Ff you could have one thing in the next update it would be…
-
How about implementing the functionalities on these MFDs. Long short though but it would be worthwhile.
I was under the impression 3 MFDs couldn’t be done in Falcon 4.0, is that wrong?
-
it would be one of those things
“we will never have buddy lasing in BMS” things.
-
Wish there would be F-16V one day.
Seems its much more close to legacy F-16 than Israeli one(Just “seems” maybe not…).While I’m using FCR&TGP same time I need another MFD to display HSD.
That was one thing BMS taught me by experience why RL fighters add 3rd MFD, or fullfill hall front cockpit with a monitor like 35 does.+1 with AIM-120D
Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk
-
I can assure you that it is more than that but I’m not going to discuss it any further.
Also not true. The TEKs and KEKs are all secret at a minimum, usually top secret. Knowing what the knobs do is hardly knowing how it works, much less being able to implement it in a simulator.
There is no need to know actual TEKs and KEKs to make COMSEC simulated. You can simulate them by using preatty much any kind of variable. Knowing what knobs and switches do would be enough. There is no need to implement algorithm. Anyway AIRES radio plugin for DCS simulates KY-58.
Its known that Saville uses 120bit key and the fill guns can hold 128bit because they use additional bits as some kind of checksum. http://www.cryptomuseum.com/crypto/usa/saville.htm
There is absolutely no need to implement actual algorithm in order to simulate KY-58 in BMS and keys could be any kind of variable.
-
+1 with AIM-120D
Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk
Would love to see a “D” slammer as well. But that would be like a “God” weapon considering that all slammers in bms are modeled after the “B” variant. The different versions of the “C” (out to the - 8 ) are not modeled AFAIK. All the devs have for modeling those C variants and the “D” is by what information is available. If you go by “WIKI”, the slammer “C” in bms are nowhere near the range (maxv maxr and WEZ) that WIKI or any other sources account for. But you can not get “accurate” info on these missiles anyway (classified). The “D” variant has been in service for just about 2 years now. It is fielded with many F-15, F-16 and F/a-18 squadrons (including US/South Korean squadrons). However there production numbers are small. So, implementing them in bms would be great, but each squad should have a minimum number available. I would like to the the C variants implemented better first at least.
All that being said, the red side should also get the latest variant of the R-77 to keep up with the “D” slammer so as to keep the game balanced. All of this would be in the advanced Korea campaign IMO. But, as with all things for modeling newer systems/weapons in bms, the devs can only go by what fairly reliable information is out there to model with.
-
Nevermid it has been fielded. Yes i definitelly want it.
-
-
What impact would a moving map display do to overall BMS software performance?
Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk
-
This post is deleted! -
I would like to see my HUD properly displayed in the hornet. Its hard to read the altitude on the right and impossible to see the Steer point flight time caret on the left. Thank you for all the amazing work!
-
What impact would a moving map display do to overall BMS software performance?
Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk
Been previously discussed. Use “search” for “moving map”.
-
Maybe a “cross point”, in the RECON window,
Just to point out selected object at distance, Just a suggestion,
Thanks for all the GREAT work -
I would like to see my HUD properly displayed in the hornet. Its hard to read the altitude on the right and impossible to see the Steer point flight time caret on the left. Thank you for all the amazing work!
I want the same!!!
Enviado desde mi iPhone utilizando Tapatalk
-
+1. You don’t have to “implement” it…you only have to model it. Can say the same for IFF as well.
The same could be said for several systems: IFF, JTIDS, AESA/IRST, HaveQuick, Secure Voice to name a few. They could all be MODELED “relatively” easily. Personally I think JTIDS would be the hardest to do in a semi-realistic manner. But still not terribly hard to do. The underlying functionality already exists with the IDM, it would just need to be expanded past your package. If it were done, and done somewhat correctly, people would stop asking for IFF, which would probably make DeeJay happy. I also feel like that is the biggest “missing” feature that should be a priority to incorporate in the game. I don’t think anyone has expectations for a full JTIDS functionality implementation, because the sim just couldn’t handle it. But the key SA features like identifying participating players and target sort/management could be done I think somewhat easily. Each JTIDS enabled aircraft gets a JU, assigned in order of availability when the entity is created in the 3D world (0-255 on both red and blue would do it i think). After that you could display it on the HSD and FCR the same as the IDM but using the JU number instead of the IDM address. Granted, that doesn’t account for ground enabled JTIDS vehicles, but as people are fond of saying-there are compromises in the SIM world.
Not terribly useful in the Single Player arena, but immeasurably beneficial in a MP environment. And has the added bonus of performing the IFF function that everyone would like to see, but with slightly less fidelity on the FCR than the general God Mode effect that people think IFF provides. Would require some tuning to the HSD and FCR CNTRL pages however to allow for some declutter, but that starts to touch on the much needed updates to all the MFD pages.
-
The same could be said for several systems: IFF, JTIDS, AESA/IRST, HaveQuick, Secure Voice to name a few. They could all be MODELED “relatively” easily. Personally I think JTIDS would be the hardest to do in a semi-realistic manner. But still not terribly hard to do. The underlying functionality already exists with the IDM, it would just need to be expanded past your package. If it were done, and done somewhat correctly, people would stop asking for IFF, which would probably make DeeJay happy. I also feel like that is the biggest “missing” feature that should be a priority to incorporate in the game. I don’t think anyone has expectations for a full JTIDS functionality implementation, because the sim just couldn’t handle it. But the key SA features like identifying participating players and target sort/management could be done I think somewhat easily. Each JTIDS enabled aircraft gets a JU, assigned in order of availability when the entity is created in the 3D world (0-255 on both red and blue would do it i think). After that you could display it on the HSD and FCR the same as the IDM but using the JU number instead of the IDM address. Granted, that doesn’t account for ground enabled JTIDS vehicles, but as people are fond of saying-there are compromises in the SIM world.
Not terribly useful in the Single Player arena, but immeasurably beneficial in a MP environment. And has the added bonus of performing the IFF function that everyone would like to see, but with slightly less fidelity on the FCR than the general God Mode effect that people think IFF provides. Would require some tuning to the HSD and FCR CNTRL pages however to allow for some declutter, but that starts to touch on the much needed updates to all the MFD pages.
Agreed…with the caveat that if AWACS were smarter and available in single player Campaign, and/or in a the Training mission (which might also include a bullseye relnav primer), there could be additional benefit to be had in single player.
-
Moving ground grew. Some of them lead my taxing direction and salute at the end of ramp start. command with ground grew.
-
I would like to see a dedicated MP server, designed specifically to eliminate the 3D environment from the executable, which saves a TON of CPU cycles during the game loop. I know there are dedicated server solutions available from 3rd party developers out there, but I would like to see a dedicated server from the BMS team, designed specifically to inter-operate with the BMS client, because it provides a path to overcome a lot of the limitations in the game that result from bubbles, and bandwidth, and helps provide some paths to implement things like JTIDS and extended range radars, and longer range missiles, etc…
A server which completely removes the 3D rendering aspect of the game loop in the executable can save a lot of CPU cycles. It also has the ability to maintain a master list of objects for the entire 3D environment without the need to spend CPU cycles on drawing, or even determining what does and doesn’t need to be drawn, and a lot of other overhead that DX brings with it. I think the 3D should be more of a hybrid, incorporating the bubbles for things like weapon deployment, chaff/flare, DOF and control surface, and all the other niceties which only impact things inside that bubble. But master location of aircraft and vehicles should be kept server-side and pushed out to the clients. Doing that would enable the avionics to see more than just the “Lead” unit of a flight or ground formation even outside the bubble. It enables JTIDS to be implemented in a more realistic way and to function with more than just the Package and outside the bubble. It provides the mechanism to actually populate the 2D map in the campaign with more than just the Flight Lead info, but individual aircraft as well (Which provides the GCI/AWACS view that a lot of people ask for), and a slew of other things which could be great for the sim.
This would require a considerable amount of work, but I think it’s a foundation step which opens the door for a lot of other features and functionality that people would like to see. I think it might also lay the framework to help alleviate some of the issues like Carrier positioning for MP clients, provides a mechanism to overhaul the ATC functions and extend them past basic TO/LAND clearance, incorporate IADS, and several other things which are currently limited by the inability to universally share position data for “Large” entities. Again, weapon deployment and flares and things which don’t effect the whole theater should not be maintained by the centralized list, but should still be in the bubble. The client would have to change to aggregate the data from both the bubble and the server, but that’s a much easier task than it sounds like–just time consuming because the data is used in so many different places.
-
AFM would be pretty awesome for the Rafale.
-
The same could be said for several systems: IFF, JTIDS, AESA/IRST, HaveQuick, Secure Voice to name a few. They could all be MODELED “relatively” easily. Personally I think JTIDS would be the hardest to do in a semi-realistic manner. But still not terribly hard to do. The underlying functionality already exists with the IDM, it would just need to be expanded past your package. If it were done, and done somewhat correctly, people would stop asking for IFF, which would probably make DeeJay happy. I also feel like that is the biggest “missing” feature that should be a priority to incorporate in the game. I don’t think anyone has expectations for a full JTIDS functionality implementation, because the sim just couldn’t handle it. But the key SA features like identifying participating players and target sort/management could be done I think somewhat easily. Each JTIDS enabled aircraft gets a JU, assigned in order of availability when the entity is created in the 3D world (0-255 on both red and blue would do it i think). After that you could display it on the HSD and FCR the same as the IDM but using the JU number instead of the IDM address. Granted, that doesn’t account for ground enabled JTIDS vehicles, but as people are fond of saying-there are compromises in the SIM world.
Not terribly useful in the Single Player arena, but immeasurably beneficial in a MP environment. And has the added bonus of performing the IFF function that everyone would like to see, but with slightly less fidelity on the FCR than the general God Mode effect that people think IFF provides. Would require some tuning to the HSD and FCR CNTRL pages however to allow for some declutter, but that starts to touch on the much needed updates to all the MFD pages.
I think the sim could handle a full implementation. would be nice to have IFF as well, though. As you touch on, they do provide somewhat different services to one another.
-
Moving ground grew. Some of them lead my taxing direction and salute at the end of ramp start. command with ground grew.
Yes. There was an F/A-18 sim with those I remember on the Carrier. More than one of them got ingested as I tried to taxi to the cat!