Ff you could have one thing in the next update it would be…
-
Question is … would you be able to follow enough precisely ATC instructions to not put the mess in the queue and not be kicked from it … ?
How many Vpilots here always flies a heading +/2° altitude +/-100ft and speed +/-10kts … ?
ATC is not perfect in 4.33 … but is it mainly because of AI and ATC brain, or because of human Vpilot’s skills?Question is … does the ATC take into account that turning, ac-/decelerating, climbing and descending takes time and space, or does it expect you to do it in place?
As per the BMS Manual, they will guide you to either one of the 10 pattern points, but in doing so, they seem to expect you to pass over that exact coordinate and arrive there on the second they scheduled it. Though the latter has improved in 4.33, you could be on heading 241 and still get “Falcon 11, turn left heading 240”, then before you can finish the readback “Falcon 11, turn right heading 245”, “Falcon 11, turn left heading 240”, “Falcon 11, turn right heading 250”. Once you get within 5NM from the pattern point, the timings start acting up again. Suddenly, while flying 230kts as instructed, they’ll expect you to increase to 360kts to meet their ETA, the next point is triggered, and they’ll let you reduce back to 230kts.
Real ATC would never be this perfectionist (first of all, they wouldn’t immediately notice a 5° offset and in the distances we’re talking about, it generally wouldn’t really matter anyway; secondly, they’re literally taught to be lazy ) so with that in mind, I don’t always follow ATC instructions to the T. Chicken or egg scenario, I guess?
Not much we can do.
Would it be possible to have a small (1px) black outline around the text, or make the text colour configurable somehow, so that the community can have a go at finding the (or a few) best fit(s) given the current background colours.
I say that if you dont properly follow atc vectoring and when you land without permission you starting getting hits in your log book if your on simulation mode.
Make PEOPLE PAY FOR IGNORING!!!Agree, but only after the ATC code is overhauled.
Right now, ATC does not see a formation as a single flight, but as separate members, which you can easily notice when #2 lines up with #1 after #1 already got the line-up clearance, but #2 didn’t yet. He’ll be told to get off the runway, followed 2 seconds later by his own line-up clearance. Similarly, if #1 hasn’t vacated the runway yet and #2 is on final approach, he’ll be told to go around. If at that point you continue the approach like real fighter pilots would do, would that count as landing without clearance?
-
Would it be possible to have a small (1px) black outline around the text, or make the text colour configurable somehow, so that the community can have a go at finding the (or a few) best fit(s) given the current background colours.
BMS needs and deserves a overhauled UI. Period. Not for tomorrow.
Real ATC would never be this perfectionist
But you don’t deal with real ATC … you are dealing with a robot.
Anyway … no need to discuss it more yet.
-
yep …
Sadly the recalculate function does not solve the problem of 2D world. During creation of my MOD I set the same 2D modelling values for A-10 and for testing I put the same AG mission on it and the result in 2D world was totally different…
I also tried change values of red AG missile result was the same.So far I was not able to find anybody who surely could say and confirm how works the 2D world + DB and which is determined by which.
In FF5.x as I can remember I overrided the eng. range of SAMs to provide more chance to down airplanes because their fire rate was low with very low CTH. -
The best update falcon lovers could wish for is BMS work together with DCS and produce F-16/Campaign engine.:blowpar:
-
… ok … time for me to quite again that forum. It is hopelessly depressing.
Cheers guys.
-
The best update falcon lovers could wish for is BMS work together with DCS and produce F-16/Campaign engine.:blowpar:
The best update would be you stop posting such non sense and you quit this forum and give advice to DCS to create the f16/campaign
-
The best update falcon lovers could wish for is BMS work together with DCS and produce F-16/Campaign engine.:blowpar:
Then many of us will not afford it and quit from this sim. Is hard times lol:wfish:
From marketing perspective Ed focuses in young ppl mainly In the new generation that will pay any cost for having what has been said by other ppl in this forum
-
@vfp:
Then many of us will not afford it and quit from this sim. Is hard times lol:wfish:
From marketing perspective Ed focuses in young ppl mainly In the new generation that will pay any cost for having what has been said by other ppl in this forum
stats says other wise… not that young actually. u must have money for this sport… serious money that most youngsters don’t have. Also youngsters , most of them, are for quickies and not the learning curve of a flligt sim…
-
The best update would be you stop posting such non sense and you quit this forum and give advice to DCS to create the f16/campaign
I think it was a joke…
-
The best update falcon lovers could wish for is BMS work together with DCS and produce F-16/Campaign engine.:blowpar:
You are foolish. DCS will always be a fragmented mess of a game/sim.
Even if they get a campaign engine … do you think there will be something the likes of a Falcon Online? Nope because there is no canonical version of an aircraft. Just different modules
that other players may or may not have. -
The best update falcon lovers could wish for is BMS work together with DCS and produce F-16/Campaign engine.:blowpar:
-
Not again guys please…
I wish AI vehicles could just follow alternative routes if a bridge is destroyed and Eng. Battalions could repair them in few hours.
Everytime I started a campaign I had to block all strikes on brigdes because they literally brake the campaign from the start.
This is the only major flaw I found in the campaigns.Maybe is even possible to create this unit:
-
I wish AI vehicles could just follow alternative routes if a bridge is destroyed and Eng. Battalions could repair them in few hours.
Everytime I started a campaign I had to block all strikes on brigdes because they literally brake the campaign from the start.
This is the only major flaw I found in the campaigns.Maybe is even possible to create this unit:
It was a few years ago that I flew a SP campaign with 4.33, but I do remember finishing campaigns without touching anything related to bridges.
Also, I don’t know for sure but this rings a bell as something that was fixed already (But this isn’t really my area so I have no idea if indeed it was).
Are you SURE that this behavior still exists with 4.33 ? -
This post is deleted! -
It was a few years ago that I flew a SP campaign with 4.33, but I do remember finishing campaigns without touching anything related to bridges.
Also, I don’t know for sure but this rings a bell as something that was fixed already (But this isn’t really my area so I have no idea if indeed it was).
Are you SURE that this behavior still exists with 4.33 ?I’ve played all campaigns months ago with the last 4.33 update Korea Thearter only , I’m 100% sure of that.
-
I’ve played all campaigns months ago with the last 4.33 update Korea Thearter only , I’m 100% sure of that.
What if you manually task an engineer battalion to go there ?
Don’t forget to desactivate bataillions auto control -
What if you manually task an engineer battalion to go there ?
Don’t forget to desactivate bataillions auto controlI’m pretty sure I’ve moved them near a destroyed bridge… no joy after 2 days.
Few months have passed since my last try … I guess I’ll wait 4.34 for another test -
This post is deleted! -
I’m pretty sure I’ve moved them near a destroyed bridge… no joy after 2 days.
Few months have passed since my last try … I guess I’ll wait 4.34 for another testyou need to activate player control else the campaign engine will retask it somewhere else a few minutes later
-
Speaking of the campaign:
I would really like the option to disable the effect of the “mission rating” on the 2D engagement outcomes.
I find it quite “gamey”… Why would the performance of a single plane impact the combat capability of the whole army?
But most importantly, it annoys my perfectionist side, often pushing me to reload if I didn’t get an high enough rating, as I worry that I’m crippling my side.I’m not saying to remove it in the name of realism, as maybe others like it, it’s just that I would like the choice.
Cheers!