Ff you could have one thing in the next update it would be…
-
F4AWACS is useful for ATC, but since 4.33 (or U1) AISpy no longer seems to work, so while the pilots may be surrounded by hundreds of AI, GCI will see a clean picture.
Also, the F4AWACS UI could use a serious update to make it really great.
-
Mh, i’m pretty sure we use it with AI Spy for our flight. We still have some issues with the ID sometimes but I think it work.
-
F4AWACS is useful for ATC, but since 4.33 (or U1) AISpy no longer seems to work, so while the pilots may be surrounded by hundreds of AI, GCI will see a clean picture.
Also, the F4AWACS UI could use a serious update to make it really great.
I believe this was the case and before.
Monster explained this many times. If you have only human members it works perfect. but if there is a combination of AI and humans then it gets fubared. IIRC AI are from 2d and not 3d and so no separation and details.
BMS should see in to this and provide such data when they will have time for it. I hope it is in the priority list and soon it will get a better priority number.
-
moving map in HSD
Updated HUD and HSD symbology per block and tape if possible.
-
If you have only human members it works perfect. but if there is a combination of AI and humans then it gets fubared. IIRC AI are from 2d and not 3d and so no separation and details.
Is there a known cause for why it FUBARs with human + AI interaction?
I just tested it in single player, and it worked exactly like you’d expect. During our last MP uses of OSC, however, we could see multiple AI groups on 2D UI and FCR in-game, but F4AWACS showed absolutely no contacts apart from the human players.
-
@MEK:
Hi,
Runway like this :
Mostly camera lens effect. Take into account that those slope changes happen over 2,5-3km. Most runways are not so poorly built, just a handful of them come to my mind and all in the UK for some reason.
In any case, wouldn’t have much of an purpose in a combat flightsim…
-
Is there a known cause for why it FUBARs with human + AI interaction?
I just tested it in single player, and it worked exactly like you’d expect. During our last MP uses of OSC, however, we could see multiple AI groups on 2D UI and FCR in-game, but F4AWACS showed absolutely no contacts apart from the human players.
I believe monster explains it in the OSC tread.
https://www.benchmarksims.org/forum/showthread.php?11804-Online-Squadron-Collection-v2-is-out/page11there are numerous posts from him explaining the strange behavior.
-
I believe monster explains it in the OSC tread.
https://www.benchmarksims.org/forum/showthread.php?11804-Online-Squadron-Collection-v2-is-out/page11there are numerous posts from him explaining the strange behavior.
Arty…let me get this right, because I was thinking of using F4AWACS. You mean if I have a blue 4-ship of humans in a MP campaign, the red air won’t be reliably shown on F4AWACS air picture?
-
I don’t see it happening due to the fact that Pilot Guides and -34s, while unclass, are export controlled material and not supposed to be distributed. As such I think we’re not going to get much further than a partial non Link-16 EPAF M5 at best, maybe with some M6 / 6.5 elements (like GBU-39s/54s). So pushing in an additional change like that might be a bridge too far I think.
Could be wrong though.
As for my request: while I would love Link-16 and some other avionics features, some other things I’d find great for the sim itself:
- more control for mission designers/TE builders, i.e. using triggers etc. Right now the only way to sequence things is by timing so you really have to kind of guess when to launch a QRA etc. Unit vs Area or being killed based triggers would add a bunch of new options
- possibilities to spawn vehicles / SAMs in other positions than just columns, and be able to position them more precisely, rather than at a city etc.
- more information being available about every AI aircraft (not just flight leads) etc so Tacview can generate live options and allow real time analysis / AWACS control via Tacview?
+1 for L16 and FCR/IFF interaction for BVR enhanced SA. The latter request is not meant to start a holy war.
-
“If you could have one thing in the next update it would be”
Bring back the RWR threat warning sounds from 4.32 along with it’s reliability and sensitivity.
-
Lol Coco, let me grab the popcorn, sit back and enjoy what’s coming
-
LOL!!! Nope Red Dog … I won’t feed the “argument” this time
-
lol
You are the one I was expecting in this
Too bad for my popcorn -
@Red:
You are the one I was expecting in this
I know! … (If you’d say nothing I would have bitten this throat)
Edit: Give me your pop corn. I like it (with salt).
-
Bring back the RWR threat warning sounds from 4.32 along with it’s reliability and sensitivity.
I don’t know if I should laugh or cry…
-
Coco found what he has to do : Just revert to 4.32 and be the happiest in the world : http://falcon-online.org/forum/index.php?topic=2462.msg28395#msg28395
Enjoy! Whatever what we play with … most important is to take pleasure.
Do not hope for any reversion of RWR in future versions as we are not working to make this sim less accurate … “Easy Avionic” is still available in FF, AF, OF, Falcon4.0 … there are a lot of different versions that you can enjoy depending on your personal flavours.
For sure, future versions of BMS will not please everybody.
(I do even not understand why I post here! ?!? :D)
-
okay, now that you have said it anyway !!
Would you update the HTS then?Don’t show me the door, I know where it is
-
“Easy Avionic” is still available in FF…
Not a working one. No.
We left it (intentionally) by the wayside many eons ago.
-
throwing my hat into the ring for “more effective flares against low-tech missiles”
c’mon there DJ, pretty please?
-
We left it (intentionally) by the wayside many eons ago.
Thank you for info Ara.
We understand why you made that choice. It is already difficult, lonf and paifull to debug the “realistic” branch …
@Red:
Would you update the HTS then?
I would be really happy, but is another area. It requires a total rework.
Currently the HTS is nothing but a super RWR and is almost nothing real.
Maybe one day (?) I would be reeeeealy happy to work again with Ataribaby … But Coco and Co. will be deeeeeeply disappointed by the loss of functionalities of this device.
Note also that we won’t implement the PT mode of the HTS because of classification issues. Once better implemented, “only” the SAM PPTs will be displayed on the HAD page and it will not show when radar is changing modes … In other words, HAD will be a bit different than HSD page, more handy but more or less similar to HAS page. No more magic spot, no more magic precision targeting!