Ff you could have one thing in the next update it would be…
-
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!
-
A more accurate FCR simulation. To include a functional VSR and ULS implementation, perhaps RWR Slave as well. Or even just RWS working with RCR and NCTR functionality, and DTT working. In a perfect world, CNTL page settings working and having correct initialisation values.
-
One of the more interesting things that Hornet 3.0 did (on the Mac side, at least…) was to randomize your radar detection performance…you wouldn’t have the exact-same detection performance on any given session - sometimes it rocked, some sessions it was downright poor. Which is far more like RL. If BMS doesn’t already do this, I’d be all for it being done to any sort of extent.
-
i’d like the devs to take another look at flare performance. they seem too useless, even against very primitive heatseekers like AA-2/8.
-
Id be a fan of a very slight fluctuation in performance, but Id be less thrilled if it was significantly noticeable.
Im guessing the reason we dont have a radar simulation is performance, rather than documentation.
Would be nice if flares worked, too.
-
Id be a fan of a very slight fluctuation in performance, but Id be less thrilled if it was significantly noticeable.
Im guessing the reason we dont have a radar simulation is performance, rather than documentation.
Would be nice if flares worked, too.
Personally, I think the radar sim is pretty good…far better than I might have expected. But there should be some perceptible (including frustrating…) performance fluctuation for ALL players - including bogeys - on some scheme…in the interest of keeping it “real”. I’ve read about it with TGPs - guys having bent pods within a division (which is way cool, now that we can buddy lase - thanks devs!)…different sensor, same concept - just short of complete failure.
-
Personally, I think the radar sim is pretty good…far better than I might have expected.
Granted, but I think there is still room for significant improvement.
-
I’ve seen no indication that flares do not work. Just because heaters don’t abruptly make wild turns does not mean that they have not been decoyed.
-
Well, thats the indicator from the cockpit. If its not moving, its on lead collision and you are in trouble. If it starts moving, its been decoyed.
-
Key word being “wild”, in relative to the missile.
-
when contacting awacs for devert field! have awacs give radio channel besides tacan and distance to field