Ff you could have one thing in the next update it would be…
-
most important thing is expansion and improvement of campaign/SAM environment IMO.
unfortunately pretty much no matter how strong you lay on the SAMs hornet 2-1 and 2-2 can roll up and flatten 4 SA-10s a sortie with no issues and so even an absurdly strong IADS is always defeated by day 2.
day 1 is exciting but day 2 + is usually kind of a snooze because of how easily blue carrier groups and air wings flatten all the bases/SAMs.
even just improving the red strat AI so it assigns more DCAs and defends itself more intelligently will go a long way i think.
-
I think it wise to make the AI’s attacking with MAVs stay ABOVE a hard deck of A15 - if nothing else its realistic and it says it in the manual and they would live longer ( I know they are not alive in the first place but you know what I mean )
Also delivering GPS guided bombs from A20??? why ??? - would it not be better if the AI’s either stayed at your altitude on a bombing run or had a hard deck of A30 to A32 to keep out of AAA reach? - I do ;0)
Just a thought or two ;0)
-
This post is deleted! -
Never quite understood why the AI armed with AGM-65Ds immediately drop down in to the weeds to attack enemy columns, the moment I give them weapons free clearance.
It’s quite funny actually. I’m staying above A18 and hang back while the AI screams down to something stupid like A7 and next thing I see SA-7s and SA-14s flying everywhere, the radio erupts with defensive calls and frequently followed by……we lost one. Insert Face palm.
What files do I need to edit to change that behaviour?
-
This post is deleted! -
Never quite understood why the AI armed with AGM-65Ds immediately drop down in to the weeds to attack enemy columns, the moment I give them weapons free clearance.
It’s quite funny actually. I’m staying above A18 and hang back while the AI screams down to something stupid like A7 and next thing I see SA-7s and SA-14s flying everywhere, the radio erupts with defensive calls and frequently followed by……we lost one. Insert Face palm.
What files do I need to edit to change that behaviour?
Exactly my point Tazz - I hope the Devs (all hail the devs) can put this quick fix into the next release - 3 to 4 weeks from now obviously ;0)
-
I once heard that circular and figure-8 holding patterns have tactical advantages for AAR and especially AEW, and just found out they can be found in AIPs as such, so was wondering if it would be hard to implement those in BMS? I believe tankers already do circular patterns, and only switch to racetracks when called upon?
Very low prio of course, as it’s mainly aesthetic in BMS, but in your push for realism, maybe one day…
-
I once heard that circular and figure-8 holding patterns have tactical advantages for AAR
Nope.
AEW
Maybe for some antenas or sensors (?)
-
This post is deleted! -
Just an idle thought but the ability to do stuff like THIS when done with finesse and not just automatically crash.
In fairness, you don’t automatically crash in BMS if you have a mid-air (I’ve survived hitting the tanker and having to be guided home by my wing lead as I flew with a boot full of right rudder and no avionics) but you usually do.
-
It is specific to the aircraft in the \acdata folder *.dat
Some of these were overlooked I think when new weapons were added. This is an A10 example, and it would never deploy from 20+, which is ok for the HARM field because it doesn’t carry them, but it CAN carry SDBs, so 20k for IAM won’t work. You can also adjust AR altitude and speed in here, again for the A10, 17500 is unrealistic. Anything over 15 is almost unheard of, and the speed should be 220, instead of 240. Unless BMS implements tobogganing, then you could do 17.5…maybe, if you’re empty, and it’s a cold day.
Thanks for pointing that out - do you have a modified set of files available or is there an “unofficial” fix available? I mean I could edit these myself but it would be nice to standardize these somewhat. (This is for my single player installation only so no issues with MP ac data file clashes.)
I once heard that circular and figure-8 holding patterns have tactical advantages for AAR and especially AEW, and just found out they can be found in AIPs as such, so was wondering if it would be hard to implement those in BMS? I believe tankers already do circular patterns, and only switch to racetracks when called upon?
I’ve been on a fair few AAR sorties but I never recalled briefing a figure 8 pattern before, they’ve always been standard racetrack patterns or dragging sorties (for ferry flights to Red Flag). Then again, all of my KC-135R sorties have been CONUS-based flights so perhaps it’s different in Europe or Asia?
-
Figure 8 leg(s) only to reverse the direction of the pattern? For tanker exit considerations to maximize time on-station?..
-
Well, maybe not for AAR, but that chart was listed under AAR tracks in the AIP. My bad.
Maybe for some antenas or sensors (?)
First time I heard it was during a lecture given by a NATO E3 operator, and he said they prefer figure-8 perpendicular to the AOR for best results on the scope. Something to do with the Doppler-RADAR working best at the 3/9-line, IIRC, so figure-8 would increase their effective coverage angle compared to racetracks, I guess?
Then, a few days ago, there was a topic on IVAO forums about how to do perfect AAR/AEW tracks, in which someone from the UK said that their AEW just fly circles. Don’t know why (yet), though.
-
For me the next steps should be:
1. Correct .dat files and FM configurations of weapons such as the GBU39 -SDB ( and others) already in discussion in the forum
2. Implement more stuff in the CNTL menu in the TGP (if useful for combat operations)
3. Correct the AI behavior as previously discussed here
4. Check the AGM-65 allover again as previously discussed in the forum ( the so call “jump”)
5. Make unique cockpit .dds textures for the MLU version ( i guess i not wrong on this one )
6. Improved texture and model for the AGM-84 Harpoon
7. Improved 3D trees, grass and forests models/texturesThere is much more but it´s late and i am sleepy
-
This post is deleted! -
[…] and remove the old Pave Penny pylon
AFAIK the Pave Penny pylon isn’t removed, only the old Pave Penny sensor itself is removed:
I believe this to be a fairly recent development. A few years ago I was spending time with the 23rd at Moody AFB and all their A-10Cs still had the Pave Penny pods.
-
Change this ridicules old line in code , that ‘Cavalry’ battalions ‘Radar Ops’ radar sites . What exactly they do?
Maybe change that to HQ battalions., they aren’t so important in ground war , are they?! , they just ‘Reserve’ stuff.edit:… just figured out … doh, it can be done just modifying role and default action, function(s) in database , no code fixing needed imho, … tested and it SEEMS that it works.
It is only imperative? that battalion has some type of radar vehicle …
As in original F4 db , cavalry battalion has indeed radar vehicle no. but don’t have sam vehicle(s) …But what it exactly do with that Radar ops , dunno, maybe helps replace destroyed objectives feature radar … or?
It is really ridicules because it deploys Cavalry units with tanks and artillery on airbases and radar objectives at least in Balkans database , in which those units have no radar … so, yarn.
-
Cavalry Divisions still exist in the US Army today, with 1st CAV being the most known. While it served as an Air Cavalry division in Vietnam, nowadays it has three Armored Brigades, an Artillery Brigade and a Combat Aviation Brigade.
1st CAV isn’t the only one though, there are several other Cavalry units but I can’t remember all of them. I don’t keep active track of the US Army ORBAT these days but there’ the 71st Cavalry Regiment, 32nd Cavalry Regiment, 7th Cavalry Regiment and I believe a number of Army Reserve Regiments are, in fact, Cavalry regiments.
And no, these aren’t troopers on horseback.
But I have no idea what the impact of Cavalry unit types are in relation to Falcon’s campaign engine?
-
…
-
Hi!
a sweep mission altitude 40k on afterburner
… leading into potential overspeed and very short action range. Afterburners are not made to allow an extensive use.