Ff you could have one thing in the next update it would be…
-
You answered your own question, and ignored my explanation. It isn’t as easy as just clicking a button (yet…). But that’s not the point I was trying to make. Look at the A-10 model, or the B-1 model, Mig-29, F-15, T-80, etc… Look at JanHas’s thread and the models from his website, which include a lot more than just the F-16s. The point is, the game is older than most of the models. There are limits on what can be done, how it gets done, and who does it. Not every modeler in different theaters is willing to let their work be disseminated. The ones who do, don’t always make their models up to the specific requirements. And nobody gets paid anything to do any of it. If you got a ton of cash and want to hire a few professional 3D artists to make some models, which you can then donate for free to the community, I’m sure nobody would object. But again, I think you’re veering outside your lane. It’s never as simple as just copy paste.
True I know it isn’t done by professionals and is done for free and I’m grateful, BMS is really good, I’ve played a lot of flight sims and BMS is the best IMO. But the thread is what do you want well i think some new models are in order. I was hoping some might agree…
I have looked at jan has didn’t find anything I’ll look agian.If no one agrees with me fine but I think it’s a good idea…
-
Thanks for bothering to explain it a bit rather than just a silly childish comment. I assume you just get the Balkans stuff, I haven’t really seen any problems but I haven’t used it much it was just for a test really now it’s on stock.
this is even amazing that you didnt get immediate CTD.
you know that all airbases ATC taxi points etc… are all in this folder right ? …as you can imagine, you broke 100% of your airbases then
to properly import a model, you need a proper rebuilt of the 3DDB with proper parent update and LOD import
-
But the thread is what do you want well i think some new models are in order. I was hoping some might agree…
I have looked at jan has didn’t find anything I’ll look agian.If no one agrees with me fine but I think it’s a good idea…
Don’t worry, you’ll have plenty of new models to look at in first 4.34 release
We invited some talented artists to the team, and we had already some too working like crazy (Radium, Lazy, Eghi), a little less crazy (Waveydave and Pumpy). Hayab is slowly getting back too :). Amraam seems quite busy with RL at the moment, too bad so sad, he had some nice ongoing projects. I hope he catches up some day :). I even restarted Osan AB (somewhere above in this topic). I have to start unwrapping and texturing but I don’t have much time at the moment, maybe in a couple weeks…
I guess it’s a matter of available time but they are all doing a great job in any way they can ;).
I miss Sunny, Recker, Bonedust and Gunman tough.
-
this is even amazing that you didnt get immediate CTD.
you know that all airbases ATC taxi points etc… are all in this folder right ? …as you can imagine, you broke 100% of your airbases then
to properly import a model, you need a proper rebuilt of the 3DDB with proper parent update and LOD import
Actually I just tested a Korea campaign AI F-16s taxid and took off as normal… most of the airbases are the same and generic but Osan is unique and it worked. Anyway it was just an experiment I wouldn’t take it too seriously.
I might test it some more if I find any problems I’ll let you know.Just watched AI F-15s and F-16s taxi and takeoff from Kunsan, a unique airbase, and Kangnung, a generic airbase, as normal with no problems…
-
@Switch:
Don’t worry, you’ll have plenty of new models to look at in first 4.34 release
We invited some talented artists to the team, and we had already some too working like crazy (Radium, Lazy, Eghi), a little less crazy (Waveydave and Pumpy). Hayab is slowly getting back too :). Amraam seems quite busy with RL at the moment, too bad so sad, he had some nice ongoing projects. I hope he catches up some day :). I even restarted Osan AB (somewhere above in this topic). I have to start unwrapping and texturing but I don’t have much time at the moment, maybe in a couple weeks…
I guess it’s a matter of available time but they are all doing a great job in any way they can ;).
I miss Sunny, Recker, Bonedust and Gunman tough.
Sounds good. Most of the models are good there’s just a few that are old like Falcon 4.0 1998 vintage lol.
-
More than a few…
-
@Switch:
Don’t worry, you’ll have plenty of new models to look at in first 4.34 release
Oh, the teasing!
-
If memory serves me right, it’s been asked and discussed a few times (to death?) already, but after tonight’s flight, I’d like to request more realistic SAM response times (again). :rolleyes:
Flew perfect terrain masking (no nails before, and visually checked in ACMI) towards an unsuspecting Rookie SA-6, in the dead of night. Coming over that final hill at 8.4NM, however, I get spiked instantly, the SA-6 launches after exactly 5 seconds, and another 15 seconds later, I’m hit… 4 seconds later, the second missile impacts. :shock:
Seems a bit unlikely if I knew exactly where that guy was, how I could avoid him, and he still caught me with my pants down. Also makes low level flying a bit moot, imo… (except for increased cool factor, of course )
-
This post is deleted! -
The F-16 does work like that normally, yes.
-
Having seen 3 new Handoff/Boresight threads in the last few weeks, I’d like to see you be able to fly with a TGP without requiring the Handoff, because that is not how it works on all aircraft. And the boresight process itself is a little…off. You can do it manually without the TGP, and the handoff doesn’t immediately fail just because you “didn’t” do it. If the MAV sensor is able to identify the intended target despite not being boresighted it will complete handoff, and if it doesn’t you can reject it. Also, there are some systems where you can put the MAV in boresight mode and manually slew the pointer inside the View without the TGP at all (say if you were boresighting against the hud for instance…), but I’m not sure about the F-16 specifically in that regard.
git gud
-
Having seen 3 new Handoff/Boresight threads in the last few weeks, I’d like to see you be able to fly with a TGP without requiring the Handoff, because that is not how it works on all aircraft. And the boresight process itself is a little…off. You can do it manually without the TGP, and the handoff doesn’t immediately fail just because you “didn’t” do it. If the MAV sensor is able to identify the intended target despite not being boresighted it will complete handoff, and if it doesn’t you can reject it. Also, there are some systems where you can put the MAV in boresight mode and manually slew the pointer inside the View without the TGP at all (say if you were boresighting against the hud for instance…), but I’m not sure about the F-16 specifically in that regard.
Well, if you don’t display the WPN page while you use the TGP page, you can definitely fly with a TGP without requiring the Handoff.
Find the target with the TGP, lock it, then and only then display the WPN page (by a DMS-right or DMS-left) and “manually” lock the target on the WPN page. You’ll get no failed Handoff. -
This post is deleted! -
I agree. Having to go through the boresighting process without being able to do it on the ground makes it even more difficult than in real life.
A simple option enabling players to skip the boresighting process altogether if they wish to do so would be fine. As it is now, the system creates a lot of headaches, and a lot of irritation for many players as well. -
They could add 3 options to choose from:
-Launchers always misaligned (need BSGT).
-Launchers only misaligned if your previous flight had different launchers/weapons loadout on certain pylons. This would simulate simply adding MAVs on the already loaded and boresighted launchers.
-Launchers always aligned (no need for BSGT).I personally never had issues with BSGT and i never complained about MAVs in 4.33. I was happy to see realistic MAVs when 4.33 came out.
-
This post is deleted! -
I agree. Having to go through the boresighting process without being able to do it on the ground makes it even more difficult than in real life.
A simple option enabling players to skip the boresighting process altogether if they wish to do so would be fine. As it is now, the system creates a lot of headaches, and a lot of irritation for many players as well.I think most people here make far too great a deal over MAV boresight on deck…there are many ways to do it (even in RL), and that about sums up what I read folks doing here. The BMS procedure is very RL, people just have some negative training about how to use MAV now because it’s been off-kilter in the past. AFAIC, MAV is “fixed” and fine now.
What I’d really like to see is the inclusion of LMAV…
-
They could add 3 options to choose from:
-Launchers always misaligned (need BSGT).
-Launchers only misaligned if your previous flight had different launchers/weapons loadout on certain pylons. This would simulate simply adding MAVs on the already loaded and boresighted launchers.
-Launchers always aligned (no need for BSGT).I personally never had issues with BSGT and i never complained about MAVs in 4.33. I was happy to see realistic MAVs when 4.33 came out.
Those 3 options, and Mortesil’s suggestions, would be very nice to have indeed if we can’t get the BSGT done on the ground in a future version. I don’t have issues with Mavericks too, but as a virtual instructor in our French fighter school (École de Chasse) I can’t help noticing how many players have issues with the BSGT process.
-
what is the problem with ground bsgt…? it is a matter of time and target… irl there are plenty of targets for the tgp to lock and mav to bsgt… bsgt procedure is fine… it is the lack of targets to point track on the airfield that is my problem…
-
Hi Wild!
Those 3 options, and Mortesil’s suggestions, would be very nice to have indeed if we can’t get the BSGT done on the ground in a future version. I don’t have issues with Mavericks too, but as a virtual instructor in our French fighter school (École de Chasse) I can’t help noticing how many players have issues with the BSGT process.
I do not really see where could be the problem with Mav boresight process (?) It is somehow similar to GBU and laser employment … Just “need” to plan a waypoint on a bridge of any other significant atrificial lanmark to place the TGP on it , sabilize , switch SOI , slide the Mav cross on the landmark then press BGST. Then the same for the other pylon.
Why does it gives “headache” ?