What happened to the SAAFOPS theater
-
Did some digging - Greg has been rather busy with a very eclectic career. I found him and sent him a message. I am hoping to hear back from him, maybe put to rest the SAAFOPs saga once and for all.
-
For those dreamers this is the list I had of Angola Theater model work, rather impressive list.
Aircraft List:
AM.3C Bosbok
An-2
An-22
An-24
An-26
An-32
AS350 Ecurecil
BAe Hawk 120
Buccaneer S.Mk50
Beechcraft King Air
BN2 Islander
Boeing 707
Boeing 707-328 Tanker
Boeing 737
Boeing 747SP
C4M Kudu
C-47 Dakota
C-47 Dragon Dak
C-47 Ambu Dak
C-47 TP Dak
C-54 Skymaster
C-130B
Canberra B(1) Mk12
Canberra T.Mk4
CASA C-212
Cessna 185
Cessna 310
CH-2 Rooivalk
Cheetah C
Cheetah D
Cheetah D2
Cheetah DC
Cheetah E
Cheetah R
Do-27
EMB-312
F-27 Friendship
Gazelle
Gripen B
Gripen C
IL-62M
IL-76
MB-326KC Impala Mk II
MiG-15 UTI
MiG-17F
MiG-21MF
MiG-21bis
MiG-23ML
MiG-23UB
Mil Mi-6
Mil Mi-8
Mil Mi-24/25
Mil Mi-17
Mirage F1AZ
Mirage F1CZ
Mirage IIIBZ
Mirage IIICZ
Mirage IIIDZ
Mirage IIIEZ
Mirage IIID2Z
Mirage IIIRZ
Mirage IIIR2Z
Nord Noratlas
Piper Arrow
Piper Cherokee
SA-316 Alouette III
SA-316 Alouette III Gunship
SA-321 Super Frelon
SA-330 Puma
SA-332 Cougar
SA-365 Dauphin
Shackleton MR.3
SU-22M
SU-25
SU-27
Transall
Tu-134A Crusty
Yak-402D pits:
Mirage F1AZ
Impala Mk II
Buccaneer S.50
Gripen B
Gripen C
Hawk 120
Cheetah
MiG-21MF
MiG-23ML
Mirage F1CZ
Mirage IIIR2Z
SU-22
C-130B Hercules
AM3C Bosbok
SU-25
SU-27Mirage IIIEZ
Mirage IIICZ
Canberra B(1)Mk12
Transall C-160
Alouette III
SA-330 Puma3D pits:
Mirage F1AZ
Impala Mk II
Buccaneer S.50
Gripen
Hawk
Cheetah D2
MiG-21MF
MiG-23ML -
nm
-
it would be cool to have Gripen, Mirage F1AZ, MiG-21MF and MiG-23M 3D pit…the format is still the same I think
-
it would be cool to have Gripen, Mirage F1AZ, MiG-21MF and MiG-23M 3D pit…the format is still the same I think
MiG-21 and MiG-23 are so old AC with so old avionics which cannot be modeled with current code, the only result they would be ridiculously over modeleld. Even the '80s MiG-29 (9.12, 9.13) or Su-27S are on the edge considering the MFD and RWR modeling limitations.
-
I expected your reaction Molni…. I see your point, but flying MiG-21 in AF was the best Falcon fun for me… If you would try it …you would not call it overmodeled due to weak radar, missiles, etc. guess…
I think you can set shitty RWR as well, or turn it off completely in db (mig 19, 21F13 in AF). BTW, there were alternative MiG FMs posted over this forum… -
I expected your reaction Molni…. I see your point, but flying MiG-21 in AF was the best Falcon fun for me… If you would try it …you would not call it overmodeled due to weak radar, missiles, etc. guess…
I think you can set shitty RWR as well, or turn it off completely in db (mig 19, 21F13 in AF). BTW, there were alternative MiG FMs posted over this forum…Not only the avioncs over modeled, the MiG-21 has such flight control which comparing to F-16 FCS means literally do not have at all…
…while you can fly as safe and careless with MiG-21 as with F-16.I rather spend resources upgrade the core DB a much higher level as current. Sadly the DB upgrade always lags way, way behind the code changes. Even after almost 20+ (!!) years of development Falcon still does not have such DB which just barely could model / mimic the structure at least the red side…
-
but these pits and models are already done…just sitting on someones HDD…and perhaps disappear one day by disaster or HDD failure…
-
but these pits and models are already done…just sitting on someones HDD…and perhaps disappear one day by disaster or HDD failure…
Are we talking about fully 3D cockpits…?
-
Most probably yes but don’t expect 3d switches and buttons I believe.
Sent from TapaTalk
-
Something I have given some thought about was working on a common DB for theaters. I worked on this idea with FF a few years back - the idea was to keep Korea DB somewhat simplified and then put a lot of effort towards maximizing options with a “master DB” which I worked on for ITO2. This DB could then be used for multiple theaters and possessed a lot of models and skins to allow for a lot of possible theaters. If something isn’t there it can be added. I didn’t have the opportunity to fully develop the idea or test it but the test of ITO2 suggested that despite a lot of models and skins things didn’t seem to be adversely affected to the extent that ITO2 was tested.
The obvious limitation is that the BMS database is what is currently available in the Korea DB plus whatever is also available but doesn’t meet KoreaDB requirements. An example would be Jan Has C-130 or Phantoms. There are lots of other examples but for now it is probably safe to say there are a fair number of models, skins, and pits from contributors that could be added.
Having something like this, in effect, places one master DB with all the toys at everyone’s disposal. Given what I read so far - this kind of DB might have some issues for MP as well as not provide the idea environment for the F16 Centric development - but if folks can live without MP ( or with some aggravating crashes until all theaters DBs adhere to a set of universal files so that MP will work as intended then maybe that would be okay. I also sense there might be some reluctance in that some theaters may already have everything they need/want so adoption of a master DB carries not added value to them. However, for others it would be a way to enjoy the benefits of a robust DB without having to manage it themselves, at least not initially. The down side is, of course, being beholden to someone else’s time schedule, for example a DB might not be ready for one theater with all the bells and whistles desired, but ready for another. One upside, I believe, is not being restricted to the rigid requirements of the Korea DB - so things might progress more quickly. If theater developers can accept some risk in stability and frame-rate hits - then a master DB might just be the ticket.
One of the major departures for theaters, will likely be the airbaseses - depending on how sophisticated the theater becomes, a master DB can, at some point perhaps become rather restrictive. So, one permutation of the master DB idea is to have a fairly robust master DB which forms the basic starter set of files form which a theater developer can then move forward with a less intensive workload of DB manipulations to get a DB where its intended end state. If the KoreaDB is already at that point - then further discussion of an improve DB is moot.
-
Two points:
First, Molni did a fantastic job on the DB for his Korea 1980’s theater. I have consistently thought that his DB should be the standard for 80’s theaters. If you try his campaigns, you’ll find BMS is a completely different beast.
Second, anyone working on DB edits MUST, MUST, MUST be either working closely with, or be within the inner BMS development circle. Too much of what the development team is doing changes the DB and without collaborating with them closely, your work is doomed to the recycle bin.
Third- so I guess three points- while Molni has valid points regarding the fidelity of red jets, I repeat what I have always said. What we have now is still the best, even if it’s not very close to reality. What I mean is that barring the DCS MiG-21, and a few red FC3 level jets, there aren’t many options for flying red jets. It’s the few DCS, Strike Fighters, and whatever we can put into BMS. From that perspective, BMS is a viable alternative. So, Molni, with all respect, please understand that while you might roll your eyes at the idea, some of us really enjoy the challenge of playing this sim from the red side…even if the red jets are terribly overmodeled. There just aren’t many other options, so until there are, just let us have our fun and accept that it IS fun for some of us.
-
For me and with no mp compromises the best way for the dB would be a tool like file commander (remember Norton commander? ) have the ability to open two databases at the same time, tick what you want and merge them. The killer here mostly is 3d database the part which is mostly handled by lodeditor.
Tbuc (IIRC) tried to create such a tool but long time no see.
Falcon editor helped - helps with import export allot but… You still face the lodeditor with 1024x768 resolution and a ui and features from an era wich now is overcome.A master dB with all in would greatly help for reference.
Problem here would be lack of reference. Where is what.
Also file size would be enormous.
But for actual use I believe all the ppl that worked on such things had their share of crashes or Falcon going nuts and start all over from day zero with LODEditor. In my humble opinion problems originated from lodeditor with the major lack of the feature to erase a bogus entry, either totally or replace it and fix it.Sent from TapaTalk
-
Two points:
First, Molni did a fantastic job on the DB for his Korea 1980’s theater. I have consistently thought that his DB should be the standard for 80’s theaters. If you try his campaigns, you’ll find BMS is a completely different beast.
Second, anyone working on DB edits MUST, MUST, MUST be either working closely with, or be within the inner BMS development circle. Too much of what the development team is doing changes the DB and without collaborating with them closely, your work is doomed to the recycle bin.
Third- so I guess three points- while Molni has valid points regarding the fidelity of red jets, I repeat what I have always said. What we have now is still the best, even if it’s not very close to reality. What I mean is that barring the DCS MiG-21, and a few red FC3 level jets, there aren’t many options for flying red jets. It’s the few DCS, Strike Fighters, and whatever we can put into BMS. From that perspective, BMS is a viable alternative. So, Molni, with all respect, please understand that while you might roll your eyes at the idea, some of us really enjoy the challenge of playing this sim from the red side…even if the red jets are terribly overmodeled. There just aren’t many other options, so until there are, just let us have our fun and accept that it IS fun for some of us.
Yes, the problem are the unique DB objects for 3rd party theaters but at least for Korea it could be make a new DB. I have made a doc about how should look the red side, you can find it in the suggestion thread.
In case I do again '80s MOD I would follow that, DB will be more accurate and better usable comparing what I released.I’m not against playing campaign red side, in fact it would be great. But gameplay and balancewise currently this should be limited 4th generation jets to be avoid over modeling. So in an '80s scenario flying against F-16C B25/30/32 with Su-27S and MiG-29 9.12 / 9.13 won’t be so strongly sci-fi, at least you can cound an alternate universe where the avionics of these jets are little more advanced what were in RL. But doing this with MiG-21/23? At least to me it is pointless and not fun.
The main problem to me always the very strange modeling values which make pointless too many defense tactic and they are simiply do not match what happened in RL wars.
-
For me and with no mp compromises the best way for the dB would be a tool like file commander (remember Norton commander? ) have the ability to open two databases at the same time, tick what you want and merge them. The killer here mostly is 3d database the part which is mostly handled by lodeditor.
Tbuc (IIRC) tried to create such a tool but long time no see.
Falcon editor helped - helps with import export allot but… You still face the lodeditor with 1024x768 resolution and a ui and features from an era wich now is overcome.A master dB with all in would greatly help for reference.
Arty, the reason why I stopped working on the DB manager was because there was no guarantee from the DEVs that the work would get any kind of support by them in the future. As Toonces wrote, it does not make any sense to spend a lot of time writing a DB manager (and perhaps a master DB) for 4.33, to see a different DB structure in 4.34. I tried in several posts/PM in the past to get some kind of feedback from the DEVs in this regard, but the general response was they could not guarantee anything or share any information with me (not a DEV). Unless that happens, i.e. some kind of cooperation can be established at least regarding DB structure etc, it is pointless to do ANY work toward a DB unification or whatsoever of that kind.
From my end, if I could work faster than I can do right now, I could show what a DB manager/master DB could do for BMS, and hopefully convince the DEVs to share info (DB strcuture, functionallity, etc) before the next BMS version comes out. The problem is, I don´t know when the next update will be, and I don´t know if my work right now would be compatible. So, I´d rather keep flying and coding for other personal projects.
The last >incomplete< version of the DB manager was able already to copy complete CT entries from one DB into another one (or do a comparison). It was able to check the whole DB to see if a given unit/vehicle etc was present in two different DB but had different CT/ect numbers. I started working ona master DB idea by generating a new “CDTSS number” for each unit/vehicle in this new master DB.
https://www.benchmarksims.org/forum/showthread.php?14734-BMS-Database-Manager-(WIP)
-
Is there a link for WIP version?
-
No, Molni. Still some bugs there when I stopped working on it. For example, some problems with updating the rack information correctly when copying between DBs.
-
Well tbuc thanks for the time and effort.
I believe u should be more persistent on continuing on the tool.
Specially now that 4.31.1 is out. Sure they can’t promise or give info but hey how do you think new members join the team?
Do your magic have a good character (as you already show) and the rest will follow I believe.
I believe u understand what a great help your tool will be.
In the process and if u ask in public or with pm’s i believe the devs will respond. Maybe not in a zap but will or maybe some other members. Don’t be so sure they know and remember all by heart… They might have no idea and maybe have to look at the code and still not be 100% sure. It’s a chaos the Falcon code they have zillion outstandings and your requests just add to the bottom of it with no priority at all…
I believe I’m close to how it is.Sent from TapaTalk
-
Well tbuc thanks for the time and effort.
I believe u should be more persistent on continuing on the tool.
Specially now that 4.31.1 is out. Sure they can’t promise or give info but hey how do you think new members join the team?
Do your magic have a good character (as you already show) and the rest will follow I believe.
I believe u understand what a great help your tool will be.
In the process and if u ask in public or with pm’s i believe the devs will respond. Maybe not in a zap but will or maybe some other members. Don’t be so sure they know and remember all by heart… They might have no idea and maybe have to look at the code and still not be 100% sure. It’s a chaos the Falcon code they have zillion outstandings and your requests just add to the bottom of it with no priority at all…
I believe I’m close to how it is.Sent from TapaTalk
This is the fate of all developers Theatres and tools for Falcon. We live here and now. And here and now we give the best of ourselves.
-
@Joe:
This is the fate of all developers Theatres and tools for Falcon. We live here and now. And here and now we give the best of ourselves.
The problem until I had lots of free time for Falcon I had time what I could spend to make again and again my MOD. Now I simply do not have time for it…
I could make relatively fast a “'80s lite” MOD - quick sensor changes, only small OBB changes in campaigns - but such a full MOD what I did last time… I’m not even enough brave to start.
After I finshed any new release could ruin the whole and I have no idea how can be updated and applied fast to new release. I have no idea how solved the compatibility issues all the 3rd party makers so fast even they are work in team…
Since I knew the key issues of DB I simply do not fly with core DB. I have to say I did not fly at all with 4.33 only for testing…