Ff you could have one thing in the next update it would be…
-
in game option to load kneeboard information.
-
“Howdy partner, your air source knobs in noob mode”
“there a snake in my boot, also you got yer throttle forward, thats why the jfs won’t start.”
or you can put the audio from that vid…
-
When you tell your wifey to turn the air on and she turns the heat on and you wake up at 3am and think the devil is sitting on your face.
-
in game option to load kneeboard information.
I just write things down on paper and use a clipboard. We are in a simulation, inside a simulation, inside a simulation, lol.
-
I just write things down on paper and use a clipboard. We are in a simulation, inside a simulation, inside a simulation, lol.
my point was you can put info on your kneeboards (sim) using other progs - so why not include them within BMS and streamline the process ;0)
This is not a sim - for most of us its as real as it is ever going to be ;0)
-
I don’t know the real world specs, but I have some friends in the USAF who say the “final product” is similar to how DCS A-10 does it. I imagine on the FCR the friendly will be visually different than bogey. The most unrealistic thing about BMS play right now is that you have to declare or buddy spike every single contact. I understand there are intriacies to the real world system that are difficult to model but BMS makes concessions to realism elsewhere, like having f-16 avionics for F-18s and tornados. The idea is to make the end user experience as believable as possible. As is the radar picture is chaos. This is what I would like to see addressed somehow in a future version.
This, this and this!
-
This, this and this!
well, he isnt wrong… TBH, the radar needs an overhaul before adding the datalink, which is what he is alluding to.
-
Doesn’t that conversation go back to the point of externalising the FCR logic and symbology, opening the way for BMS to receive FCR updates without requiring code changes and enabling BMS to correctly model the radars of non-F-16 aircraft or at least provide the appropriate symbology?
Granted, it’s a big design change but one that would greatly increase the lifespan of BMS while also making it a more open platform.
-
Do you guyz have other birds FCR documentation and OFP’s???
Because other than that, you (we) seem to know about 10% of the full symbology and features = not going to happen here. You might have the dash 1’s from F-14’s, -15’s, -18’s, but what should be needed is not out there.
-
Do you guyz have other birds FCR documentation and OFP’s???
Because other than that, you (we) seem to know about 10% of the full symbology and features = not going to happen here. You might have the dash 1’s from F-14’s, -15’s, -18’s, but what should be needed is not out there.
At the moment it’s a moot point anyway, since everything in hard coded in the code itself. So if BMS, or Falcon 4.0 even, isn’t set to have an adaptable FCR and avionics framework that doesn’t require the base code to be changed, then it’s going to an impossible job to program each variation even if you (we) DID have the information required.
-
You are not answering my question, although bottom line it is safe to presume that you agree with my post and don’t have any radar documentation, as this OF COURSE could be found in free internet…
What you are requesting though here, is the ability / chance to touch the source code, in order THEN, to be able (anyone) to throw some related code there to “represent” a bird radar.
For obvious reasons I IMHO think this is out of the q for devs, surly not an approach in software development.
Let’s be straight, it would be good to have different platforms, BUT, there are TONS of stuff that can still be added / improved in the current F-16’s layout, and much more TONS of stuff and data the 90% of the ppl reading this don’t even know or expertise about current Vipers capabilities and flying + fighting as per rl…
-
If anyone thinks that the Viper (F-16) has been modeled accurately, you are wrong. Plane and simple as that. But how could it be anyway? You do not have the USAF docs or info on the latest US F-16 or any other platform in which to model. Therefore, I can say that bms is close to what the F-16 can actually do and perform. But is it not accurate. Not even close. So whom is to say that other aircraft could not be modeled in this manner. Since this sim is modeled as close as it can be to the F-16, other aircraft could be modeled in the same manner. The devs have proven time and time again, that nothing is impossible. I hope and share in the communities ambition that other aircraft in this sim will be modeled accurately in time. At least as accurately as possible. So, any aircraft to model is possible and doable given time. I do not share your optimism. I embrace what can be.
-
You are not answering my question, although bottom line it is safe to presume that you agree with my post and don’t have any radar documentation, as this OF COURSE could be found in free internet…
What you are requesting though here, is the ability / chance to touch the source code, in order THEN, to be able (anyone) to throw some related code there to “represent” a bird radar.
For obvious reasons I IMHO think this is out of the q for devs, surly not an approach in software development.
No, that is not what was asked. If it was asked, which it was not, it is a popular approach to software development. Leaving aside FOSS development for the moment though, what was asked was for an external avionics system which is not part of the source code. Analogous to how the database is not part of the source code. An avionics system which is defined by data loaded from external config files rather than hard coded.
Such a system can be done fairly well and with high performance, but it requires some time and skill on the part of the guys with the source code.
-
Thanks Blu3wolf, that’s exactly what I meant -which is the very opposite of what Raptor was saying. It is about moving away from needing access to the source code to incorporate every little new avionics feature, update or new system. The idea is to make BMS more easily extensible, allowing new avionics to be introduced without having to hard code every new symbol or behavioral parameter in the source code. How a FCR works, e.g. the laws of physics, would still be contained in the C++ code but the parameters of each radar, the symbols and display characteristics can be externalized. This would result in a less pressure on the C++ coders to provide specific avionics features and make it easier for the BMS development team to incorporate new F-16 developments such as the APG-83 SABR upgrade, or focus on additional aircraft.
-
If anyone thinks that the Viper (F-16) has been modeled accurately, you are wrong. But is it not accurate. Not even close.
Sure… lol
Don’t count on me to get in such time-consuming analysis!..
Guyz, Blu3wolf, Tazz, having the ability to inject simple values “somewhere” does not make any improvements as you might think. And again, as jhook stated above, : “You do not have the USAF docs or info on the latest US F-16 or any other platform in which to model” , so, what numbers are you interested to inject into there??
-
Who’s saying that we ourselves want to “inject” values of any kind - this is about the ability to extend BMS more easily if and when such information were to become available, because when it was previously discussed how aircraft such as the Tornado and AV-8B can be given their own avionics rather than using the F-16C avionics, it was raised that this wasn’t possible because the APG-68 behavior is completely embedded in the source code and that would require a huge code change. Hence the logical design solution is to remove that dependency by separating the execution framework from the avionics specifics.
Let me otherwise turn the question around - what is the point in including different aircraft in the BMS release and spending effort on creating accurate cockpits and even V/STOL for AV-8B, if there is no interest in providing these aircraft with avionics that at least look and behave like they should, even if the exact parameters aren’t 100% accurate due to missing information? In the end it’s a discussion on how one defines realism of course … what is more realistic, having an AV-8B with an APG-68 that’s as accurate as possible on a PC and with publicly available information…. or having an AV-8B with a best-guess APG-65 that at least looks and feels like the real thing even though some of its performance is based on guesswork? I would vote for the latter as realism to me also has to be coupled with immersion … and nothing is more immersion breaking than flying a AV-8B with the avionics of a F-16C Block 50/52.
Quote Originally Posted by jhook View Post
If anyone thinks that the Viper (F-16) has been modeled accurately, you are wrong. But is it not accurate. Not even close.I would like to see this more substantiated otherwise it’s like noise in the wind? Unless I obviously missed something, the RWS/TWS FCR and HSD in the Block 42 look pretty darn similar to what I’m seeing in BMS?
-
Iron Eagle theater with Hades bombs
-
Sure… lol
Don’t count on me to get in such time-consuming analysis!..
Guyz, Blu3wolf, Tazz, having the ability to inject simple values “somewhere” does not make any improvements as you might think. And again, as jhook stated above, : “You do not have the USAF docs or info on the latest US F-16 or any other platform in which to model” , so, what numbers are you interested to inject into there??
Not talking about just values… try whole menus. Its just data - and the ability to define MFD behavior in particular is something demonstrated by more than one open source project. RPM is a good example of a project where MFD data is external and defined in config files then used at runtime by the engine.
Tazz, you reckon BMS has good radar mech? Id not recommend trying to use technique honed in BMS, you will get a lot of failed acquisitions lol! BMS is no slouch but its easy to see the gaps between the aircraft and the sim.
-
Tazz, you reckon BMS has good radar mech? Id not recommend trying to use technique honed in BMS, you will get a lot of failed acquisitions lol! BMS is no slouch but its easy to see the gaps between the aircraft and the sim.
It’s all we have for now so it’s a matter of making due I suppose. I don’t fly DCS and I haven’t flown any other sim but Falcon 4.0 since… geesh… 1998? So I can’t say I can really compare it with other sims. In terms of the real thing, my actual playing time with the FCR has been rather limited. Most front seaters won’t take too kindly to the GIB playing around with the FCR, in particular when in close formation and the GIB is supposed to be doing something else entirely.
-
Well it compares quite favorably to other sims at least. Ive not played with the real FCR ever… but from what Im told you need to be on your game in a way that BMS does not require. Double sticks goes into it a bit if you have one handy.