F-16A ?
-
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? -
Given some limitations that still exist in Falcon and freely available resources, would you please point me to what things aren’t fully covered yet?
-
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?Most of well modeled scenario (real of fictional) happened when F-16A Block 15 or not advanced than Block 25 available…
IMHO all developments should built around one question.
Is it usable for good campaigns?
If the answer is no…
-
Most of well modeled scenario (real of fictional) happened when F-16A Block 15 or not advanced than Block 25 available…
IMHO all developments should built around one question.
Is it usable for good campaigns?
If the answer is no…
That surely is a question for campaign builders. If someone wants to make an '80’s to first half '90’s campaign, then it would fit in perfectly.
-
Hi question is how many F-16 variants do we really need especially the older ones??? and how many 80’s Korea campaigns ??? are needed which sacrifice other A/C’s especially modern one’s and some nice modern war theater campaigns from being created!
Really would be good to discuss?
Also, it would be nice to see F4 progress from the traditional to a more modern F4 but still incorporating the original concept meaning evolve more through current timeline!
Looking at the Community mods thread you need to match whats coming out of there, yes I still believe in keeping the F-16 concept with pure functional avionics but with the F-18 and some other WIP jets that are in the community mods thread you gotta start looking forward not backwards.
Think about the “Big Picture” and the younger players coming on board, 5th gen jets etc etc C’mon guys make it more interesting instead of the same old boring stuff!
Especially now with new multi-player code and eventually online Dogfights, make F4 bigger than what your just use to!
Embrace “Change”, Mix it up more for others also, please, please, please for goodness sake!
F4 can be much more, embracing all it could be and should be for all likes and types!
This is why I created this link :- BMS F4 The Big Picture
Cheers,
:drink:
-
No need to argue guys … there will be no F16A nor F-16V in BMS. (never say never, don’t know, but not planned at this time… and will certainly not planned in futures versions)
-
Deejay why you guys see everything as argument its a discussion bud relax
I am very happy to discuss an understand what are the driving points for peoples opinions, a discussion helps me understand others ……:D
LoL :lol: :lol:
Also since we cant do or use sign language we use this forum :lol: Be happy dont worry :lol:
I try to use the forum for its potential to discuss something we all like and is relevant, anyway!
Now insults are no good, I personally wont stand for it and ignore those that do!
Cheers Bud, its all good with me!
:drink:
-
Skynight, you are a “special” person.
-
@SkyKnight:
Deejay why you guys see everything as argument its a discussion bud relax
I am very happy to discuss an understand what are the driving points for peoples opinions, a discussion helps me understand others ……:D
LoL :lol: :lol:
Also since we cant do or use sign language we use this forum :lol: Be happy dont worry :lol:
I try to use the forum for its potential to discuss something we all like and is relevant, anyway!
Now insults are no good, I personally wont stand for it and ignore those that do!
Cheers Bud, its all good with me!
:drink:
Okay … no problems mate …
So talk about why do we could/should/must etc … have F-16A, V, XL etc …
But remember that this discussion is (IMO) “pointless” if you are trying to convince DEV to implement such variant… (it is what I’m seeing behind that thread why a poll ? )
Don’t be disappointed by futures BMS versions.
Maybe in “several years” … (?)
-
-
why a poll ? )
To see the rate.
SHAME ON YOU LAZYSTONE. Don’t you know by now, Dee-Jay does NOT like to hear any one else’s opinion, EXCEPT HIS.:p;)
RAM22
-
This post is deleted!