Ff you could have one thing in the next update it would be…
-
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
-
They really shouldn’t though.
-
I would be good to have some dynamically structures like trees, for cities and villages.
-
I would be good to have some dynamically structures like trees, for cities and villages.
this already is done.
-
No, it isnt. The closest thing is the custom objects folders being developed, and those are not dynamically placed (programmatically).
All the buildings placed are done with objects, unlike trees that are done programmatically.
-
errr he asks for trees for cities and villages.
Trees are there… ain’t they?
-
I (and I assume Blu3wolf too) understood it as a request to add buildings dynamically, in the same way trees are currently implemented, in order to create villages and cities.
-
Granted, but I think there is still room for significant improvement.
Nothing of much consequence…in this virtual reality, IMO.
-
I (and I assume Blu3wolf too) understood it as a request to add buildings dynamically, in the same way trees are currently implemented, in order to create villages and cities.
…I took it as a request for trees that wave in the breeze, and other ground objects that might sway in the wind.
-
Nothing of much consequence…in this virtual reality, IMO.
Depends on whether its a simulation or a game.
As it stands, there are a few improvements that could be made to make for better gameplay, but its pretty good where it is.
There are a lot of significant differences in terms of accurate simulation though, that at present can act to allow negative training and reinforcing of bad habits.