Block 70 coming?
-
Please forgive me if this is being posted in the wrong place or if it’s a question that shouldn’t be asked, or if it’s inappropriate in any way.
But I’d like to know if there are any plans in place to update BMS to add blocks beyond 52. 60/62 and 70/72 in the now designated F-16V.
I do understand that it would be no small amount of effort to replicate all the new things that these latest blocks offer over the Block 52 and previous versions.
It’s an almost entirely new dash and displays and new functionality and I don’t even really know what all else. It’d probably mark the largest redeveloment effort on the cockpit and avionics that has ever been invested into the F4 code.
Externally, I think that’d be a bit easier. You’d add the formation light strips. Not sure what else, if anything.So, definitely, no hassles, no pressure, no demands. But if there are any plans for bringing the block type list up to date, I would like to hear about it. And I’m sure I’m not the only one.
Thanks to our great development team for making the evolution of Falcon 4.0 an ongoing and now 20 year old project. You gentlemen are the best!
-
Hi!
Answer is no.
-
I’d compromise Dj’s answer a bit
Anytime soon: clearly No
But no one knows what the future will bringDefinitely the F-16V makes MUCH more sense than a few of aircraft BMS has already implemented.
The real issues are all the compromises needed to make a F-16V for BMS in the avionic sectionsObviously these compromises were already done in BMS (spaghetti avionics anyone ) for other aircraft.
So I personnaly see no reason why the same compromises couldn’t be done for more advanced F-16 blocks
It all comes down to consistency and the way BMS team want to progress but there are multiple way of thinking in thereWith time and aggreement of compromises, everything is possible
-
I appreciate the responses. If the team should ever choose to attack the newest blocks, be sure that those updates will certainly be appreciated, but of course, no pressure.
Especially when I’m hardly an expert at systems in the blocks we already have to explore!
-
I see a possible issue with the fact that such latest blocks might remains confidential for some time … So even if we can have “some info” here and there about avionics features, I am not sure we would be authorised to reproduce it in our favorite simulator unless someone here has very good friend in pentagone and LM.
-
I was wondering why there is an issue with authorization?
BMS is not a commercial product - nor any representation or license of the original manufacture is required in a non commercial simulator.
After all who says that representation of avionics will be 100% identical with the real thing.
Even in today’s BMS version not everything is totally simulated like in the real F-16.Needless to say that there have been some examples in the past, of F-16 simulators sold in the international market for official pilot training with no previous cooperation with LM.
So maybe things are not so complicated after all…
-
:pop2:
-
So maybe things are not so complicated after all…
The least I can tell you, is that someone (Rollus) already had some troubles with Dassault when he had released a Rafale for FSX (Yes I agree, France and USA => maybe not the same laws about copyrights and military classified documentations)
So maybe you are right, but I prefer to let you ask yourself LM and USA government if anybody can reproduce without prior agreements and authorizations the BLK60/70 Dash-1/34 and copy cockpit design for our free mod. (do not tell them about BMS yet please, wait for a reply first)
EDIT: … and while you are there, if you can ask them the BLK60 & 70 Dash-1/-34 at the same time … :spy: …
:munch:
-
@Red:
I’d compromise Dj’s answer a bit
Anytime soon: clearly No
But no one knows what the future will bringDefinitely the F-16V makes MUCH more sense than a few of aircraft BMS has already implemented.
The real issues are all the compromises needed to make a F-16V for BMS in the avionic sectionsObviously these compromises were already done in BMS (spaghetti avionics anyone ) for other aircraft.
So I personnaly see no reason why the same compromises couldn’t be done for more advanced F-16 blocks
It all comes down to consistency and the way BMS team want to progress but there are multiple way of thinking in thereWith time and aggreement of compromises, everything is possible
IMHO F-16A Block 1-15 has more sense because it is “only cockpit”. F-16V has such features which are much harder and general such as AESA radar or towed decoy modeling.
-
Maybe you might, but I prefer to let you ask yourself LM and USA government…
I see a lot of mixed thinks here
1- reproducing a cockpit model and a 3d aircraft model for a sim is one thing (the french are notoriously touchy about their military model, it’s a known fact. but F-16 isn’t french
2- waiting for accurate unclassified documentation for accurate implementation is another thing
both are different aspects you mix together1. is alreay a non issue, the block 70 is the F16 model.
the pit is a non issue as well, same model as the ones we already have, save for the CPD. CPD exists already as replica 1:1 scale from viperpits… so non issue
2. remains avionics, which is problematic but i’d refer to the above remark about spagetti avionics for the F-16. we did it in the past, why would this one be different?
use whatever is available and compromise what you get in the sim. Just like everything else …May i remind you that our F-16 land in the grass, has no link 16, no iff yet … so what we have is already not 100% accurate anyway
why do we then now say that a F-16V has to be accurate, are we planning to implement link -16 at all? for obvious reason, no! Then whatever we do it will not be accurate
therefore it won’t make much of a difference if a possible block 70 or F-16E/F is not 100% accurateIMHO F-16A Block 1-15 has more sense because it is “only cockpit”. F-16V has such features which are much harder and general such as AESA radar or towed decoy modeling.
I do not contest that a early block F-16 is equally attracting, but it’s out of the scope of this discussion
how come with have aircraft in the database that are normally equipped with easa or similar radar then (superhornet, f22, B1; F-15… )
Should we remove them because of that? no i don’t think sodo you think the rafale avionics is accurate at 100%?
is the rafale less classified than the block 70?
why then is the rafale in the db?towed decoy was already in DB, eyecandy and nonfunctional. Other f-16 models in BMS database can use towed decoys,
should we remove them because towed decoy is not implemented? no i don’t think soMy point is:
Everything done is a flight simulator is the result of multiple compromises, it’s pretty expected and BMS doesn’t avoid that rule
why sim developers should not continue doing compromize when implementing a more advanced block?You can’t use the full realism argument only when it suits one - if that’s your developping credo, then you should apply it to all what you produce, and we all know it’s not possible
because when you crash, you Don’t dieIn my humble opinion - my post does not reflect BMS Policy but my own personal view
-
How many countries purchased F-16V?
- Morocco did (x12) + general update for all of their F-16 : lowest interest in BMS
- Bahrein did (x16) : lowest interest in BMS
- Slovakia did (x14) : lowest interest in BMS
Before the team would even imagine to initiate discussions about her, I think, we would need to be sure that KTO relevant countries (USA and South Korea), would have some in their inventory….
But it’s only my humble opinion!
Cheers,
Radium
-
(not trying to digress, but maybe temper. Is the latest developped aircraft the most enjoyable? There was a step in direction of Cold War era with Nordic, to mention just this one, isn’t that time incredibly interesting, in spite of the lack of techs? I would probably be more interested in a F4-A6 package than a F16 blk 70. /neurons unplugged)
-
Before the team would even imagine to initiate discussions about her, I think, we would need to be sure that KTO relevant countries (USA and South Korea), would have some in their inventory….
I agree that this is a much more valid argument (didn’t india buy them as well?)
-
did you ask for block 52+ model and cockpit that’s in BMS?
I didn’t, I prefer Apollo to ask them.
So far, BMS “never” had big issues with this. It doesn’t mean it could not be an issue one day especially with latest blocks. And (maybe you don’t know it and I won’t talk about it here) we already had to face an issue like this.
are we planning to implement link -16 at all? for obvious reasons, no!
Not so obvious to me. L16 is not confidential per say (AFAIK) … just like IFF, cryptos and some procedures are. If we do not plan the L16 is because it complexity and lack of possible correct and realistic interaction with AIs. Better ask Cruz about it.
That said, I just say that I believe it won’t happens (at least anytime soon as you said) … and if we were deciding to start it on our own right now, I would humbly rise the “Be Careful” flag. … of course, it is not on my decision, and I won’t be able to help in any ways (I am not coder as you know).
Cheers!
EDIT: side note: I would personally prefer a new refreshed F-16B30/40/50/ style cockpit with hight textures, caged/uncaged STBY ADI, working jamming panel, new HAD page … etc … better HUD rendering, better NVJs, why not, moving map … etc …
-
of course Deejay, all that makes sense
I’d just love to have even more lines in the TE editor to choose my F-16 model when creating missions (private joke)
-
@Red:
of course Deejay, all that makes sense
I’d just love to have even more lines in the TE editor to choose my F-16 model when creating missions (private joke)
Grrrrrrrrrrr !!! ….
No prob to have many different aircraft in DB especially when they fit with theater or are useful. It is rather having tons and tons of variants (or similar) which might be a pain … But, honestly, I would not be against an F-16A nor a F-16CB60/70. (ok ok … I admit that I am not really in favor of Qatari F-16 in standard KTO DB … mmm … I have nothing against Qatar, it is just an example of course, which, BTW, could be a bad example if one day we have a brand new kicking ass “Operation Desert Strom” theater …)
-
How many countries purchased F-16V?
- Morocco did (x12) + general update for all of their F-16 : lowest interest in BMS
- Bahrein did (x16) : lowest interest in BMS
- Slovakia did (x14) : lowest interest in BMS
Before the team would even imagine to initiate discussions about her, I think, we would need to be sure that KTO relevant countries (USA and South Korea), would have some in their inventory….
But it’s only my humble opinion!
Cheers,
Radium
IMHO, it’s to early to ask for F-16V and also I would like more thoroughly implemented Block 50/52, which would be awesome, but South Korea, Taiwan and Greece are upgrading their Vipers to F-16V standard (if there exists such). I think USAF will follow.
So, probably after 2-3 Falcon years we will have V in our BMS. -
in 2010 Charles Maynard who was doing public relations for LM in the UK, not sure who does it in the US, said that they have an open book policy when it comes to simulating their aircraft, be it konami,(question was in reference to ace combat games) or others because of the historical importance of preserving weapons which, just like the p47 or p51, may over time become scarce.
it seemed more of an individualized answer, not a company status quo. It brings up some very interesting points, just recently a woman was convicted to 45 years in prison for sending publicly available library books in north america to a chinese aerospace related address in chengdu. The intent, not the access, is where they draw the line. From the inside looking out it is hard to perceive the controls on literature and data but they are there. It seems just enough rope to hang yourself is provided by ICE and DHS, but it’s not the corporate entity in this instance at least.
oculus, LM, and Boeing are betting on the prevalence of VR flight to fill the pilot gap. Interesting times, apropos that it is a chinese curse.
-
Even without the tech data to support an implementation of the F-16V, or other modern aircraft, I think it would benefit the game and the community to start working on the framework required to implement the new tech now. Extra MFD paths, extensible Menus and displays for the MFD contents, AESA and stealth fundamentals that can be incorporated down the line or on other projects already in the game, enhanced HMCS interface, datalinks, etc…
There is a fine line (In my opinion) between arguing the lack of data as a justification for not doing certain things and just looking for a convenient excuse. There are an awful lot of features that have been implemented based on old or semi-assumed data in the current game, such as the HMCS display or the MFDs being based on tapes that have long since been replaced. It also doesn’t really support the lack of new (or old) hardware making its way into the pit for aircraft modeled in the game, such as the CPD or IFF, most of which have sufficient data to implement working features.
I’m not saying it isn’t hard to do those things, or even that ALL the data is available to do them. I just feel like using lack of data as a catch-all answer is a bit of a cop out.
-
@Red:
I agree that this is a much more valid argument (didn’t india buy them as well?)
Not yet, as you know, fighter aircraft selection in India is something rather complex and long… LM proposed, India never show a specific interest.