far more airplanes flying less missions each. The end result would be a similar amount of action, handled in a much more realistic way. Airplanes should have a downtime of at least 6-8 hours, if not more. Right now it’s just one hour. The ATO also needs work, as we all know. Besides all the suicide missions it plans, it would be nice if it could generate missions much farther in advance, maybe even all of a day’s missions at once, like a real one.
Anyway, this is just what I’d like to see done in the future, if only I ran the world.
Fly safe!
-
If I could have one thing it would be an F/A-18E & F with RL avionics, not avionics from the F-16s, so, same displays as RL F/A-18E & F
I’d actually be extremely happy with using Viper avionics, but with a realistic Hornet cockpit set up. The way it is has the considerable advantage for me that when I fly the Viper with my squadron I don’t have to relearn everything. Plus, for me at least, using TMS, etc. properly is a big part of the sim’s enjoyment
-
Whereas for some of us, the fact the Hornet has Viper avionics means it has no attraction for us. It would be like the Viper having a Garmin G1000 glass cockpit instead of the MFDs, for instance.
-
I’d actually be extremely happy with using Viper avionics, but with a realistic Hornet cockpit set up. The way it is has the considerable advantage for me that when I fly the Viper with my squadron I don’t have to relearn everything. Plus, for me at least, using TMS, etc. properly is a big part of the sim’s enjoyment
…“realistic Hornet cockpit setup”…ok - forget about/erase/nix the TMS, DMS, DED, PFD…and add a UFC, a real moving map, and an operating third display…and you’d be somewhat close…er.