Ff you could have one thing in the next update it would be…
-
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.
-
New start ;-). I would like to have a simulated visor - visor down -> all is darker and color tinted - sun is so bright during those refuelings
Nothing stopping you from wear pilot glasses at home hahaha
-
I saw this thread on DCS forum regarding the head rotation in cockpit
http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=96116&highlight=rotate+head
and I think that this will be great to add to Falcon.
the image is taken fron the post above, just to see here what I am talking about.
-
Not accurate. U must put a variable for input for the distances between eyes and between eye and vertical neck base axis.
Then take a CT scan, find that distance and input in the sim.:lol: correct but a joke of detail beyond death. No offense to the poster this was posted before, I’ve read it in DCS also. Still a joke, and a waist of time for coders beta testers and hw and Sw resources.
Sent from TapaTalk
-
Yeah… In the quest for (a very unnecessary) detail, the devs have missed the simple broader picture; TIR is just a tool to look around, not simulate some virtual head.
-
It was only a wish as the title said, no need to start a debate if it’s useless or not.
-
Sure m8 no debate at all. Just opinions. As I said nice and correct feature.
Sent from TapaTalk
-
For the BMS cockpit display extraction to include the ASHM.
-
For the BMS cockpit display extraction to include the ASHM.
I think you can already display the HUD. Is this different from the default one?
-
i’d love to see tankers with basket fuel connections for ac such as the hornet/mirage! that would be cool
-
I think you can already display the HUD. Is this different from the default one?
You can display the HUD, just the symbology to be displayed on it. The ASHM is a video display that shows the cockpit view with the HUD symbology superimposed over it. The HUD view from the cockpit display extraction does not have this cockpit view included.
Ideally this ASHM display would be included along side the other displays required to build a front and back D model cockpit.
-
i’d love to see tankers with basket fuel connections for ac such as the hornet/mirage! that would be cool
+1.