Couple of questions
-
You must be kidding, Blu3. Real Viper drivers do get zero point when they jettison their tanks. In some air forces, they even crash to desktop for that.
I am, yes. Making a point about unrealistic simulation. Theres good argument against unrealistic behavior in a sim. One is made in the RP5 manual, specifically about over G.
Id love the idea about takeoffs, but only if ATC became realistic. So not a good idea for the immediate future. Makes it hard to simulate QRA flights by 111FS at the KUN for example.
-
Of course this is a matter of some philosophical debate but so far the answer has been this “choke chain” modeling to encourage flying within regulation limits. Overall there is not a broad request for change on this point. You can imagine that PvP interactions would be degraded by such a change! After some experience flying within book limits poses no significant hindrance to mission performance. Just like race car driving the saying “slow is smooth, smooth is quick” applies. The best pilots I think rarely exceed 5G.
Radios are a bit funny in BMS. They work on “filter” system. AWACS and wingmen you can talk with on many frequencies, but a tower only one. The frequencies associated with channels 6-7-8-9-10 will filter in package members. Frequency for ch. 12 is “proximity” and filters to a certain range. Of course this makes no real sense physically. So it is expected that you can talk with AWACS or wingman when on tower; they aren’t filtered out.
Realistically you would align Maverick on ground and maybe again in air at longer distance to improve it or verify. In BMS ground calibration is funny so don’t rely on it. With experience you can calibrate very fast and there is always something to work with on the way to the target. It is like tying your shoes, you stop worrying about it.
-
the answer has been this “choke chain” modeling to encourage flying within regulation limits. Overall there is not a broad request for change on this point.
And while I disagree with the solution chosen so far, I think we can all agree that having a uniform solution is best. Ergo, it would be better to introduce unrealistic limitations across the board, everywhere that we find any level of unrealistic behavior.
Case in point, the PvP interactions you mentioned are rarely realistic flight behavior. The aircraft and simulation are realistic, but the pilot behavior is unrealistic. Now, I am a proponent of pilot enforced realism, but with the current solution we would be better off to introduce unrealistic limitations to limit that PvP behavior to the realistic. Enforcing ROEs for example.
Similarly, it is not realistic to over-G the aircraft, so a good unrealistic simulation that would enforce realistic behavior would be to artificially limit the FLCS to only allow the pilot to pull the safe level of G. Unrealistic simulation in the name of realistic behavior by pilots.
-
I believe IFF is one of those things, IIRC Dee-Jay once said that in real life pilots turn off IFF when fencing in and across a front line. Identification mainly relies on flight plan at exercise like REDFLAG. I don’t know why. Is IFF detectable to enemy radar receivers? Anyway implementing IFF for sim without realistic cons results in all players rely on it for identification like in Flaming Cliffs 3.
-
It depends on theaters and enemy detection means … and if air superiority is achived … or … etc …
Is IFF detectable to enemy radar receivers?
Yes. And might say “hey, I am there and I am not a friendly” … so while it helps you to id friendly, is might helps also the enemy to id you as an “enemy” (indirectly) if on their side they do not use it in reply mode… etc …
IFF is not THE ultimate id tool. It is only one of them.
-
not mainly, but it can. procedural ID should never be sufficient to satisfy hostile criteria, and correspondingly it should not be sufficient to satisfy enemy criteria either.
-
I propose we drop discussion on IFF and ID procedures before we start swirling down the toilet again
-
And while I disagree with the solution chosen so far, I think we can all agree that having a uniform solution is best. Ergo, it would be better to introduce unrealistic limitations across the board, everywhere that we find any level of unrealistic behavior.
Case in point, the PvP interactions you mentioned are rarely realistic flight behavior. The aircraft and simulation are realistic, but the pilot behavior is unrealistic. Now, I am a proponent of pilot enforced realism, but with the current solution we would be better off to introduce unrealistic limitations to limit that PvP behavior to the realistic. Enforcing ROEs for example.
Similarly, it is not realistic to over-G the aircraft, so a good unrealistic simulation that would enforce realistic behavior would be to artificially limit the FLCS to only allow the pilot to pull the safe level of G. Unrealistic simulation in the name of realistic behavior by pilots.
Might not get my vote on the unrealistic behavior thing, unless these enforced limits can be switched on and off like invulnerability etc.
I try and fly to the limits but it is often not possible because the only physical feedback I have the stick……so forget preventing overspeeding or over G when things go tits up…in fact I spend a lot of time in CAT III to try to prevent these failures occurring.
It seems to me that real life pilots try to fly the limits but also cant always enforce G limits either…be good to get stats on over G events from the last 5 years because the way they talk it doesn’t seem to be uncommon (airframe, pods etc)…and at least the F-16 has a 9G limiter…remember that F-15 that broke in half…fatigue after years of over G in training!
In a Falcon campaign I thought you were supposed to be at war…how many pilots got reprimanded for over G or dropping tanks when a MiG-23 was miles away and closing on your AMRAAM armed F-16?
Similarly if I’m trying to save my jet I shouldn’t have to be penalized going through someones imposed limit that is nowhere near the actual limit.
-
Yes, that is what I am getting at MiGbuster. I am making the point that the unrealistic behavior already present in the sim is a bad idea.
As a minor point, flying in CAT III will not really help WRT preventing failures from overspeed or over-G. It will limit your alpha and your roll rate, but speed and G you have to sort for yourself.
G you can control very easily, because the stick is the only physical feedback you need. The G-command system means that the same stick input always corresponds to the same G - save when you are at low speed and thus high alpha, and then alpha gets blended into the stick, meaning you need more stick to get the same G. Upshot being, that you cant accidentally over-G without having hamfisted the stick.
Overspeed, fair call - the F-16 is capable, and when clean very capable. When flying clean or close to, I typically remind everyone Im flying with to set their throttles appropriately, because its very easy to leave the throttle in MIL for 10 seconds too long and pick up a hundred knots you didnt really need.
In summary though, Im making the same point you are - that unrealistic simulation is not what we fly BMS for.
-
I guess I spent to many years flying WW2 sims where I jettison before any air combat The crew chief will lecture me about how Jabba is mad that I dumped my cargo at the first sight of the enemy.
Is there anyway to display current G amount in the HUD? The only thing I can get is the max G pulled during the flight which seems useless to me. Why would I need to know the max rather than what I’m pulling in a given turn?
Also, I’d like your thoughts on this:
Lately, I’ve been thinking that modern air combat (especially with stealth aircraft) is becoming more like submarine warfare. It’s less dogfighting and more cat-and-mouse with the emphasis on staying hidden from the enemy as long as possible while detecting him as soon as possible to get a favorable firing solution; missiles being analogous to torpedoes. Radar is similar to sonar and radar signature is similar to noise made by subs: the less “noise” you make the better your chances of firing first.
-
Current G is there …. upper/middle left, iirc. I’ll find a pic.
Edit:
From the -1 ( x:\Falcon BMS 4.33 U1\Docs\Falcon BMS Manuals\TO-BMS1F-16CM-1.pdf )
-
Thanks, but I still don’t understand why I would need to know the max G pulled during a flight. HUD space is crowded and limited and it seems weird to take it up with something as seemingly useless as that.
-
I guess I spent to many years flying WW2 sims where I jettison before any air combat The crew chief will lecture me about how Jabba is mad that I dumped my cargo at the first sight of the enemy.
Is there anyway to display current G amount in the HUD? The only thing I can get is the max G pulled during the flight which seems useless to me. Why would I need to know the max rather than what I’m pulling in a given turn?
You sure?..… current G is in my HUDs…for the F-16 yes?.
Over time you will hopefully learn to avoid situations like that…although that is technically an emergency situation playing smarter can make tank jettison a rare occurrence in a campaign…and as stated before your drop tank supply is not what it was.
-
Thanks, but I still don’t understand why I would need to know the max G pulled during a flight. HUD space is crowded and limited and it seems weird to take it up with something as seemingly useless as that.
Perhaps so you can begin formulating excuses before the crew chief finds out?
-
Yes, that is what I am getting at MiGbuster. I am making the point that the unrealistic behavior already present in the sim is a bad idea.
As a minor point, flying in CAT III will not really help WRT preventing failures from overspeed or over-G. It will limit your alpha and your roll rate, but speed and G you have to sort for yourself.
G you can control very easily, because the stick is the only physical feedback you need. The G-command system means that the same stick input always corresponds to the same G - save when you are at low speed and thus high alpha, and then alpha gets blended into the stick, meaning you need more stick to get the same G. Upshot being, that you cant accidentally over-G without having hamfisted the stick.
Overspeed, fair call - the F-16 is capable, and when clean very capable. When flying clean or close to, I typically remind everyone Im flying with to set their throttles appropriately, because its very easy to leave the throttle in MIL for 10 seconds too long and pick up a hundred knots you didnt really need.
In summary though, Im making the same point you are - that unrealistic simulation is not what we fly BMS for.
Apologies I have misread your posts it would seem.
The over G is specifically roll (lower limit) at speeds where the upper limit is defined by G, CAT III reduces control response enough to helps me avoid any crunching sounds.
Over speed is most often A-A with wing tanks going after a bandit……by the time I have sorted things I am often though the paper limit. -
This post is deleted! -
Or learn how to AR… Then you won’t need them in the first place.
You are exposing yourself to the Real Life argument.
-
This post is deleted! -
Thanks, but I still don’t understand why I would need to know the max G pulled during a flight. HUD space is crowded and limited and it seems weird to take it up with something as seemingly useless as that.
If you pulled too many Gs you run a chance to have blwon out your bomb fuze (which is modeled in BMS) or damaged your pylons, which can in turn get you a hung store.
How so? It’s a valuable skill in the real world and the sim world, and often under-practiced. If the turn tosses you off the boom more than once, or it takes you more than 1 minute to close from Pre-Contact to Contact… you aren’t practicing enough–and I’d Q2 you. Even if you go straight to the tanker after takeoff, you potentially extend the flight time ~60 minutes (Unless the tanker is opposite direction from target, then it’s ~30 ) but either way, it’s more efficient in a campaign than Hot Fuel, and the AI will actually do it, and there’s less risk of doing something to damage the aircraft on landing.
Learning AAR is not the problem. Not taking wing tank is
Considering you dont really have a ton of fuel in the F-16 to begin with, I’d rather have the wing tanks than to rely on a tanker. Especially if the objective is around 100 NM from home plate, you have limited margin for popping AB if anything arises.
-
This post is deleted!