Ff you could have one thing in the next update it would be…
-
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.
-
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??
You bring up a very solid point. Just what to model and based on what information??? Since the aero data can be resourced to a point, what’s left would be avionics. And THAT is still classified. So, it becomes a best gestamation. I see no harm in modeling other aircraft as long as there is understanding that nothing here will be 100%. Using NACA files and DATCOM info (building of aero data from scratch) could be done with very close calculations. But just how much time it would take just to model 1 jet in this manner? Given the time constraints of the devs working on this on there spare time, I would give an estimate of about 3 years. Sooner if you have some aero tools like “GOCART” and “CART 3D” (http://www.desktop.aero/products/intro). So if you can drop a few thousand dollars and invest in aero data software, then you can create models in a shorter amount of time. Water under the bridge. You would still need to model the avionics. That is the question. I have no answer and neither should the devs. That stuff is very sensitive. You can gestamate all you want. Not going to be accurate. But one could modify the radar code to represent something closer to other a/c (appearances only). But in the end, it will still be a modded Falcon (bms) radar system. So, if you take the sample of what has been done, and apply to what can be modded, you get 2 different pictures on the same thing. That’s not a bad thing, it is just not 100% accurate.
-
Most of what you are complaining about is FOUO, not classified.
-
Hi,
didnt really try to search whole toppic for already written things. But beside of many other things here, I really wish much more inteligent AWACS or GCI (for example calling “Threat” together with BRAA if hostile closer than “X” miles), if also also FAC(A) role can be simulated for AI, I would be also pleased, but better AWACS is more important for me. Not every time you have you human friend sitting in 2D, and helping you out of the shit. -
Most of what you are complaining about is FOUO, not classified.
Actually, most of the stuff the community asks for (avionics, LINK 16, ect.) is classified. What we have is a representation of an APG-68 radar system. And even that is missing a few sensitive features as well and not modeled 100% (it couldn’t be anyway). Still, we all need to get the big picture. This is a simulation. We create the effect or representation of what the system does. Features not modeled would be the limits to what the system can recreate. This system, bms, is creating an environment where the effects of what the radar system does (as an example) is simulated. The world of code is not that same as real life operations. So you can emulate as close as you can to real world operations, but in the end, it is data representing the operation to the best it can be. For us simmers, it is great to see this representation and we draw ourselves into this fictional world of jet fighter combat. We are tricked into thinking this is real through immersion into the sim. But, make no mistake that this is a representation of a real world jet and real world avionics. The “how” and the “way” it operates is not real.
-
Hi,
didnt really try to search whole toppic for already written things. But beside of many other things here, I really wish much more inteligent AWACS or GCI (for example calling “Threat” together with BRAA if hostile closer than “X” miles), if also also FAC(A) role can be simulated for AI, I would be also pleased, but better AWACS is more important for me. Not every time you have you human friend sitting in 2D, and helping you out of the shit.AWACs, JSTARS and FAC discussions are numerous on the forums. It has been asked and broken down to a great extent. I, for one, have given my 2 cents on how call backs should be through AWACs for example. I would love to see these features updated in bms too. It time, we will all see what can be done and what will be done. I have tremendous faith in the devs to accomplish most everything we would need to create a more realistic bms environment.
-
This post is deleted! -
I don’t think that’s what hes asing. He’s asking for something similar to the FM/AFM situation, but for avionics. Your argument only suits this particular situation, because 70% of the game is already externalized in such a fashion. I can adjust weapon statistics, number available to a pylon, lift, thrust, TGP vs No-TGP, radar vs no radar, lighting, number of hardpoints… it’s not randomly throwing things into the code, it’s leveraging the code framework to enable more features. Does he have the radar symbology for other radars out there? Probably not. Do the guys who created the Nordic theater have the specific FM data applicable tot he F-35 to create their model? Probably not. Does anyone here have the SPECIFIC data as it relates to almost every weapon in the game to verify BEYOND ANY DOUBT that is accurate? Not unless they’re leaking national secrets to further the realism of a game…
The point is, the concept would allow theater and aircraft developers to custom tailor the avionics for their own work, and not require a developer to hard code every single potential avionics piece out there, which could never be done. And it’s inline with other modifications already made, and capabilities which already exist. I could see the resistance if there weren’t already a “model” in place to follow, but there is. Most of the game in fact relies on customization and templates, which is why the UI can look different for every theater, new aircraft can have their own FMs, and theaters can have very different ground units and objectives.
I agree. However, when the data base gets modded by so many, the mess it can create can cause serious damage to the sim as it is. You may not remember, but when Falcon 4 became an “open source” (more like a big leaked source) there were many versions that were created that muddied the waters of Falcon. Even now there are issues from the original code and the modds that were later created for it. So tread carefully when discussing any kind of open source coding. The bms team is very much against that. I agree with them as well. The waters did get quite a bit dirty in the past.
-
Aside from me and you jhook, no one has discussed open source coding yet. No need to muddy the waters of this discussion.
-
The whole point is to externalize avionics features so that the community could work on developing aircraft specific avionics and radar modes, even if it’s only visual such as radar symbology … without requiring access to the actual source code itself.
As a programmer, I don’t consider working with externalized assets such as config files and bitmaps to be coding - so I’m actually arguing about the opposite to open source development. Externalization can speed-up developments, reduce dependency on actual source code changes for each development and, most importantly, allow further development while limiting source exposure. -
it would be VR support for sure and graphical improvements. BTW what is the plan for next update?
-
This post is deleted! -
Aside from me and you jhook, no one has discussed open source coding yet. No need to muddy the waters of this discussion.
Mort suggested “The point is, the concept would allow theater and aircraft developers to custom tailor the avionics for their own work, and not require a developer to hard code every single potential avionics piece out there”.
Not an open source question but still modding outside the devs sphere.
-
This.
Nobody is talking about open source. I don’t want to “code” a new radar. I want to have the ability to create a .avionics file somewhere in the data folder that the game references for MFD pages, radar displays, RWR configuration, hud displays, etc… Open source would be no different than it is now, requiring hard code in C++ the different avionics features, just by a bunch of different people who spent the weekend reading a C++ book, which is not good for anyone. This is exactly what we’re saying does not work. It’s not scalable or sustainable in any way. But defining a set of characteristics that every individual avionic piece can potentially exhibit, and the different features available to the avionics engine as a whole, then reading in those characteristics from a file instead of the code behind, would be a wonderful work of art.
It would obviously require some work to do it right, but the basis for the framework is already there. The current numbers, lines, symbols, and MFD layout/text has to exist in the code somewhere in order to be rendered. The task would be to take all those variables currently in use and transcribe them into a template for a file. Making the actual read from a file instead of hard code is trivial. It’s coming up with all the different options and display templates that requires the real work. But imagine the possibilities…
I know Falcon is old and there has been a lot of work done over the years, some by less than competent individuals which makes everyone uneasy. But I have long thought this is one of the key areas that the game engine itself is really lacking in (And getting the MP fixed… ) The community can make some great models, theaters, pits, TEs/Campaigns, etc… but the avionics piece is a decade behind everything else (literally) and should get some love.
YES!
Excellent point!