F-16A ?
-
I know what you mean but I like ****ing flyies. F-16 A doesn’t mean anything. Because the MLU is a F-16 A. And current avionics is pretty close the the MLU. So witch version? Block 1? Block 5? Block 10?
My opinion: when you see how many time we need to make a F-16 M+, and it’s far from complete (and probably will be never), and don’t understand why wasting times for a another aircraft.
Even a block 5 will not be more easy, it’s like a another plane.In First step I can live with an F-16A cockpit layout and appropriate number of displays.
-
F-16A? Definetelly!
But only as long as it doesn’t take too much time from the dev team (priorities and all).
-
Did someone lea… err liberated Falcon3 code?
F16A would be sweet: if we could have no eegs, lcos only narrow hud, no HSD and APG-66…
-
some pictures:
this for free?
not much of a choice: YES -
A proper representation of the cockpit would need a lot of coding. It’s the same ‘problem’ all older jets have in any Falcon version so far: the simple radar screen: not an MFD, but only radar modes, no OSB’s. And maybe a possibility to choose a weapon or other functions directly in stead of scrolling through a menu. If the standard for an F-16A cockpit in BMS is as high as for the block 50, it needs serious coding in the avionics department. But it gets my vote!
(And I can provide detailed pictures to whoever is gonna make that cockpit; they are also used for the F-16A 2D cockpit in FreeFalcon) -
Very unlikely to happen. if something happen in avionics confuguraton it will have block 20 limit anything bellow as Snail wrote need gigantic code changes and redesign. Sorry.
-
I would really like to see F16A, but it would take a lot of time for devs to modell it. Also I doubt it would be possible to model F16A completly in BMS. Just remember that, just like for any other aircraft in BMS, you can’t model HUD/MFDs accurately (I haven’t seen anything other than standard MFD/HUD in Falcon series). So, since BMS is optimized for F16Cblk50, let’s not force it to simulate anything other than what it was made to simulate…It just won’t turn out as good. Just look at the free falcon (no disrecpect)…they “modelled” XY number of aircrafts, yet not even a single one is as realisticaly modelled as F16Cblk50 in BMS.
Let me put this into more practical terms: For time required to model F16A, devs coud model IFF and JDAM’s(+). What is your choice? Semi-realistic F16A or completly realistic JDAM+IFF? -
Why you think its not possible? Sure its. With source code all is possible. Its just matter of manpower and time. Both are so precious now to exhaust it on complete F16A avionics. Yes, we have more features for C/MLU model avionics so it makes sense to use resources available to refine that features than start A stuff completly from scratch. As i said - anything bellow block 20 - very very unlikely even in distant future. More detailed and configurable C/MLU stuff? Lets see for 4.33
-
This post is deleted! -
This isn’t a commercial product where the customers beg the developers to do this or that in hopes of getting their way. And what would we do with an F-16A, anyway?
-
I would really like to see F16A, but it would take a lot of time for devs to modell it. Also I doubt it would be possible to model F16A completly in BMS. Just remember that, just like for any other aircraft in BMS, you can’t model HUD/MFDs accurately (I haven’t seen anything other than standard MFD/HUD in Falcon series). So, since BMS is optimized for F16Cblk50, let’s not force it to simulate anything other than what it was made to simulate…
All other AC use partially the F-16 modeling therefore these statements pointless. I do not understand why is better to have nothing then X% accurate model for F-16A. The 3D pit layout is doable with single MFD. Do not want to use other MFD page. Do not do it. Very simple…
If old devs followed the only 100% modeling aspect BMS4 and FFx.x never would be released…
-
I would love to get rid of the gadgets (Link 16/SADLE, guided bombs, AMRAAMs, etc.) but so many people would complain it would take the fun out of it. We do not need an A model to have less capabilities. An ODS era F-16 did not carry guided bombs ( Blk 40 was capable but pilots were not trained and TGP were not available). I hope they pick a specific tail number, from a specific year, with a specific Air Force, that way it can be model to the highest level they choose. Other wise it will have room for people to question or argue about it. I’m happy with what they are doing and I’m aware that we are just allowed to play they version of Falcon, to which I’m am grateful.
-
This isn’t a commercial product where the customers beg the developers to do this or that in hopes of getting their way. And what would we do with an F-16A, anyway?
So true, but you have to admit BMS devs are passionate about what they do. Not like the big money grabbing CEOs of todays big name developpers that dont listen/care about what the community wants. I think this is why people keep throwing ideas around in places like this, even if it falls on deaf ears and never gets done, players still feel satisfied because some ideas actually get done. If not by the devs, someone in the community might actually pick up on the idea. Having an abundance of ideas can easily be mistaken as begging or demanding, but what I see is a love for a game that people want to see grow and expand, never die, just get bigger and better. Without people throwing ideas around, I doubt I would even have this forum to write on, let alone a game to play. Passionate devs = passionate players, no getting around it. The day the ideas die is the day we will say farewell to Falcon.
All my great ideas that I have acted on were based off what some people might call useless. Sometimes it takes what might seem like a pointless idea to give someone the motivation or eureka moment to create something spectacular. Its only useless if you make nothing of it, but even your post which was not all that usefull has allowed me to express my view on how people react sometimes when new ideas pop up.
Sorry for being OT.
-
Molni, to me the use of a single MFD for an old style radar is a killer for immersion. A radar is not an MFD: ‘DMS-left’ and there you have other pages on screen…… I know, the AJ37 has it in FF but I surely would want a true radar screen for it, with all it’s limitations in relation to a ‘glass cockpit’.
All other AC use partially the F-16 modeling therefore these statements pointless. I do not understand why is better to have nothing then X% accurate model for F-16A. The 3D pit layout is doable with single MFD. Do not want to use other MFD page. Do not do it. Very simple…
If old devs followed the only 100% modeling aspect BMS4 and FFx.x never would be released…
-
I do not understand why is better to have nothing then X% accurate model for F-16A.
Not correct … not better have nothing … but better have X% more for Blk 40/50
The 3D pit layout is doable with single MFD. Do not want to use other MFD page. Do not do it. Very simple…
We don’t have original 3D model of Nanard ckpt … so not possible to change it.
-
This post is deleted! -
And thrustmaster should start producing that block 1 HOTAS!!!
-
Fly the Mig-21. Tell us how much fun that is in F4.
It would need AI EW radar opperators.
-
I personally would appreciate a good modelled F-16A for older scenarios.
And I for myself would like to see all efforts concentrated on bugfixing than adding new aircraft/flightmodels.
-
Yea next like DCS please go for the spitfire or Mustang??? it was? LOL
Come on guys get real… F-16A???
I understand that maybe here some RL pilots would like the old mold but going back when today ain’t fully covered yet?