Hornet FM
-
It’s fine as is. When the current Bug was released I was totally satisfied. The year or two of anticipation was well worth the wait. It feels correct, flies nicely and otherwise operates much like the F-16–even though it’s not really supposed to. I see that as a feature, not a bug. (You see wh… yeah, of course you did.) I mentioned VR a few posts up. That was not intended as a nudge. I actually like BMS in 2D. I can take notes and easily review them. And I hate a 3D GUI with a passion. Truly it is the worst part about DCS’s VR implementation. If I want to use the editor I have to revert to 2d and wait 10 minutes for the sim to reboot. So, from my perspective, if VR comes to BMS, great! But if not, equally great.
-
i just discovered that it’s possible to make run engines separately in the Hornet, that’s beautiful
-
Step one: a VERY good functional 3D cockpit with all sources transferred. That is the very 1st step before considering anything else. Then … (?)
If that step is covered what next? How can someone start working on avionics once we have a nice cockpit model?
I think model developers can start with an exterior model and keep the F-16 cockpit, and eventually build the cockpit once they are ready - but seems an avionics/systems developer can’t really start with anything like that. Any reference someone could use to begin architecting the code for a different avionics system, or something similar?
-
If that step is covered what next? How can someone start working on avionics once we have a nice cockpit model?
I think model developers can start with an exterior model and keep the F-16 cockpit, and eventually build the cockpit once they are ready - but seems an avionics/systems developer can’t really start with anything like that. Any reference someone could use to begin architecting the code for a different avionics system, or something similar?
Orrfen,
this is just retexture pack, not a brand new 3D cockpit… DJ didn’t say that someone out of BMS team would be able to work on avionics. DJ said that if someone out of BMS will prepare brand new high quality cockpit then it will be a good base and incentive for BMS coder(s). -
Sunrrise, cataloging the current Hornet as a re-textured pack of the F-16, I think is not the reality, and for people who have left time and resources in its development, it can be even offensive.
The specific flight model, functions like the auto throttle, braking hooks and catapult bar, folding wings, etc., go far beyond the F-16.
What could be integrated specific avionics for the F-18? Sure, it would be perfect. When we flew 4.33 we wondered what it would be like to have the IFF integrated, and two years later we already have it. It’s just a matter of the team spending some resources on the plane.
However, in my opinion, before that, it might be worth making the 3D cockpit we already have fully operational, such as linking the IFF button to the IFF menu, enabling the IFF mode 4 knob, linking the auto trim knob to the simulator function, and link the autopilot modes in the ICP of the Hornet.
Then, having a screen where you can see the state of the control surfaces, and things like that, since they honestly don’t tell me anything, IMHO.Fresco
-
Sunrrise, cataloging the current Hornet as a re-textured pack of the F-16, I think is not the reality, and for people who have left time and resources in its development, it can be even offensive.
The specific flight model, functions like the auto throttle, braking hooks and catapult bar, folding wings, etc., go far beyond the F-16.
What could be integrated specific avionics for the F-18? Sure, it would be perfect. When we flew 4.33 we wondered what it would be like to have the IFF integrated, and two years later we already have it. It’s just a matter of the team spending some resources on the plane.
However, in my opinion, before that, it might be worth making the 3D cockpit we already have fully operational, such as linking the IFF button to the IFF menu, enabling the IFF mode 4 knob, linking the auto trim knob to the simulator function, and link the autopilot modes in the ICP of the Hornet.
Then, having a screen where you can see the state of the control surfaces, and things like that, since they honestly don’t tell me anything, IMHO.Fresco
Please read what I wrote again. Orffen was refering to buraktunahan’s work which is a retexture pack, nothing more.
-
If that step is covered what next? How can someone start working on avionics once we have a nice cockpit model?
I think model developers can start with an exterior model and keep the F-16 cockpit, and eventually build the cockpit once they are ready - but seems an avionics/systems developer can’t really start with anything like that. Any reference someone could use to begin architecting the code for a different avionics system, or something similar?
There are no real wish to start such project for now. Busy on many different things. But IF something has to be made about avionics on another a/c someday , it better already have a quite descent 3D cockpit.
-
Ok Sunrrise, you are right, sorry.
In any case, what I indicate in the post is what I think. With just a little push from the developers, the F-18 would be at a high level, IMHO.
Fresco
-
Ok Sunrrise, you are right, sorry.
In any case, what I indicate in the post is what I think. With just a little push from the developers, the F-18 would be at a high level, IMHO.
Fresco
Totally agree. I think it is already on very fine level. I dream only on two things:
- working gauges,
- new backlight for UFC.
That’s it.
-
Well it is quite rare to see manual TEF in a F16
Launch bar is something quite unusual on F16 as well, so is the probe. -who knows ? ;);) …
I doubt F16 has an autothrottle but i might be wrong…
I doubt the TRim in F16 is AOA related but again what do i know about it ?
It does not seem that take off trim is used in F16 eithers
TOe In is quite difficult in a F16 as well
Glimiter overide is something i whish i had in the F16
…
so the guy is asking about FM, let’s have the courtesy to answer him about FMironic much?
-
Please, do not abandon the F18
I am flying about 80% F18, 20% F16 now.
I found carrier ops very challenging and interesting.- Only the fact of taking off from a dot at the ocean, completing a mission, and find the way back and land at that dot, makes me forget the lack of a good realistic cockpit or an accurate FM. -
Orrfen,
this is just retexture pack, not a brand new 3D cockpit… DJ didn’t say that someone out of BMS team would be able to work on avionics. DJ said that if someone out of BMS will prepare brand new high quality cockpit then it will be a good base and incentive for BMS coder(s).There are no real wish to start such project for now. Busy on many different things. But IF something has to be made about avionics on another a/c someday , it better already have a quite descent 3D cockpit.
This is the point I was making - I don’t need to be part of the BMS team to create a cockpit or other 3D models or theatres, but for avionics it sounds like only the devteam is able to develop that aspect of BMS. That’s a shame because there are people in the community who would like to work on avionics, there just isn’t a way for them to do that today.
Now I understand that the Falcon code architecture is probably the reason for this, and it would take work to modularise the Viper avionics and provide an API, documentation, scripts whatever to allow the community to develop avionics.
Which takes me back to the intent of my original question - could there be a way for someone today to work on avionics for another module and submit that to the devteam? This is quite difficult without access to the BMS source, or at least knowledge of the code architecture. I’m thinking rather than submitting C++ maybe there could be a way for people to develop the avionics in pseudocode or another format that would be easier for the dev team to translate. It would need to be high-level enough not to depend on specific functions and classes (because we don’t know what they are), but clear enough that a developer with knowledge of the BMS code could take it and translate it to the appropriate function calls etc.
The answer may be “not today - check back in 3-4 weeks”, or it might be “join the devteam - here’s what we’d like to see to consider your application”, or “hey that sounds great, here’s a couple of guidelines, now go write up a specification for FalconScript”.
-
but for avionics it sounds like only the devteam is able to develop that aspect of BMS.
Wasn’t there a possibility to work on MFD screens without coding?
-
This is the point I was making - I don’t need to be part of the BMS team to create a cockpit or other 3D models or theatres, but for avionics it sounds like only the devteam is able to develop that aspect of BMS. That’s a shame because there are people in the community who would like to work on avionics, there just isn’t a way for them to do that today.
Now I understand that the Falcon code architecture is probably the reason for this, and it would take work to modularise the Viper avionics and provide an API, documentation, scripts whatever to allow the community to develop avionics.
Which takes me back to the intent of my original question - could there be a way for someone today to work on avionics for another module and submit that to the devteam? This is quite difficult without access to the BMS source, or at least knowledge of the code architecture. I’m thinking rather than submitting C++ maybe there could be a way for people to develop the avionics in pseudocode or another format that would be easier for the dev team to translate. It would need to be high-level enough not to depend on specific functions and classes (because we don’t know what they are), but clear enough that a developer with knowledge of the BMS code could take it and translate it to the appropriate function calls etc.
The answer may be “not today - check back in 3-4 weeks”, or it might be “join the devteam - here’s what we’d like to see to consider your application”, or “hey that sounds great, here’s a couple of guidelines, now go write up a specification for FalconScript”.
I think for small stuff it’s possible but for major changes it’s impossible
I do think that externalizing everything (sms , fcc, mfd, hud, electrical, hydraulics, engine , cockpit etc…) is impossible it’s really everywhere in the code with an horrific dépendance of everything everywhere
-
OK, I have two questions.
Many people complain about Hornet’s gauges. I will also want to have more real UFC buttons. Can you please have a look at it? Gauges were already corrected in 4.33.2 because the same bug was introduced in 4.33.1 and now it reappered in 4.34.0.
If I will provide you new textures for UFC (and the rest of the cockpit as well) can you please remap UFC backlight? This is something I cannot do.
-
OK, I have two questions.
Many people complain about Hornet’s gauges. I will also want to have more real UFC buttons. Can you please have a look at it? Gauges were already corrected in 4.33.2 because the same bug was introduced in 4.33.1 and now it reappered in 4.34.0.
If I will provide you new textures for UFC (and the rest of the cockpit as well) can you please remap UFC backlight? This is something I cannot do.
I am not the right person to answer for the reasons mentionned before
-
I think for small stuff it’s possible but for major changes it’s impossible
I do think that externalizing everything (sms , fcc, mfd, hud, electrical, hydraulics, engine , cockpit etc…) is impossible it’s really everywhere in the code with an horrific dépendance of everything everywhere
+1. And especially with AI, which is a pain.
-
That’s a common thing in older programs, actually. Today, a game or sim is generally made by taking an existing engine, which has a lot of general purpose code built in, and building atop it. If done right, this results in a reasonably modular product that can, as long as you have access to the source, be adapted, sometimes even without the source if it uses scripting heavily. Developers today often try to account for possible expansion, too. Back when Falcon 4 was written, this wasn’t the case, and everything was done from scratch, on a bespoke engine, and shortcuts were taken at expense of modularity, because expansions weren’t all that common and devs didn’t think about modders. Working with such an engine entails a lot of dancing around built-in assumptions, and AI tends to be especially brittle because of its complexity.
Some of the switchology that doesn’t relate to things that the AI uses would probably be possible to implement. Indeed, the Hornet does have a fair number of its own callbacks. Touching anything that’s referenced in the AI code is asking for trouble.
-
That’s a common thing in older programs, actually. Today, a game or sim is generally made by taking an existing engine, which has a lot of general purpose code built in, and building atop it. If done right, this results in a reasonably modular product that can, as long as you have access to the source, be adapted, sometimes even without the source if it uses scripting heavily. Developers today often try to account for possible expansion, too. Back when Falcon 4 was written, this wasn’t the case, and everything was done from scratch, on a bespoke engine, and shortcuts were taken at expense of modularity, because expansions weren’t all that common and devs didn’t think about modders. Working with such an engine entails a lot of dancing around built-in assumptions, and AI tends to be especially brittle because of its complexity.
Some of the switchology that doesn’t relate to things that the AI uses would probably be possible to implement. Indeed, the Hornet does have a fair number of its own callbacks. Touching anything that’s referenced in the AI code is asking for trouble.
the good news tho is that when we have let’s say a missile modeling th tis working, it works for ALL aircrafts :)….
It’s difficult to imagine for me that the same missile type behaves differently from a module to another LOL
-
That’s no inherent in either model. In fact, there’s no reason for there to be much difference, code-wise, between an AI aircraft and a missile, other than the AI routine that it uses. Yeah, DCS bungled weapon implementation on their part, but they didn’t have to do it that way.