Ff you could have one thing in the next update it would be…
-
Maybe not a big thing but sometimes it feel like when communicating with AWACS, Tower etc. it feels like I should be verbally acknowledging things they tell me. Maybe add a option for responses such as, (Viper1 Copy, etc) and if you don’t respond they keep repeating. Yes maybe it would drive you nuts but in real world situations, the person transmitting information always looks to hear a response that you acknowledge their transmission of information. Similar to your wing man responses when you give them a command, most of the time you get an acknowledgement they heard and are complying with your command. (Flight Lead:" 2 Close it up"/ Wingman: "2, Closing up). Of course this is alot easier using voice command programs thats why I mention it could be a option in the config settings.
-
Limited realism though, they wouldn’t repeat it ad lib.
-
Maybe not a big thing but sometimes it feel like when communicating with AWACS, Tower etc. it feels like I should be verbally acknowledging things they tell me. Maybe add a option for responses such as, (Viper1 Copy, etc) and if you don’t respond they keep repeating. Yes maybe it would drive you nuts but in real world situations, the person transmitting information always looks to hear a response that you acknowledge their transmission of information. Similar to your wing man responses when you give them a command, most of the time you get an acknowledgement they heard and are complying with your command. (Flight Lead:" 2 Close it up"/ Wingman: "2, Closing up). Of course this is alot easier using voice command programs thats why I mention it could be a option in the config settings.
Not a bad idea … I like it. But before that, it would be better to see AI acting AFTER having received an order (after the message has been actually played) … but we have a real problem : Chatter overcrowded … and your idea will even make it worse (especially in MP).
What would be good, is to separate the Ground, the Tower, the Approach, the Check In and the Tactical frequencies to “reduce” the amount of messages … or … to be able to play them in a more realistic way.
In any cases, we still have to face one of the biggest issue about radio implementation in Flacon4 => we have only ONE voice channel at a time. It is in fact impossible to play two messages on both UHF and VHF at the same time giving queue issues and AFAIK, this is not gonna be solved anytime soon. -
This post is deleted! -
By the way, does “Traffic in sight” have a consequence?
-
Technical/Code limitation or just nobody wants to work on it?
Rather because everybody is working something different at present time.
By the way, does “Traffic in sight” have a consequence?
Yes.
Oh, and because it hasn’t been mentioned in a while… Link 16–ahaha
As my friend says :
-
This post is deleted! -
This post is deleted! -
I believe something missing in comms from AI AWACS etc is the command repeat last transmition. I know the command in Greek but not in English and iirc doesnt exist in Falcon.
Simultanious overlapping comms are common i believe. So u ask by id to repeat.
Like tango and lima overlap.
U ask first tango to repeat as u believe most importand and then ask lima to repeat.sent from my mi5 using Tapatalk
-
MorteSil … Joke aside I propose you something different. Rather than loosing time on asking why we are gonna do it or why we think it is a big “peace of cake”, why not trying on your side to do it on an SP4 base, and if you succeed (which I have no doubt since it seems easy for you) transfer the part of the code which might be copied (or mimicked) on our side. Even if only partially implemented … such as a demonstrator lets say. … Take your chance … ! … maybe by doing this, you could raise the interest of the team. Chitchatting here won’t help you nor will help us I am afraid. I am not a coder.
-
-
This post is deleted! -
IMO it’s not too “hard”, it’s just a matter of time (like any other major piece of Falcon code). Time required to 1) Read/know/digest the real system; 2) Given F4’s structure, come up with a framework plan to implement it 3) Put in the wrench time to do it. There are plenty of people on this forum that know how complex L16 is and it’s not impossible, it’s just a HUGE project. BMS has the talent for sure…
Perfect example was the new AFM and FLCS code. Remember that took Mavjp 3 years to complete (and then some additional time to tweak)…
-
This post is deleted! -
True–not AFM–I probably exaggerated some timeline-wise. However, I was never suggesting that we try to emulate a L16 network. I know all about it, trust me–I used to put information out on that link in a former life–stuff the pointy-nosers could shoot at, jam, drop on, etc. I only meant that it could take a coder months (6 or more, with a year possible–based on historic trends) to do.
I agree with all of your points, well said.
-
-
The One thing I would like to see is the DED in the hornet updated so you wouldn’t have to zoom in so much when you enter data. It is quite fuzzy.
-
I would like to see some serious commercial shipping lanes. Having a lane of dozens of ships that HAVCAP missions protect then trying to disrupt the shipping could be interesting. Maybe even trucking routes or commercial flights to harass.
-
Cell phone and radio towers. RL sh*t that gets in your way at low alt.
-
MorteSil, I like your posts … you have probably some good points, but I am not in a position to asses the “cost” of such features. But what is interesting me the most among what you’ve said, is the idea of deagg each members of a flight. A human AWACS in 2D would be indeed a very nice feature.
About the L16 … Never say never. You will see why I am telling this in 3-4 weeks. But honestly, before come cing the L16, I would in fact start with the IFF, and start an overhaul of the HTS/HAD thing to get something a bit more conformal (without entering into the sensible area which is the PT mode of HTS).And before AI tactics overhaul, we need a better basic flight behavior (climb, time management, hold management, attack run … ) then we can dig into tactics. IMHO, it would be a waste of time to start by the end.
My personal wish is rather a more realistic HAD page. And an engine not flaming out at 00000lbs exactly forcing a more realistic (and sometimes more exiting) fuel management.
Have a Falcon day gents!
Edit: Cell phone, radio tower and windmill , this also something I would like to see one day!