Link 16 things you want in the next update
-
(Not 4.35 related but) It would be great if the default altitudes for flight plans can be increased. A lot of AI flights get shot down by AAA before they reach their target because they ingress at 16.000 feet. I have seen theaters in 4.32 already that had for example SWEEP altitudes of 35k.
More realistic default loadouts for specific mission types would also be appreciated (eg. no Mavericks for airfield OCA strikes and no GBU-31 penetrators for interdiction missions).If anyone knows how I can change any of this myself please let me know.
-
No we can’t
You do even don’t know when those values are used. Nor how. Nor IF they are used or not.
No, we can’t simulate AESA.
Dee-Jay’s correct - that’s not what he needs. But I bet he knows where to look…
-
I bet that too, and bet that he’s not gonna tell us :rofl:
-
Ok… don’t know if this is even technically possible, or arises bandwidth/performance considerations, but lets try… :drum:
I recently needed to extract some cockpit displays (MFDs, HUD etc) to another remote machine, while ALSO keeping some other cockpit displays to my main bms machine at the same time.
One option would be to use more than 1 extractor applications (RTT, Yame, Helios, Falcon MFD), but what if this could all be done by the “official” RTT? (except if I am missing something…)
Right now RTT has the options to be used either local only; or remote only;
Can RTT be further developed with the options to state x machines / IP’s, and state what will be exported where, either via network or locally, at the same time, aka “mixed mode”??
Just for a quick example, the ini config could be represented like this: (my POV)
Local Machine (where BMS runs):
HOST0 = 192.168.10.5
PORT0 = 44000Remote Machines:
HOST1 = 192.168.10.6
PORT1 = 44000
HOST2 = 192.168.10.7
PORT2 = 44000
HOST3 = 192.168.10.8
PORT3 = 44000First number of the following section is used to define what is extracted and what is not. Obviously 0 does not extract, 1 does extract.
Second number define the remote machine you want to export the displays, e.g. 0 for local machine (where BMS runs), 1 for remote host 1 (as per previous section) etc.
USE_HUD = 1 0
USE_PFL = 0
USE_DED = 0
USE_RWR = 1 1
USE_MFDLEFT = 1 2
USE_MFDRIGHT = 1 2
USE_HMS = 0Maybe also the option / flexibility to send for example one (any) display to more than 1 machine; E.g.:
USE_HUD = 1 0 2 (that would enable the extract and send it to local machine (where BMS runs) and remote machine 2)
Just thinking loud…
-
I bet that too, and bet that he’s not gonna tell us :rofl:
…which is the way it should be….
-
(Not 4.35 related but) It would be great if the default altitudes for flight plans can be increased. A lot of AI flights get shot down by AAA before they reach their target because they ingress at 16.000 feet. I have seen theaters in 4.32 already that had for example SWEEP altitudes of 35k.
More realistic default loadouts for specific mission types would also be appreciated (eg. no Mavericks for airfield OCA strikes and no GBU-31 penetrators for interdiction missions).If anyone knows how I can change any of this myself please let me know.
I had a B-2 getting shot down by AAA.
-
-
I bet that too, and bet that he’s not gonna tell us :rofl:
I can’t tell you where to define an AESA … There is nothing to define anything looking like an ASEA. Nothing in data, nothing in the code.
-
I can’t tell you where to define an AESA … There is nothing to define anything looking like an ASEA. Nothing in data, nothing in the code.
Agreed. You can’t do it from within BMS, but BMS DOES have a ready framework. An AESA radar still works like a radar…it may or may not have different displays, performance characteristics, etc. But it’s still a radar, and BMS knows how to model a radar…which is a start. One only needs model what it does, not how it works.
One can also look over this tome, for reference -
https://www.amazon.com/Stimsons-Introduction-Airborne-Radar-Electromagnetics/dp/1613530226/
-
I agree that the principles are similar. With adjustments in ranges, scan rates and number of tracks, an AESA radar would not be too far off what we model. I’m sure there are areas which would need more code ; but even with minor improvements like that this would be adequate.
-
Yup…and I’ll amend my previous - you don’t have to model how it works, just how it behaves.
-
FYI I once saw an operating AESA FCR page at the Youtube(deleted vid).
The azimuth scan symbol moves from left to right… then appears at the left edge again and goes to the right, where mech scan radar reverses scanning right to left. -
We’ve seen that on the V demonstrator.
-
Not always the case…I’ve seen other ones mech’d at least two different ways. Including with no scan indication at all…I fully imagine that how the display is mechanized is purely a product of design and so you need some info on what a specific display looks like, just like for any other display. In which case it might not even matter to just make something up…
…I bet if you looked at the radar display in Prepar3D for it’s F-35 you could get some goodly ideas. In fact, I wouldn’t be entirely shocked if there’s an available F-16V in or for Prepar3D…
-
Can we assign TE AI fighters BVR tactics like as we can do in the DOGFIGHT module?
I also would like to have several new tactics (group formation):40nm WIDE AZIMUTH (WALL)
20nm WIDE AZIMUTH (WALL)
BOX
CHAMPAGNE
VIC
(If picture wide/deep and swept angle can be set as a value it would be great)Refers to the AFTTP3-2.8
https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/ARN20904_ATP_3-52x4_FINAL_WEB.pdf -
Better graphics and vr support.
Enviado desde mi ONEPLUS A6013 mediante Tapatalk
-
Full F-16 D training model …online shared cockpit.
-
Full F-16 D training model …online shared cockpit.
I don’t need a full cockpit share but if HUD/HSI and flight control could be shared it’s enough for training IMO.
-
If it were for me, it would be a Viper full implemented cockpit leverages, buttons and al.
A happiest New Year to all the friends here, keep yourselves safe always.
With best regards.
(To update my previous post I couldn’t find anything better than quoting myself :D)
I wonder if BMS engine uses current CPUs multi-core performances yet, and if it doesn’t, if would it be possible implementing that…
With best regards.
-
(To update my previous post I couldn’t find anything better than quoting myself :D)
I wonder if BMS engine uses current CPUs multi-core performances yet, and if it doesn’t, if would it be possible implementing that…
With best regards.
We are running our MP Server on an AWS EC2 instance while testing 4.35 we switched from a single core with higher clock (running 4.34 since it came out) speed to a multi core with lower clock speed. On the multicore we got a FPS boost of 200%