4.34 - F/A-18 missing needles in all analog gauges
-
It’s really a pity that anything else than the F-16 doesn’t get any love!
considering the thousands of hours i spent on AV8B thrust vectoring capabilities, AV8 AFM , F18 dedicated FLCS and AFM and Carrier ops , i think that statement is a bit exagerated.
I agree though that at the moment
- nobody is interested to develop more the dedicated avionics
As a consequence,
- nobody is really interested in developing new 3D cockpits
and i agree THAT is frustrating
-
- nobody is interested to develop more the dedicated avionics
If only I had more free time…
It would really be an interesting project to start developing other platforms for BMS.
-
If only I had more free time…
It would really be an interesting project to start developing other platforms for BMS.
well two ways to do it:
- adapt the existing code in order to apply a dedicated avionics bit by bit …
or
- rewrite totally the avionics code in order to make it modifiable much easily
(1) has been rejected by BMS management, so (2) remains on the table
I dont think we will ever find someone with the courage / skills / time to implement (2), that’s why i stopped dedicated my time to other aircrafts ( i just polished the carrier ops since i dont like letting a code not fully polished).
But i might be wrong, in falcon world, “Never” is not an existing word.
-
Also … IMHO, time has come to try to give our F-16 cockpit a refresh. At least about texture to keep at least on aircraft one the top edge.
We don’t know if / how / who / when it will be done. So, speaking about other a/c … guess what? -
I dont think we will ever find someone with the courage / skills / time to implement (2)
I must totally disagree. It’s not related to courage/skills, we have both as we have been doing FAR more complex stuff in the last few years than disassembling some C++ classes into an inheritance shape. Actually this is more of a “dirty and annoying work” than anything. What hold us back for that is time and priorities. My todo list is full but if it wasn’t, I would have started that task yesterday. 2-3 weeks is what it would take to separate the classes. From there implementing dedicated avionics and keep maintaining father-child relations between the classes (Possibly shifting stuff from one to the other as necessary) is already an implementation kind of work.
From my experience, we (SW guys in general) have tendency to make “big deal” sometimes of things that aren’t, not really
-
I must totally disagree. It’s not related to courage/skills, we have both as we have been doing FAR more complex stuff in the last few years than disassembling some C++ classes into an inheritance shape. Actually this is more of a “dirty and annoying work” than anything. What hold us back for that is time and priorities. My todo list is full but if it wasn’t, I would have started that task yesterday. 2-3 weeks is what it would take to separate the classes. From there implementing dedicated avionics and keep maintaining father-child relations between the classes (Possibly shifting stuff from one to the other as necessary) is already an implementation kind of work.
From my experience, we (SW guys in general) have tendency to make “big deal” sometimes of things that aren’t, not really
well, different POV i believe
just thinking about the Fault system to adapt to another aircraft seems just a huge task to me….
Same for all systems : power, mechanics etc etc…took us months to implement properly the F16 gear / brake system , including 3D cockpit modification and sounds
Just thinking about the hundreds of things that are still wrong in the F16…jeeez…
I was the first one to raise hand for a proper MIG29K or SU33 implementation, but i have totally lost faith today.
but again , i might be wrong and maybe BMS will find a better guy (more efficient, productive and safer) than me to do that (i hope so)
-
but again , i might be wrong and maybe BMS will find a better guy (more efficient, productive and safer) than me to do that (i hope so)
Is that supposed to be funny?
-
well, different POV i believe
just thinking about the Fault system to adapt to another aircraft seems just a huge task to me….
Same for all systems : power, mechanics etc etc…took us months to implement properly the F16 gear / brake system , including 3D cockpit modification and sounds
Just thinking about the hundreds of things that are still wrong in the F16…jeeez…
I was the first one to raise hand for a proper MIG29K or SU33 implementation, but i have totally lost faith today.
but again , i might be wrong and maybe BMS will find a better guy (more efficient, productive and safer) than me to do that (i hope so)
Well, creating avionics for other aircraft is a huge task by itself, e.g F-18. But, creating the “option” is the step I was talking about. Then, if someone wants to build avionics, he will be able to. I too agree we are still far from that and also need to add stuff to the F-16 (e.g Link-16?), but if someone wants to work on other platforms in parallel, at least the code for that will be ready once we perform that pre-step.
Regarding Fault system - Well I worked on A-G avionics for 4.33, I know it takes time, but actually avionics is fun to do (at least I liked it) and the A-G avionics in 4.33 gone way too deep into the very small details of systems. I think an average weapon system will not take as long as e.g I spent on the Mavericks due to getting down to the tiny details. “Average” systems quality for other ACs, especially western ones, will not be such a big deal, at least in my eyes.
-
For me bms is f-16 , you can make the most complete f16 simulator in every aspect .
btw the cloud density option in cfg in 4.34 .1 was a necessity I am above 40 fps all the time with medium setting.
i assume was mavjps decision to make it -
considering the thousands of hours i spent on AV8B thrust vectoring capabilities, AV8 AFM , F18 dedicated FLCS and AFM and Carrier ops , i think that statement is a bit exagerated.
I agree though that at the moment
- nobody is interested to develop more the dedicated avionics
As a consequence,
- nobody is really interested in developing new 3D cockpits
and i agree THAT is frustrating
Ok my statement was really a bit harsh, but that’s the case because of my disappointment.
BMS should be the backbone of my homecockpit. I startet this project years ago, at the time Falcon 4.0 was state of the art. Already then I had the plan to make a universal cockpit, which is able to simulate many different aircraft. It should be as realistic as possible, but not to the last nut and bolt.
Those times back those years it was no question to have functional gauges or MFD’s (or it was much, much to expensive), so the only thing you could implement to your homepit were switches, knobs and dials. No problem to get this running for different aircraft. I wanted to use the pit with the Jane’s series, Free Falcon, Strike Fighters Project 1 and Enemy Engaged All Mods. Years passed by and I had a lot of other things to do in real life, so I sadly had no more time for my homepit project.
I always had an eye at BMS, but the fact it was F-16 only kept me from using it for the cockpit. I wanted to stay with Free Falcon and have the ability to fly different aircraft. I know that this wasn’t as much realistic as BMS, but hey I’m no pilot who makes his training lessons for the next mission at home. A simulation should of course be realistic, but I think at the end it’s still a game and a hobby which should make fun, not a training rig to learn real military aviation procedures. Don’t get me wrong, I like realism, but sometimes I think this kind of hyper-realism is a bit exaggerated. This is also the case we have to wait 3-5 years for one new aircraft in DCS (and another 5 years until it is finished), for example, or we had no real interesting modules for years.
I really prefer to fly an F-14 or an F-15 which isn’t hyper-realistic to the last, for a simulation-game, unimportant system, before I’m only able to fly uninteresting military trainer aircraft, which are modeled to the last nut and bolt. I don’t like this attitude to make things only like in real life, or completely leave it. Hey, it’s a simulation game and it should convey how it is to be a fighter pilot but it’s not a trainer. On the other hand it shouldn’t be something like War Thunder or Ace Combat or anything in that direction. Realism yes, realistic realism for sure, but not that hyper-hyper realism, which makes some things impossible to add to the simulation, cause the system of the aircraft could not be simulated exactly as the original or they are simply unknown because they are secret.
In 2015 Falcon BMS 4.33 appeared and I was really ravished to see that there was now also a flyable F/A-18C and a AV-8B. I took a look at it and also read, that the A-10, the F-15 and the other flyable aircraft should also get much better cockpits in the nearer future. Short after this the project of the F-14D, my all time favorite jet-fighter, was also announced. This and the fact that BMS is absolutely homepit-builders friendly (thank’s for all the work you all have done here), was my decision to built my project with BMS as the main simulation. I also wanted to use EECH All Mods for the attack-helicopters and Strike Fighters Project 2 for all the older vietnam era stuff. FS2004 or FSX should be used for big birds like C-130 Hercules, C-117 Globemaster, C-5 Galaxy or even transport choppers like the CH-53, UH-1 etc. The MSFS is also relatively easy to interface with a homepit.
For EECH and SFP2 mainly input systems like the HOTAS and all the buttons and switches in the cockpit were intended to be functional. I also wanted to be able to fly older jets and attack-helicopters with the pit, so I had to make this compromise not to have functional gauges and MFD’s at the moment for those two simulations. Maybe one day? DCS was no consideration this time, cause of the missing interesting modules for me. I only had Flaming Cliffs 3 and the Huey at this time and for the Huey you also can use the MSFS, which offers a lot of good realistic UH-1 choppers, too. The Huey isn’t a real attack chopper, it’s primarily a utility helicopter, so no need to fly it in DCS, even if the flight dynamics are superb. But there are also Hueys for the MSFS which have a real good flightmodel.
Since BMS 4.33 offered other fighters now too, has one of the best possibilities to interface a homepit and also has an outstanding dynamic campaign (not to mention all the other outstanding features of it), it should be the main simulator I built my cockpit for. You could see at my pictures from the cockpit that I have “stolen” most of the avionics from the F-16 for my universal pit, to be able to use it perfectly with BMS. Some “extra-features” like the mini-overhead-panel and some extra control systems are also integrated, to make it more helicopter and big birds friendly. I also made many different grips and throttles and also a collective to be universal and have the possibility to fly the choosen aircraft with the right feeling.
That’s why I hope that BMS will still support other flyable fighter-jets in the future too and not drop the idea of having other flyables than the F-16. Yes, it is all F-16 under the hood, but it’s ok I think. Maybe sometime this could be made better, but meanwhile it’s also ok like it is. And it makes some things a lot easier for cockpit-building. Compared to DCS, BMS is lightyears ahead if you want to built your own homecockpit. It’s much more FPS friendly and the engine doesn’t change permanently, so you have always to run after it.
If you built a homepit, you couldn’t do this within a few months, it takes a lot of time (especially if you relatively low on money, like I am). If the simulation you want to use permanently claims for newer, better hardware, you will never reach the end of your project, cause you have always to adapt it to the new situation during the building process. BMS also offers interface software like F4ToPokeys or YAME which are really a dream for hompit-builders. With exception of the MSFS (and maybe X-Plane) you will not find any other simulation which offers such a perfect cockpit-interface.
So why should this great all in one pack stay F-16 only for ever?
Ok, here is what I’m working on. I built this with a very, very limited budget, so not all is perfect. It’s still a long way to the finish. All has to be sanded, painted and all the lettering has to be done and, and , and… Sadly, I had no time for working on it the last two years. Some things will change now, cause at the time I was building them, I had no other possibilities to make them. Especially some of the control buttons, switches etc. Now I have a 3D-printer and will rework a lot of the things that I already done.
Side- and Centersticks are changeable and will not be used at the same time like you see it in the layout-plan. It’s also possible to use a yoke and a four engine throttle-quadrant or even a collective. The big old CRT 22’’ will be replaced by a triple view TFT-monitor set, but I have to rework the rotateable connection holder for my overhead before I can use a triple view
-
Thanks to all for their posts to this thread, i can imagine it is definitely not easy and free time consuming the development of bms. Not to mention about cockpits and focusing to other aircrafts than f-16. That’s why never wanted to dare condemning any bugs, weaknesses or any deficiencies. We cook what the house offers. Anyway… i finally got time to learn how to properly extract and import f-18a/b/c/d lods files via 3ddb builder. Importing these lods from 4.33.2 to 4.34.2 resulted into almost fine cockpit. YES…Good work boys! It looks quite good for me and missions are much more feelful. Thank you all for your awesome work. Big up Burak Tunahan for his textures (btw could it be possible to correct console lights of buttons on ICP panel? I tried myself but my skills in graphics programs are not so well. Thx but this is rather about another thread.). All Needles are fine textured. SimMPOToggle switch’s texture is also assigned well (except f-18c cockpit model). Only chilli pepper in my ass is the light of RWR power light and rwr handoff. It only lights when you light up the console light. btw i guess it could be easily done like white lights when landing gears pulled out? And what about black, bad textured SimMPOToggle switch in f-18c cockpit model? Should be this lod model edited in some modeller program or is there easier way to correct these minor issues? Thanks for answers as well, like Dee-Jay said, if you got new reports and ideas it should be posted.
F-18a here looks good. Green arrows means this works well, red arrows means not working as expected, yellow arrow means suggestion how it should work.
F-18c switch on the right side has wrong texture.
-
Unfortunately bad news when you use old cockpit from 4.33.x then you will encounter another issue. HSI guide system in tacan mode is broken, especially for ils landing. When you switch to TILS on final, arrow is not complete and guide system is working only on hud. I have right ils frequency, course and channel, double checked file station+ils.dat for right theater. In 4.34 hsi tacan mode works but for another change there are broken gauges with needles and other issues. So when you want to fly f-18, then choice is yours… we must hope for patch in earliest falcon weeks.
-
Err. nope. You might have confused pits…
4.33 F18C/E pit HSI-(T)ILS works ok , NO bug on arrow. - dials are ok even when not lighted.
–oh , yes , when in UFC/Radio Backup mode, then just TACAN is swapped , AA-TR <> TR … so when in BACKUP mode, TACAN for ground must be set on AA-TR … but if someone uses that still…4.34 F18C/E – bad pit - strange textures like 0000 on arrows, dials , hsi arrow not centered correctly
Please check again…
There are only 4.33 and 4.34 pit … no 4.xx.x - it doesnt matter, all the same pits , just one’s bugged , older one is OK
F18A/B uses different pit - it is not the same as C/D/E/F/G - those are two completely different pits, different models … look engine control , so cant compare between the two
-
Gone back to 4.33.5 for now, cause I want to fly other aircraft, too.
I really don’t have much hope for the support or bugfixes of other aircraft than the F-16 somewhere in the nearer future. Looks like 4.34 is a step backwards in this case.
Also YAME-Extractor still does not really support 4.34. This is the case for nearly one year now. So I couldn’t see any need for me to upgrade to 4.34 at the moment. I’ll stay with 4.33.5.
In my opinion 4.34.2 is only the better choice for guys which want to fly the F-16 only. I had the hope, as I heard 4.34 will see the light of day, that maybe some cockpits from the already included aircraft like the A-10A and the F-15E will be a bit improved and maybe the F-14D is already on board, too.
But sadly that didn’t happen and it also looks like noone is really interested in other flyables than the F-16 and it’s countless versions anymore.
And it’s not right that Falcon always was intended as an exclusively F-16 only simulation if you look at it’s history. Even in Falcon 3.0 was an A-10 planned as first addon aircraft, but it never made it. Instead the F/A-18 and the Mig-29 came out as addons. For Falcon Allied Force an A-10 was also planned as an later addon.
-
Gone back to 4.33.5 for now, cause I want to fly other aircraft, too.
I really don’t have much hope for the support or bugfixes of other aircraft than the F-16 somewhere in the nearer future. Looks like 4.34 is a step backwards in this case.
I really start to be pissed off big time
You can say you are disappointed that we don’t bring more support for non f16 , but that is total bullshit to say 4.34 is a step backward
Tell me exactly which step you consider backward ?
- the full carrier ATC support ?
- the improved carrier code ? (Cables ? Pitch and roll ? )
3)the f18 improved FLCS ? - the su33 Specific AFM ?
- the gun pod integration for m2kD?
Tell me exactly ? Do you think carriers are for f16?
And if you are not happy , why don’t you start modeling a nice 3D cockpit for the f14 ? Or the su33?
Too easy to complain all the time and critisize us is all the time !!! Fed up with this childish behavior ! Go and fly DCs they have plenty of fantastic module to sell !!
You know why I am talking about DCS?
I have worked years for carrier ops , f18 flcs etc….because one guy in BMS was always teasing me to do it because he was interested in the f18 only. He was supposed to work on the cockpit and so on !!!
I worked literally YEARS
The day The f18 has been released for DCS , this guy left the group saying he was not interested anymore
So YES I am pissed off to read that all this work is considered a step back
-
Gone back to 4.33.5 for now, cause I want to fly other aircraft, too.
And it’s not right that Falcon always was intended as an exclusively F-16 only simulation if you look at it’s history. Even in Falcon 3.0 was an A-10 planned as first addon aircraft, but it never made it. Instead the F/A-18 and the Mig-29 came out as addons. For Falcon Allied Force an A-10 was also planned as an later addon.
Falcon BMS is not Falcon 3.0 and Falcon BMS is not Falcon 4 Allied Force. Your comparisons are irrelevant. It’s actually quite funny that in two of your examples you mention add-ons that were planned but didn’t actually happen, but anyway…
Do you have any real idea how many members of Dev are active today? We are not DCS! Human Resources are extremely limited and already close to breaking point, working harder than we probably should be to continue to develop and improve the core of the sim, but you instead choose to bitch about other aircraft not receiving the attention you want them to.
If you have any affection at all for the F-16 and the work BMS have done, you really need to step back and be thankful for what you have received to date rather than posting naive bullshit like this.
-
Falcon BMS is not Falcon 3.0 and Falcon BMS is not Falcon 4 Allied Force. Your comparisons are irrelevant. It’s actually quite funny that in two of your examples you mention add-ons that were planned but didn’t actually happen, but anyway…
Do you have any real idea how many members of Dev are active today? We are not DCS! Human Resources are extremely limited and already close to breaking point, working harder than we probably should be to continue to develop and improve the core of the sim, but you instead choose to bitch about other aircraft not receiving the attention you want them to.
If you have any affection at all for the F-16 and the work BMS have done, you really need to step back and be thankful for what you have received to date rather than posting naive bullshit like this.
Correct, BMS this is not 150 coders, not even 50 not even 10 not even 5 !!!
-
Really? There’s 4 or less coders and one of them is you Mav-jp? wow……
Every BMS major updates brings the core updates of combat simulator which I can’t expect to see in the another one… I would lose true air combat simulator without you guys. Thank you always and please take care of yourself.
-
Fewer than five?! Oh, my… I would’ve never suspected that. I thought the dev team consisted of at least a dozen gifted individuals organized in smaller groups specializing in separate aspects of the simulation, graphics, campaign, theatre building etc. Now it seems that those few are doing the whole volume of the work necessary to maintain and improve the sim… My respect, gentlemen.
-
Correcto, BMS esto no es 150 codificadores, ni siquiera 50 ni siquiera 10 ni siquiera 5 !!! [/ QUOTE]
:bowd:
:bowd:
:bowd: