HAD Display Notation
-
Dare I say that its all in the manuals ???
More constructive answers have correctly been given in the posts above - But “No” you cant remove the slash in the config file.
If you have TrackIR with 6DOF you can look closer at the relevant screen and make it easier to see - If you don’t have TrackIR (or similar) I strongly suggest you get it - its a real game changer on many levels !!!
Ironman
Haha, thanks Ironman.
I made a bet with a buddy about how long it would be for someone to reply with an “it’s in the manual” type answer. We even guessed that it would not be accompanied with any manual in particular (there are, of course, many to choose from), or page number (of the thousands available to sort through) to read up on or any helpful advise at all. It only took until the 3rd reply! I say all of this with lighthearted jest, and mean no disrespect.
I also have, TrackIR, a 55in 4k Monitor, and extracted MFDs. I’ve put quite a bit of time and effort into the design and human factors implications of my pit (it’s not a replica of a F16, but rather something that fits my “unique” anthropometrics more appropriately).
In that I’m always quite interested in design philosophies, especially in aviation, my original question was more aimed at the Devs. I am trying to understand the rational behind their decision to implement this particular font, which I think Lorik confirmed (to differentiate from PPT markings and work with the new MFD fonts). Still, I found it effortful, but not impossible, to complete the task of sorting HAD targets. I’d likely give it a 5 or 6 on a Pilot Workload scale, which is doable, but not satisfactory if it can be modified. Hence the question about modification.
I also like Kryos’ idea. There is a declutter mode that could be designed to remove certain parts of the symbiology. That could certainly ease things.
Now, far be it from me to tell the Devs what I think should happen, or demand anything. I’m just a simple user of this very complex and very FREE software. Additionally, I am completely ignorant with respect to the limitations of the software, or any constraints that otherwise exists. As such, I find myself in a position to simply say:
Thank you, and keep up the good work!
-
On the subject of “its all in the manual” being English I don’t like the phrase “RTFM” so I don’t use that one.
Also, yes, you are correct there are lots of manuals BUT if you use the search facility in PDF you can usually find what your looking for pretty quickly ;0)
I think there is even a way to search multiple PDF documents using a single search facility but I haven’t worked that one out yet … perhaps someone much cleverer than I, and that’s probably a majority, could tell us how to do it? - I don’t think that’s in the manual ;0)
Ironman
-
Couldn’t agree more with you, dear mate, especially about yout first.
I don’t either like, less than ever dare to use, that “F” between the letters RT and M. It’s a matter of education perhaps, or something else, who knows.
And I am not English for sure.
But I believe that being part of this Community obliged me to always behave with all the other members.
With best regards.
-
– if you use the search facility in PDF you can usually find what your looking for pretty quickly ;0) –
Exactly. Ironically, if you had used the search facility of the forum you could have found what you were looking for the multiple PDF search:
:mrgreen:
-
Genius … and it works ;0)
-
…Right now if you have PGM1 readouts of a (known) SAM batallion with PPT added, the FCR and acquisition radars are superimposed together with the PPT and even with the smallest scale selected on the HAD page and max zoom it is impossible to distinguish between the 3 and correctly handoff the HARM or direct AI in some cases. Regarding this it would also be handy to have a filter option to only display FCR radars for example. It would also be greatly appreciated if the colour of the range rings can be changed in the editor.
Document references that may help:
TO-BMS1F-16CM-34-1-1.pdf - P. 206 - Shows how to remove the PPT range rings (helpful to keep track of which threats have been neutralized) While the PPT text will remain, it is unlikely that it will exactly occupy the space of the battalion emitter when in EXP2 (since battalion formations will lead to a vehicle spread).
TO-BMS1F-16CM-34-1-1.pdf - P. 213 - Discusses how to expand the FoV of the HAD.
Normally, the fog-of-war feature in BMS hides SAM locations (except for fixed types - SA-2, SA-3, SA-5) so your opportunity to place a PPT is limited. Here’s a hint: If you have a known location from the 2D map, recon the EW and FC radars and attack using SDBs, don’t waste my tax-dollars using an 88 (the Spoon Rest won’t be visible anyway).While I’m not a huge fan of HAS mode - once the range has been determined by flying an arc until PGM1, designation of a specific emitter type should be successful (assuming the unit is not moving and you maintain constant radiation by the weasel tactics described in the Training Manual).
BMS-Training.pdf - P. 123 - Shows the use of the FoV to discern and separate targets, allowing a more precise lock.
While I do not want to instigate a flame-war about AI effectiveness, it is well known that intra-package AI are pathetic against SAMs. If you intend to “lock and designate” a SAM radar, you will likely find your AI flying into engagement range and still not releasing a weapon, crying “2 defensive” followed by “I see a chute”. This is not new to 4.35, it’s been there for years. Safe SAM elimination takes extra skill, huge capacity for stress (another way of saying huge ba**s), nimble stick-hands, and practice. “Know your jet, know your enemy, and know yourself”. The AI are not yet up to that task. If you insist on testing this observation, using the HAS to designate an AI should be equal to a HAD designation.
If you feel uncomfortable about your SAM-killing skill level, frag an AI DEAD package that includes a Growler jamming aircraft – they should be successful.
-
Couldn’t agree more with you, dear mate, especially about yout first.
I don’t either like, less than ever dare to use, that “F” between the letters RT and M. It’s a matter of education perhaps, or something else, who knows.
With best regards.
Dear jackal,
I really don’t see what you find so offensive about the phrase “read the fine manual”? Especially in BMS this holds very very true because the manuals are simply a piece of art
All the best,
Uwe
-
“read the fine manual”
-
-
Dear jackal,
I really don’t see what you find so offensive about the phrase “read the fine manual”? Especially in BMS this holds very very true because the manuals are simply a piece of art
All the best,
Uwe
I guess this was mostly about the implied profanity, but answers in the vein of “read the manual” are not helpful. I know that when I was learning Falcon, the manuals were often overwhelming. It’s not that they were bad, and now they are better than ever, but they do require understanding of a lot of tangential concepts, so there is a steep learning curve. Even now I still come up with “newbie” questions from time to time and it’s sometimes easier to just throw a question on the forum. Usually someone will know the answer and it’s not “read the manual”.
-
Zerg,
I agree asking questions is the best way forward but if its a question like “how does this system work” those types of questions will always get the “read the manual” answers because they cannot be answer succinctly in the length of a post.
I would always encourage people to ask questions on this forum - IMHO the search facility on the forum is not very helpful so duplicated questions may get referred back to previous threads - “read the manual” and “see previous threads” are both valid responses and should not, I hope, put people off asking their questions.
Trust me over many years I have asked many many questions and always received help in one form or another.
Ironman
-
Zerg,
I agree asking questions is the best way forward but if its a question like “how does this system work” those types of questions will always get the “read the manual” answers because they cannot be answer succinctly in the length of a post.
I would always encourage people to ask questions on this forum - IMHO the search facility on the forum is not very helpful so duplicated questions may get referred back to previous threads - “read the manual” and “see previous threads” are both valid responses and should not, I hope, put people off asking their questions.
Trust me over many years I have asked many many questions and always received help in one form or another.
Ironman
At least it’s good then if the answer is refer to manual ‘such and such’, chapter ‘such and such’.
-
Document references that may help:
TO-BMS1F-16CM-34-1-1.pdf - P. 206 - Shows how to remove the PPT range rings (helpful to keep track of which threats have been neutralized) While the PPT text will remain, it is unlikely that it will exactly occupy the space of the battalion emitter when in EXP2 (since battalion formations will lead to a vehicle spread).
TO-BMS1F-16CM-34-1-1.pdf - P. 213 - Discusses how to expand the FoV of the HAD.
Normally, the fog-of-war feature in BMS hides SAM locations (except for fixed types - SA-2, SA-3, SA-5) so your opportunity to place a PPT is limited. Here’s a hint: If you have a known location from the 2D map, recon the EW and FC radars and attack using SDBs, don’t waste my tax-dollars using an 88 (the Spoon Rest won’t be visible anyway).While I’m not a huge fan of HAS mode - once the range has been determined by flying an arc until PGM1, designation of a specific emitter type should be successful (assuming the unit is not moving and you maintain constant radiation by the weasel tactics described in the Training Manual).
BMS-Training.pdf - P. 123 - Shows the use of the FoV to discern and separate targets, allowing a more precise lock.
While I do not want to instigate a flame-war about AI effectiveness, it is well known that intra-package AI are pathetic against SAMs. If you intend to “lock and designate” a SAM radar, you will likely find your AI flying into engagement range and still not releasing a weapon, crying “2 defensive” followed by “I see a chute”. This is not new to 4.35, it’s been there for years. Safe SAM elimination takes extra skill, huge capacity for stress (another way of saying huge ba**s), nimble stick-hands, and practice. “Know your jet, know your enemy, and know yourself”. The AI are not yet up to that task. If you insist on testing this observation, using the HAS to designate an AI should be equal to a HAD designation.
If you feel uncomfortable about your SAM-killing skill level, frag an AI DEAD package that includes a Growler jamming aircraft – they should be successful.
Now, THIS is how you help someone find some stuff in the manual! Very nice reply Zipgun. Thank you.
Despite being “zoomed in”, sometimes I find the FCR and Search RADARs still seem to be difficult to discern. I really like your idea of assuring PGM1, and then leveraging the HAS mode to do the threat handoff. I guess, if the SAMs are closely enough packed together in an area, the HARM will figure it out. Ill have to practice with that.
-
At least it’s good then if the answer is refer to manual ‘such and such’, chapter ‘such and such’.
Like you’re saying, by the time someone asks the question on the forum, we can probably expect they have struggled with it a bit on their own. Either going through the manuals and trying to find some answer, or by playing with it in the pit, or even by chatting with their friends. Regardless, by the time someone posts a question, we should likely expect that they are already a little frustrated. We should all probably try to come to people’s questions with the idea that they might need some instruction.
Consider: Real pilots, going through training are given similar manuals to the ones we have. They are expected to go through them, and know them. BUT, they are also given hrs of instruction, are walked through courses that go over all the systems of the aircraft, and have other experienced pilots to interact with on a regular basis. No one is expected to “read the manual” and figure it out on their own…
I’ve heard a number of people suggest that they’d love to get into this sim, but are reluctant because of the complexity. Answers like Zipgun’s are the kind of support we need to give each other to make sure we keep new people coming in and dont drive away people that could just use a little help.
-
Despite being “zoomed in”, sometimes I find the FCR and Search RADARs still seem to be difficult to discern. I really like your idea of assuring PGM1, and then leveraging the HAS mode to do the threat handoff. I guess, if the SAMs are closely enough packed together in an area, the HARM will figure it out. Ill have to practice with that.
Glad to help. While you cannot directly transfer the HAD lock to the SPI, it would be a workable “hack” to note the cursor bullseye at PGM1 and slew the FCR that position. There should be a ground return in either GM or GMT. Make an FCR markpoint on this location (ICP 7 and TMS-UP, followed by an ICP 0 to make it your active steerpoint), do a cursor zero to clear the slew, and fire on your desired emitter in POS PB. This way you should get a reasonably discriminant shot on a radar, using GS can tighten the footprint, and TI flex gives you the ability not waste my .25 million $ missile as a lawn-dart. All of this means you MUST get and keep the radar’s “attention” or the 88 goes “walk-about”. The markpoint can be shared with your flight for follow-on shots (including an attack targets [W 8] to an AI loaded out with SDBs).
-
Exactly what i was thinking. Good call Zipgun.
-
Couldn’t agree more with you, dear mate, especially about yout first.
I don’t either like, less than ever dare to use, that “F” between the letters RT and M. It’s a matter of education perhaps, or something else, who knows.
And I am not English for sure.
But I believe that being part of this Community obliged me to always behave with all the other members.
With best regards.
Compadre, you don’t like the word 'fun"? After all, this is what it means, right?