Block 70 coming?
-
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.
-
How many countries purchased F-16V?
- Morocco did (x12) + general update for all of their F-16 : lowest interest in BMS
Radium
I beg to differ, but at least some of us would think otherwise, since Morocco plays a main role in POH Theater, so it would be an invaluable asset for the database
Cheers!
- Morocco did (x12) + general update for all of their F-16 : lowest interest in BMS
-
@Nuno:
I beg to differ, but at least some of us would think otherwise, since Morocco plays a main role in POH Theater, so it would be an invaluable asset for the database
Cheers!
Neverthless, POH is not supported by BMS dev team, so, it can’t be a valid point to initiate thinking about it
Cheers,
Radium
-
How many countries purchased F-16V?
- Greece did (x85) : some interest in BMS IMO
Actually all the HAF Peace Xenia III (Block52’s) and PX IV (Block 52+Advanced or just “M” ) will be migrated to V’s the next years. As we speak 2 birds are prepared to travel to US for prototypes building and test, most bird conversions will be made locally during the next 6-10 years;
We’ll have 3 full simulators in total for the V.
-
- Greece did (x85) : some interest in BMS IMO
Actually all the HAF Peace Xenia III (Block52’s) and PX IV (Block 52+Advanced or just “M” ) will be migrated to V’s the next years. As we speak 2 birds are prepared to travel to US for prototypes building and test, most bird conversions will be made locally during the next 6-10 years;
We’ll have 3 full simulators in total for the V.
Well, Greece is not significant for KTO…
Nevertheless, that’s right, Greece will update their F-16 to V standard.
-
Well, Greece is not significant for KTO…
None of the EPAF jets are, though.
By that logic, you can not bother with any of the following aircraft:
Agressors, F-16 MLU, Tornado, Rafale, Mirage, Eurofighter, Israeli F-15 and F-16, some versions of Hornet, and all outdated NATO aircraft, such as the A-4, C-141, F-14, F-16A/B, F-4, F-5, F-100, F-105, F-111, F-117 (and probably forgetting some). :???: -
None of the EPAF jets are, though.
By that logic, you can not bother with any of the following aircraft:
Agressors, F-16 MLU, Tornado, Rafale, Mirage, Eurofighter, Israeli F-15 and F-16, some versions of Hornet, and all outdated NATO aircraft, such as the A-4, C-141, F-14, F-16A/B, F-4, F-5, F-100, F-105, F-111, F-117 (and probably forgetting some). :???:Correct … that is why some of us wished to suppress them from KTO DB (and some has been indeed suppressed). But … Hummm, it has not been really appreciated LOL … so at least, we will try to limit and, if possible, avoid that kind of airframes/varients in the future (speaking about regular KTO DB only.)
-
None of the EPAF jets are, though.
By that logic, you can not bother with any of the following aircraft:
Agressors, F-16 MLU, Tornado, Rafale, Mirage, Eurofighter, Israeli F-15 and F-16, some versions of Hornet, and all outdated NATO aircraft, such as the A-4, C-141, F-14, F-16A/B, F-4, F-5, F-100, F-105, F-111, F-117 (and probably forgetting some). :???:Correct … that is why some of us wished to suppress them from KTO DB (and some has been indeed suppressed). But … Hummm, it has not been really appreciated LOL … so at least, we will try to limit and, if possible, avoid that kind of airframes/varients in the future (speaking about regular KTO DB only.)
I’m sorry, I do not agree :
France Mirage 2000D have been non stop deployed all around the world the past 20 years… Kosovo, Serbia, Kirghistan, Mali, Syria, Irak, Afghanistan, Libya… Rafale have been also non stop deployed the past 15 years in most of these areas also… French Air Force is probably the only country in the world who operated three major campaigns at once + one major international air policy operation.
Our friends from Belgium also deployed their forces in a huge number of countries to conduct war operations…
What I’d like to show is that there is expeditionary countries, and non expeditionary countries. France, UK, Belgium and Netherlands for example are traditionally expeditionary countries. They have a place in KTO IMHO.
Except some C2 missions in Libya, HAF air force policy is not turned for now to expeditionary operations.
Also, there is a big difference between a single non AFM A-4 exterior model and a custom F-16V simulation system…
-
They have a place in KTO IMHO
How close to KTO have any of these models and countries been? In miles.
-
How close to KTO have any of these models and countries been? In miles.
KTO is whatever happens a fictitious campaign… My point is not what have been, but what would likely to be !
-
Entirely off-topic, I know. Sorry.
What I’d like to show is that there is expeditionary countries, and non expeditionary countries. France, UK, Belgium and Netherlands for example are traditionally expeditionary countries. They have a place in KTO IMHO.
KTO is whatever happens a fictitious campaign… My point is not what have been, but what would likely to be !
Realistically speaking, I doubt any EPAF country (even the ones you mention) would be able to deploy anything to a Korean conflict, if they were not yet forward-deployed. Taking into account the time it would require for governments to take a decision, and then for the jets, materials and pilots to be flown or shipped over, it would already take approximately 1 - 2 weeks for the fighters to just arrive in the theatre.
By that logic alone, yes, I could understand and even support the motion to remove the jets from a default KTO. The problems start with KTO being the only default theatre, however. In no time, you’d have a lot of virtual squadrons each modifying their database so that KTO does include their favourite jet, and MP compatibility between virtual squadrons or lone pilots would be entirely lost because of it.:
If it’s all fictitious anyway, I don’t see why it would matter which aircraft types are in there, so why remove or withhold any aircraft at all?
Correct … that is why some of us wished to suppress them from KTO DB (and some has been indeed suppressed). But … Hummm, it has not been really appreciated LOL … so at least, we will try to limit and, if possible, avoid that kind of airframes/varients in the future (speaking about regular KTO DB only.)
I know you don’t generally speak about this until release, but can you shed some light on what airframes/variants have been or are on the shortlist to be removed? Will those aircraft be gone entirely, or just “suppressed” in KTO but ready for use in other theatres by changing a few parameters?
-
this conversation is moot as the LM pitch to india was rejected as is public knowledge and the current position of the Modi administration, India will fly almost exclusively sukhoi, has no interest in the f35, and will supplement with dassault for carrier based and multi role, as is publicized just recently and the scuttlebutt over the in trading with dassault right before the order was placed.
the requirements for the F35 and the long term upkeep of an LM fleet, in addition to all the carte blanche the DOD wanted with the ASTRA system, any work on SSTO out of india, as well as the advancements in meta, both in optics and materiel, was a cost deemed too steep by the Modi cartel, and it is…a cartel.
-
Realistically speaking, I doubt any EPAF country (even the ones you mention) would be able to deploy anything to a Korean conflict, if they were not yet forward-deployed. Taking into account the time it would require for governments to take a decision, and then for the jets, materials and pilots to be flown or shipped over, it would already take approximately 1 - 2 weeks for the fighters to just arrive in the theatre…
Much quicker than you think in some cases…
For example, with France, if French President give order to deploy (he decides by him/herself), things will be extremely quick after. It was then proved that Rafale and Mirage 2000D can conduct war actions in less than 24h, from France to Mali, beyond French President order.
For South Korea, it would be totally possible to send Rafale there in less than 72h, with Air Operation Support Group (GAAO) and Expeditionary air base (BAP) on any South Korean base. France could even built (25th Air Engineering Regiment (25ème RGA) a brand new runway in approximately 15 days, for a coalition.
Even if Russia don’t want European countries to fly over their territories, it’s 100% possible to make a stop over in Canada, and continue to South Korea and land there.
It would then be extremely quick for French Air Force to go there (same for Belgium, as long as they would be supported by USA and France if necessary).
What I want to prove is that some countries in Europe has great military capabilities. We shall not take them lightly. To me, EPAF, Rafale and Mirage 2000D definitely have a place in KTO.
Kind regards,
Radiulm
-
Just to clarify something : we’re talking about removing planes from the database, aren’t we. Wouldn’t this debate rather reflect how the vanilla KTO, or any supported KTO, should start - the .cam file, technically?
What are the ramifications of leaving Jas 37 in the DB (to take an example, cockpit modeled or not) ? And more importantly, what are the ramifications of not leaving it? I suppose you guess where I’m coming from, other theaters not officially supported (although I hear contradictory voices on that matter) benefit from a larger database. I was happy to equip Hungary with Viggens in my Baba Yaga campaign.
To anticipate a bit on that, obviously, if there were only F16 flying in the BMS sky, crash reports would be easier, debugging less painful and modding from the community less diverse. At what price? I have my own answer, and my only priviledge is to say it :).
-
Much quicker than you think in some cases…
For example, with France, if French President give order to deploy (he decides by him/herself), things will be extremely quick after. It was then proved that Rafale and Mirage 2000D can conduct war actions in less than 24h, from France to Mali, beyond French President order.
For South Korea, it would be totally possible to send Rafale there in less than 72h, with Air Operation Support Group (GAAO) and Expeditionary air base (BAP) on any South Korean base. France could even built (25th Air Engineering Regiment (25ème RGA) a brand new runway in approximately 15 days, for a coalition.
Even if Russia don’t want European countries to fly over their territories, it’s 100% possible to make a stop over in Canada, and continue to South Korea and land there.
It would then be extremely quick for French Air Force to go there (same for Belgium, as long as they would be supported by USA and France if necessary).
What I want to prove is that some countries in Europe has great military capabilities. We shall not take them lightly. To me, EPAF, Rafale and Mirage 2000D definitely have a place in KTO.
Kind regards,
Radiulm
Or they squadrons could be deployed there before start of combat operations if there is enough strategic warning and buildup, like in desert storm.
-
Upgrading BMS to include BLK60 and BLK70 is useless step, IMHO. There are lot of things to still simulate in the current -more popular- blocks.
-
my 2 cents:
I use basically three simulators in my free time: Falcon 4 BMS, DCS and Command CMANO. By far, the database approach performed by the CMANO is in my opinion the best one! The DB is locked and if someone desires something new, people asks in the forum by provinding information on the platform/weapon/etc. There are basically two DB, one Cold War (1946-1979), and another for Modern Warfare (1980 onwards). When one creates a scenario/campaign, he chooses the DB.
Falcon 4 could also have something similar. We could have a Master DB with all entities and this should be maintained by someone within the BMS team, for example. From that Master DB, any theather developer could create his own DB for a specific theather/campaign by importing (not editing!) the platforms/weapons that he wants to use on it. This theater DB is the one that would be shipped with the Theather install. The import from the Master DB should be done by using a software specific for that use when the Theater is being developed.
This would provide many things:
- Same platforms in different theathers, with same names, but different specs would not happen anymore. If I face a SA-2E mod.2 etc in one theater, it would have the same specs in another theater.
- If the DB fields change because the code change (e.g. in 4.34), the Master DB/software to import would be updated by the DEVs automatically, and the theater decs, would not bother with that.
- DB of theaters would be much more clean and not the mess that is today (in some cases).
- 3D Models would not be locked in the DB, so theater devs would still be able to use what they want.
Implementing this Master DB is not difficult. I tried to do that in the past here in this forum but figured out that it does not make any sense to do that without a close cooperation with those changing the code and potentially the fields of the DB.
We could start small, just adding what is right now used in the campaigns of all major theaters relased, and with time, one could think about expanding it following the steps of CMANO.Is anyone interested on perhaps putting together a proof-of-principle? Perhaps to “convince” the BMS guys that this is the way to go?