Ff you could have one thing in the next update it would be…
-
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.
-
i’d love to see tankers with basket fuel connections for ac such as the hornet/mirage! that would be cool
Not my video, but it was posted elsewhere on the BMS forums. You’ll have probe and drogue refueling in 3-4 weeks.
-
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!
The ATO and ACO stuff can for the most part be usefull when there is an GCI/AWACS interface integrated into Falcon with working radios. Plus limited control over AI flights. A controller will decide who will engage which target so when he decides that human pilots will engage he should at least assing another target to AI flight, give them a safe heading or give hold for few minutes like real life with datalinks and radio commands.
Thats why I wish that a realistic AWACS interface is created for the next release. -
The ATO and ACO stuff can for the most part be usefull when there is an GCI/AWACS interface integrated into Falcon with working radios. Plus limited control over AI flights. A controller will decide who will engage which target so when he decides that human pilots will engage he should at least assing another target to AI flight, give them a safe heading or give hold for few minutes like real life with datalinks and radio commands.
Thats why I wish that a realistic AWACS interface is created for the next release.Yeah, this sort of stuff would be really cool, too.
In general, I feel that the campaign is by far the weakest point in the sim. The F-16 is incredibly realistic, as are the weapons, avionics, and so on. I just wish I had an equally realistic war to putt about in.
-
A realistic war with North Korea would be pretty boring in all honesty. Half of their stuff is broken, and they don’t have enough resources to maintain a full-out war longer than about 24 hours.
-
A realistic war with North Korea would be pretty boring in all honesty. Half of their stuff is broken, and they don’t have enough resources to maintain a full-out war longer than about 24 hours.
Boring is a relative term, of course. While a realistic campaign certainly isn’t for everyone (and so shouldn’t be the default), I feel it could be quite fun. Probably in the style of ODS or OAF where we spent a couple days doing intense fighting, then spent the rest of the war systematically crushing their ground troops.
-
True, ground pounding is indeed my favorite thing to do in BMS.
-
Three days if the blue side started it, or four to five if the red side starts it. The rest of the war would not be very long at all. Crush the leadership and the rest will crumple.
-
Three days if the blue side started it, or four to five if the red side starts it. The rest of the war would not be very long at all. Crush the leadership and the rest will crumple.
While that’s possible, it seems unlikely. It would probably take a little while. Remember that we wouldn’t just go throwing around JSOWs left and right. There would be strict ROEs, especially since the DPRK puts so many of their military units in towns and stuff. I’d imagine a few months of strikes (Desert Storm style) would be required to get a surrender out of them.
Using Desert Storm as our example, the air war was won in a few days. In the following days, most major Iraqi troops got knocked out. For the weeks following, we spent a lot of time looking for and eliminating what was left. An important part to remember is that these Iraqi troops would’ve been told that they were winning, in an effort to keep them fighting. I can only imagine this effect would be magnified in a place like the DPRK.
-
I think starting another thread would be better for the continued discussion of this.
The short version of my thoughts is that strict ROEs would be in play, along with the results of over 60 years of intelligence gathering. The air war is won from the first couple hours. Their air force is a delaying action to try and stave off the interdiction missions. The ground targets are already identified in a number of OPLANs, ranging from punitive strikes to major theater war.
Orwell’s claims in 1984 aside, there is a limit to what people will accept from authority figures. When the chain of command is broken and no more orders are coming from the top or middle… the bottom are going to start thinking maybe a surrender is a good idea.
-
A correctly animated Intercom knob and a drink holder on the dash!