Bulleyes
-
lightswitch94
… so maybe it will a choise of the player … to use it or noYou already have the choice to use the bullseye (Radio calls use bullseye) or BRAA (Brearing Range Altitude Aspect)
-
You already have the choice to use the bullseye (Radio calls use bullseye) or BRAA (Brearing Range Altitude Aspect)
I suppose eagle-15 would actually prefer to hear AWACS calls in her/his native language, although it’s impossible in stock BMS. I’ve used subtitles for months before I feel comfortable with it, nothing replaces hearing and understanding them, in terms of language and multi-tasking. Yet, the use of a physical picture to spot your bullseye position wouldn’t help you increase your abilities in situational awareness, to be honest, and I’m saying this with the intent to help you get over it, because you can bet a big amount on no bullseye picture to be added ever.
You can get used to AWACS calls and ATC calls quicker than you expect though, they use very repetitive patterns and the numbers are quite easy to discriminate when you get the tricks (niner for nine, for instance). Where are you from, by the way?
EDIT: a little trick that might help you more: place steerpoints while on 2D UI map, on North, West, East, and South cross section with the 60 miles circle, for instance. There are steerpoints named after them. They’ll appear on the HSD and can make your life easier, especially when keeping track of several threats on BARCAP for example.
-
It could be done, but I doubt anyone is doing this in practice unless they are playing AWACS.
On that topic, ABMs can give you BRAA if its appropriate. F-15s actually use BRAA internally for their cursors, so for them they can use either. F-16s should be given B/E as a preference, unless the pilot asks for BRAA generally.
-
Of course right now in multiplayer it’s a bit gamey that if someone else calls for a picture or something, if you have BRAA enabled you get a call back with the BRAA to you as opposed to the other person.
This wouldn’t actually be possible and is a reason why bullseye is useful. Common reference so that other people’s calls make sense.
-
On that topic, ABMs can give you BRAA if its appropriate. F-15s actually use BRAA internally for their cursors, so for them they can use either. F-16s should be given B/E as a preference, unless the pilot asks for BRAA generally.
And groups need to be dec’d with BE; BRAA is not sufficient.
-
I think that may be in the in game setup, can’t remember, but the only caution I would have against using that is that it is really going I to mess you up in multiplayer because I don’t think anyone is going to take the time to figure out where your plane is and then give you the range and bearing to the contact. It could be done, but I doubt anyone is doing this in practice unless they are playing AWACS. So, I would encourage folks to try to learn and internalize the bullseye the best they can by the means that works best for them. I still have a hard time with it at times especially if I don’t think about where my airbase and target are on the bullseye before I get the call.
I got quite a few great suggestions on how to learn bullseye when I was working on a bullseye calculator. You can check it out here: https://www.benchmarksims.org/forum/showthread.php?29794-Bullseye-Calculator&highlight=bullseye+calculator
This depends on the environment and the controller. When I would play ABM on FO during the MP events it would be a mix of both based on the pilot. All picture calls are B/E because they should be used as SA builders for everyone flying, not just the particular flight requesting it. However, if the net was relatively clean (Not a lot of talkie talkie) then I would usually follow up with with some more directive or flight specific BRAA calls. I would also pay attention to who was having trouble with the calls due to language or inexperience and try to make it easier for them with some more clear BRAA oriented calls when I could–but always B/E first so the other flights paying attention know what’s going on. Intercept, pop-ups, and defensive calls were always B/E followed immediately by BRAA calls to a specific flight, because they have higher priority and usually require a little better reaction time.
For most people, until you really get proficient at it, displaying the BE on the HSD is a good indicator to help you stay oriented “enough”. The longer tick indicates N, so when you hear a B/E call your first step should be to gauge a GENERAL area of the call. Don’t be quite so concerned with the exact position unless it is a relevant call. For instance, if you are BE 270/90 anything E of the BE is not immediately relevant. You just need to know the general area off the top of your head. After that you can pinpoint it if you like. In similar fashion, if your ownship is 20NM from B/E and you are hearing calls for aircraft at 100+ NM from B/E, the absolute NEAREST they could possibly be is 80 NM. Not an immediate factor, but in the same scenario if you hear a call at 10 NM from B/E the absolute FARTHEST they could be from you is 30 NM. Think of it in stages from a big picture perspective then narrow it down to smaller and smaller general areas based on the things you hear, and it will gradually become second nature.
-
It can also be useful to give some thought to where you put your bullseye position rather than just accepting the default.
For example if you are defending a target area you might put bullseye on the target area so you have good range SA on how far out threats are and if they are getting close to target or not.
If you are attacking or sweeping an area and there are two main factor airfields, maybe putting the bullseye inbetween can be handy so you know if it’s a westerly B/E that it’s probably something taking off from the airfield in the west and with an easterly B/E that it’s coming from the east.
Also if your bullseye is really far away from the area with the action then the bullseye cuts will become less and less accurate (because there’s going to be more and more room between the radials).
Things like that are worth considering.
-
It can also be useful to give some thought to where you put your bullseye position rather than just accepting the default.
For example if you are defending a target area you might put bullseye on the target area so you have good range SA on how far out threats are and if they are getting close to target or not.
If you are attacking or sweeping an area and there are two main factor airfields, maybe putting the bullseye inbetween can be handy so you know if it’s a westerly B/E that it’s probably something taking off from the airfield in the west and with an easterly B/E that it’s coming from the east.
Also if your bullseye is really far away from the area with the action then the bullseye cuts will become less and less accurate (because there’s going to be more and more room between the radials).
Things like that are worth considering.
When I place the bullseye I try to place it somewhere in the theater that is active. I don’t think in real life they move it around for just one mission for the same reason that BE is preferred over BRAA. A bullseye, in my mind, is for your side, not for me personally. So in an Iron Fortress campaign I usually place it on Seoul Airfield be that area is hot and the overall objective for the US/ROK, and I wouldn’t move it to say Mandumi for an OCA strike because that’s pretty much an isolated objective for my package. I hope that makes sense?
-
Unlike BMS, its not unusual to have multiple B/E per side. And your package very well might get its own B/E for a strike mission.
-
I don’t think in real life thefy move it around for just one mission for the same reason that BE is preferred over BRAA.
IRL there are much more than only one bulls.
In future version, BRAA will be more realistic (no more “translation” for own player when someone else or IA say/ask for a BRAA). Understand that it will be only valid for the one who reqested the BRAA or if you know where he is. Because of the fix, “Radio Call Use Bullseye” option will become even more valuable.
-
IRL there are much more than only one bulls.
In future version, BRAA will be more realistic (no more “translation” for own player when someone else or IA say/ask for a BRAA). Understand that it will be only valid for the one who reqested the BRAA or if you know where he is. Because of the fix, “Radio Call Use Bullseye” option will become even more valuable.
Will/doesn’t it use BE until a condition is met and then transition to BRAA within a specified tactical proximity? Unless asked…?..
-
Will/doesn’t it use BE until a condition is met and then transition to BRAA within a specified tactical proximity? Unless asked…?..
IIRC, pop up and threat calls use BRAA. Either of us could check - the procedure is detailed in the attach 1 to the brevity words doc.
-
Will/doesn’t it use BE until a condition is met and then transition to BRAA within a specified tactical proximity? Unless asked…?..
Of course.
-
In future version, BRAA will be more realistic (no more “translation” for own player when someone else or IA say/ask for a BRAA). Understand that it will be only valid for the one who reqested the BRAA or if you know where he is. Because of the fix, “Radio Call Use Bullseye” option will become even more valuable.
Good to hear!
-
Will/doesn’t it use BE until a condition is met and then transition to BRAA within a specified tactical proximity? Unless asked…?..
P-825 reckons that for USN crews, they will use BRAA inside 30 NM (Granted, P-825 is specific to one training squadron and is about teaching techniques, but still).
Obviously in the case of the F-16, B/E is a lot easier to translate to contacts downrange than is BRAA.
-
Will/doesn’t it use BE until a condition is met and then transition to BRAA within a specified tactical proximity? Unless asked…?..
I think that’s right, that bullseye is the default behavior up to a certain point (inside 20nm pershaps)? And to override this behavior for BRAA at all times I think set in the config or setup, but I’ve never used it.
Anyway, I don’t think that’s Dee-Jay’s main point there. I think he is saying that you won’t get BRAA relevant to you unless AWACS is addressing you specifically (your “vector to threat” etc request). So if you hear BRAA directed at someone else, it’s going to be BRAA relevant to the directed pilot. So the present BRAA “crutch” if you will is slated for extinction. And I think that’s a good thing to be able to enforce in multiplayer, but I don’t see the harm of leaving the “translation” in as an option.
As I am color blind I’d welcome a few things to help me enjoy this game. For example, even though it might not be realistic to have HUDs with black lettering well that would be a minor godsend for me when flying at day above the cloud layer. Similarly, I don’t use padlock but if someone doesn’t have something like TrackIR, or maybe they just have real bad eyesight, well again why keep them from enjoying the sim. It’s already in there, so don’t take those crutches. Just add an option so that in multiplayer you can enforce rules if you want. Hey, I might have to join the nearly blind crowd here in a handful of years and it would be nice to still enjoy Falcon BMS.
I think of the bullseye in the same way. But instead of a a physical impairment you might have someone that is really and truly having a mental block when it comes to being able to interpret a BE call in a timely fashion. Sure, for the vast majority it’s just a learning curve thing and the crutch delays the learning, but that may not be true for everybody so why take it out? Anyway, it’s not on the top of my list of “I’d like to see”, but if a crutch is already in the game, please just give us more and more realistic options, and please don’t take old options away.
-
I think that’s right, that bullseye is the default behavior up to a certain point (inside 20nm pershaps)? And to override this behavior for BRAA at all times I think set in the config or setup, but I’ve never used it.
Anyway, I don’t think that’s Dee-Jay’s main point there. I think he is saying that you won’t get BRAA relevant to you unless AWACS is addressing you specifically (your “vector to threat” etc request). So if you hear BRAA directed at someone else, it’s going to be BRAA relevant to the directed pilot. So the present BRAA “crutch” if you will is slated for extinction. And I think that’s a good thing to be able to enforce in multiplayer, but I don’t see the harm of leaving the “translation” in as an option.
As I am color blind I’d welcome a few things to help me enjoy this game. For example, even though it might not be realistic to have HUDs with black lettering well that would be a minor godsend for me when flying at day above the cloud layer. Similarly, I don’t use padlock but if someone doesn’t have something like TrackIR, or maybe they just have real bad eyesight, well again why keep them from enjoying the sim. It’s already in there, so don’t take those crutches. Just add an option so that in multiplayer you can enforce rules if you want. Hey, I might have to join the nearly blind crowd here in a handful of years and it would be nice to still enjoy Falcon BMS.
I think of the bullseye in the same way. But instead of a a physical impairment you might have someone that is really and truly having a mental block when it comes to being able to interpret a BE call in a timely fashion. Sure, for the vast majority it’s just a learning curve thing and the crutch delays the learning, but that may not be true for everybody so why take it out? Anyway, it’s not on the top of my list of “I’d like to see”, but if a crutch is already in the game, please just give us more and more realistic options, and please don’t take old options away.
I would imagine some of this has to do with code manageability. When you modify an aspect of the game in a large way to increase the realism factor, there is some serious potential for it to have broad, far reaching impacts on other aspects of the game from a code perspective. Lots of things talk to lots of things. Leaving too many options means you are increasing the number of checks you have to do for a lot of decisions real-time. Take this example: Enabling the user to select BRAA always is one check, BRAA to “requester” vice “ownship” is another check. That means you have to code the scenario for for all 4 potential options, which isn’t terribly hard in this instance, but you have double the amount of “time” it takes to process this request by doubling the number of checks it requires (This is not explicitly true, it’s usually not 1:1, but it’s clOse enough for this discussion). Now throw this into a MP environment where these calls may be coming every few seconds from someone out there who isn’t paying attention, can get ugly quick. An isolated incident such as just this check and that won’t make much difference, but expand that to all the different options out there, and you start eating into valuable CPU cycles rather quickly…especially on borderline or under-powered systems. Or imagine something like “easy targeting” mode (Fictional, just an example to clarify the point) targeting interacts with FCR, HUD, Weapons, TGP, DataLink, NAV, and several other things. Most of those I mentioned allow you select a target in some way, so they would have to have some sort of code added to them to handle “easy targeting mode” in addition to standard ops. The same concept applies to Skill Level settings, Flight Models, AR realism, etc… There is a reason that most games with real-time simulation style play often have a limited set of options which actually impact the 3D environment. And before someone says “What about graphics settings?” that’s an entirely different beast, with a dedicated API and hardware/pipeline.
-
LorikEolmin am from kuwait
-
thnx guys for ur rections… and as i said at first its a sugestions and am really glad to hear ur openions and answers
-
I think that’s right, that bullseye is the default behavior up to a certain point (inside 20nm pershaps)? And to override this behavior for BRAA at all times I think set in the config or setup, but I’ve never used it.
Anyway, I don’t think that’s Dee-Jay’s main point there. I think he is saying that you won’t get BRAA relevant to you unless AWACS is addressing you specifically (your “vector to threat” etc request). So if you hear BRAA directed at someone else, it’s going to be BRAA relevant to the directed pilot. So the present BRAA “crutch” if you will is slated for extinction. And I think that’s a good thing to be able to enforce in multiplayer, but I don’t see the harm of leaving the “translation” in as an option.
As I am color blind I’d welcome a few things to help me enjoy this game. For example, even though it might not be realistic to have HUDs with black lettering well that would be a minor godsend for me when flying at day above the cloud layer. Similarly, I don’t use padlock but if someone doesn’t have something like TrackIR, or maybe they just have real bad eyesight, well again why keep them from enjoying the sim. It’s already in there, so don’t take those crutches. Just add an option so that in multiplayer you can enforce rules if you want. Hey, I might have to join the nearly blind crowd here in a handful of years and it would be nice to still enjoy Falcon BMS.
I think of the bullseye in the same way. But instead of a a physical impairment you might have someone that is really and truly having a mental block when it comes to being able to interpret a BE call in a timely fashion. Sure, for the vast majority it’s just a learning curve thing and the crutch delays the learning, but that may not be true for everybody so why take it out? Anyway, it’s not on the top of my list of “I’d like to see”, but if a crutch is already in the game, please just give us more and more realistic options, and please don’t take old options away.
I think in a way you have captured exactly what I’m thinking of - yes, that AWACS should switch to BRAA once you (or any other pilot) are WVR and being specifically addressed. I hope it does this, and continues to!