BMS Other Fighters Mafia (BMSOFM) Journal
-
I understand you and Fresco since start , Stevie .
What I was wondering is why someone told drtbkj that he need the Mafia to have a look on its EA-18G( I re-quote drtbkj : we did receive a request here to look into the EA-18G ), whereas the plane doesn’t carries TGP .
So far ,2 possible conclusions :
1/ drtbkj made a typo , as he wrote EA-18G
2/the person who sent the request a/ made a typo or b/ modded its EA-18G to carry a TGP . In this latter case , nothing to fix, nothing to look at .Hi, Lolo.
- Actually, my mistake was thinking the EF-18M was the typo.Sorry.
Meanwhile, I got your pm, and am looking forward to checking out the files. - When I had suggested making the TGP internal, that was based on an experiment of mine where I had tried to “Block 3” the Rhino, with an internal IRST. That was the only time I saw unrealistic masking. My thought was if we could fix something I knew how to repro… That’s what I get for trying to give Tech. advice to someone who clearly knows more about this stuff then I do!
In other news, I submitted the Intro to “The BMS Fighters Manual: Maximizing All the BMS Jets” to the Devs for their approval.
The working Table of Contents is:
I) Repair of deleted cockpit switch “hotspots” in 4.35
A) How to repair the “hotspots” in your BMS jet.
B) Specific fixes for the F/A-18C.
II) Improved 4.35 F/A-18C cockpit functionality
A) How to install updated functionality
B) New cockpit diagrams and notes
III) F/A-18 Main Checklist option
IV) HOTAS set-up option
V) Carrier Departure Procedures(Supplemental to BMS Naval Manual) - Actually, my mistake was thinking the EF-18M was the typo.Sorry.
-
I had tried to “Block 3” the Rhino, with an internal IRST.
So , you will be happy : This fix has been created(-edit-originally)to mount IRST in airplane that carries it .
But it also can be used to fix TGP masking issues , or to add lacking functionnalities in a plane .
-
…there are no plans to put an internal IRST into the Hornet…much to my own disappointment.
Not unless someone starts cutting up airplanes…and OBTW - internally mounting an IRST won’t solve any masking issues for the ATFLIR.
-
…ok, so now I have a question for the Spaniards amongst us, only because the “M” confuses me…I seem to remember the Spanish Harriers being called “Matador”, or am I wrong about that? How did they get to be “M” model Hornets?
M is for modernized
Fresco is true. Initially EF-18 where F/A18A with minor mods. After the modernization they have improved characteristics. Engines have been overhauled to a close to C version ( can be asumed a C). Radar has been improved in detection and azimuth characteristics ( from 120 to 140º). Most avionics have been upgraded, and cockpit is really close to a Superbug one
-
.
there are no plans to put an internal IRST into the Hornet…much to my own disappointment.
internally mounting an IRST won’t solve any masking issues for the ATFLIR.
It does Stevie, it does …
I could send you some pics to prove it, but I prefer let drtbkj try it first … can’t await for his own report !!!
You should wait to try the fix before jumping too soon into early conclusions Have you tried it yet ?And , the Hornet won’t be fitted with an internal IRST … At least, not really , if the Bug driver don’t “cheat” . I’ve applied this solution on 2 of my retrofits and it works very, very well ; I’ve just applied it on the Bug too .
-
M is for modernized
Fresco is true. Initially EF-18 where F/A18A with minor mods. After the modernization they have improved characteristics. Engines have been overhauled to a close to C version ( can be asumed a C). Radar has been improved in detection and azimuth characteristics ( from 120 to 140º). Most avionics have been upgraded, and cockpit is really close to a Superbug one
Cool - thanks! I’ve seen very few if any recent pictures of Spanish Hornets. I knew there had been several upgrades, but AFAIK the Spanish ones are very unique indeed.
-
.
It does Stevie, it does …
I could send you some pics to prove it, but I prefer let drtbkj try it first … can’t await for his own report !!!
You should wait to try the fix before jumping too soon into early conclusions Have you tried it yet ?And , the Hornet won’t be fitted with an internal IRST … At least, not really , if the Bug driver don’t “cheat” . I’ve applied this solution on 2 of my retrofits and it works very, very well ; I’ve just applied it on the Bug too .
…then you are doing something that isn’t true to RL.
-
But, you don’t even actually know what I did ?!?
How could you state this ?Wait for the fix, try, and then you could criticize . But not before without knowing what is my fix, Stevie .
I’m quite surprised by such a strange reaction .
Sounds like you didn’t want someone to find a fix for the Bug .
If yes… well , I don’t understand even more .
1st, you stated it won’t work(without trying it !) . But it does, and you admitted it when you wrote that it won’t be a true to life fix(what does it means btw , I really wonder ….).
edit : _Anyway , it doesn’t really matters , so don’t worry , I’m used to being criticized even by ppl who don’t knows/understand what I’m doing( because of my RL work) .
That’s not a problem : ppl who don’t like my fix will stick with the Hornet as it is . Ppl who like it will buy my idea .
What I know is my own private hangar is crowded with fixed(or at least , partially fixed) planes, and I enjoy them very much . I just shared a possible working fix . What ppl think about it is actually beyond my scope .
And everybody’s free to provide better solutions than mine . It’s just that smg was asked to me, I answered .
So now , let’s go ahead and enjoy what we want ! No need to enter an argument for this .
with best regards, Stevie
Lolo_
-
Because I know VERY well how the ATFLIR works in RL and there is nothing one can do to “fix” the masking envelope without moving it to another mounting location on the jet…the ATFLIR being masked is a strict function of where and how the line of sight is occluded by the structure of the jet, and that is a fixed geometry.
And in RL the IRST is mounted to the front of the Centerline Fuel Tank, and you can’t move that either. The little round nub on the tip of the EFT directly behind the nose gear is the IRST -
http://alert5.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/IRST_F18_1181.jpg
…so, no matter what you have done, if it “works” it’s not realistic.
-
Hi, Lolo,
Stevie is correct that there are no plans to put an internal IRST on a Hornet. There are , however, plans to put them on the “Block III” Rhino.https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/31850/navy-f-a-18-super-hornet-takes-flight-with-new-infrared-search-and-track-pod
Original images had it under the nose, now it looks like they’ll be mounting it to the front of the centerline tank.
Lolo, I also think I understand where Stevie is coming from. Some people, like me, view BMS as a compromise where it comes to the Hornet and other jets, and enjoy it as such. The RL Hornet doesn’t have HTS, for example, mine does. But, on the other hand, in RL the Navy isn’t even flying the Legacy off carriers( though some Marine squadrons are). So again, it’s a compromise. I tried the Rhino, went back to the Bug.
My personal view is that the Legacy could have an internal IRST. It could have the F 414 engines of the Rhino. Mine does , in fact. The fact that the Legacy doesn’t is more about Budget and fleet deployment then physical possibility. To me my “hot rod” Bug is more fun, and I would like to share that with my BMS Brethren. That is the filter I look though in what I’d like to share, and give back to BMS . HOWEVER, and this is a big qualifier, I know there are those that don’t feel that way. I’ve been “Foruming” with Brother Stevie for years. I’ve seen him write he won’t even try the BMS Hornet because it’s not realistic, and I completely respect that.
For that reason, when I present something like this it’s presented as an option, not as a “you have to do this”. Fox and I have discussed this to a degree. Lolo, if you have a different view, absolutely let us know. We are a Team. -
My view is both you and Stevie didn’t see what I did .
I’m not fitting an IRST on the F-18 . I made a tweak to be able to use the “normal” ATFLR or Sniper , while avoiding the heavy masking of the EF-18 , and without changing anything on the plane loadout, or position of weapons/stores .
So if the question is : is the tweak working to this purpose, I’ll assume : Yes .
If the question is : is it realistic : I’ll assume : no , of course . It’s a fix . A RL fixing would mean contact its author and ask him to correct its HP , slots and whatever .
If your car as a problem with its engine , you’ll sometimes have to change some parts . Will you be arguing that the new fixed engine doesn’t have its original pieces ? Or will you be pleased by the fact that now, you can drive with it ?
That’s what we are taliking here , guys .
I already said , I’m not a programmer , a coder or a modeler , only a mechanic that fix things when it’s possible . I restore functionnalities .
If ppl want the original Bug , my point is that they should contact the original creator and ask him how to restore it “true to life” (or at least , as it was designed originally ) .
It’s a difference of philosophy .
Our goals are the same , but the way to fulfill it are different .
I’ve made a quick decision , and I retire my participation in the Mafia .
I prefer to keep my independance .
But if you mafia guys want it , if you ever need help on something , the door of my hangar will be still open
You will take what please you .
Best regards, you all ! I keep more than an eye on the Project Bug , but at my safe distance
-
….actually, that’s not altogether true either true either. There have been a few ideas, but none of them have worked out structurally or volumetrically. Chances are that Hornet series aircraft will never have an internal IRST - there just isn’t anywhere to put one, and they have considered locating it everywhere from pylons to the CFTs…part of the problem is that the current system is off the shelf and a bit out-dated - like the HTS - so there would also have to be a completely new and (much) smaller system developed. And frankly, I don’t really see the airframes holding up long enough for that to ever happen (maybe some other jet). The only way you could put an internal IRST on a Hornet as things stand would be to get rid of the gun…and/or the CIT…which is why it is on the front end of the C/L EFT.
The F414 engine simply will NOT fit in the engine bay of a Legacy airframe…no stinking way, period. You’d have to splice an E/F Center Barrel into a Legacy nose end and guess what? You’d just have an E/F because that is exactly what they did to develop the E/F. E/F and Legacy jets also have nothing in common as far as the fuel system, Landing Gear, and good portions of the avionics go. I’m not even sure you can swap the seats, directly…at least not in all cases. Granted that’s not real obvious looking at the two in pictures…but if you ever get to stand between a Legacy and a Super side by side, it becomes way more than obvious.
Yes…I won’t fly the BMS Hornet because it is really, grossly, not in step with what a RL Hornet is…which gets on my nerves something fierce. I’ll admit, I’m a bit “spoiled” as far a Hornets go…everybody else, knock it out.
-
My view is both you and Stevie didn’t see what I did .
I’m not fitting an IRST on the F-18 . I made a tweak to be able to use the “normal” ATFLR or Sniper , while avoiding the heavy masking of the EF-18 , and without changing anything on the plane loadout, or position of weapons/stores .
So if the question is : is the tweak working to this purpose, I’ll assume : Yes .
If the question is : is it realistic : I’ll assume : no , of course . It’s a fix . A RL fixing would mean contact its author and ask him to correct its HP , slots and whatever .
If your car as a problem with its engine , you’ll sometimes have to change some parts . Will you be arguing that the new fixed engine doesn’t have its original pieces ? Or will you be pleased by the fact that now, you can drive with it ?
That’s what we are taliking here , guys .
I already said , I’m not a programmer , a coder or a modeler , only a mechanic that fix things when it’s possible . I restore functionnalities .
If ppl want the original Bug , my point is that they should contact the original creator and ask him how to restore it “true to life” (or at least , as it was designed originally ) .
It’s a difference of philosophy .
Our goals are the same , but the way to fulfill it are different .
I’ve made a quick decision , and I retire my participation in the Mafia .
I prefer to keep my independance .
But if you mafia guys want it , if you ever need help on something , the door of my hangar will be still open
You will take what please you .
Best regards, you all ! I keep more than an eye on the Project Bug , but at my safe distance
Hi, Lolo,
As I haven’t had a chance to test what you sent me , but I too" am not a programmer but a fixer" Plus, I’m completely with you on ": is it realistic : I’ll assume : no , of course . It’s a fix . A RL fixing would mean contact its author and ask him to correct its HP , slots and whatever ". We’re not Dev’s, we don’t have that access.
Anyway, I’m sorry you had a bad reaction, and the “door to Mafia HQ is always open for you” -
My view is both you and Stevie didn’t see what I did .
I’m not fitting an IRST on the F-18 . I made a tweak to be able to use the “normal” ATFLR or Sniper , while avoiding the heavy masking of the EF-18 , and without changing anything on the plane loadout, or position of weapons/stores .
It’s “avoiding the masking” that I disagree with - just can’t be done in RL. Especially of you didn’t change anything else, which was what I figured.
-
It’s “avoiding the masking” that I disagree with - just can’t be done in RL. Especially of you didn’t change anything else, which was what I figured.
Never said that I couldn’t , Stevie … I already stated it is not a definitive fix , only a stop-gap . The problem is that ppl don’t really read the posts …
you didn’t change anything else, which was what I figured.
you figured wrong , Stevie . I changed smg(many things in fact , but ppl almost can’t see the changes .
And in the ext model , no changes at all …
Anyway , as I stated , the doors of my hangar is open .
best regards ,
-
Thanks , Lolo.
Meanwhile, in another thread we were discussing the 4.35 parking brake and anti- skid. Here a workaround. This is for the Warthog, but would carry off to any 3-posit switch . Using the Alternate Launcher, on the right ENG OPER switch I have (back to front), PB ON-OFF-Antiskid toggle. That way, you can turn off the PB and cancel antiskid in one switch operation. -
… for 2.A
this might help … docs for adding new jet and cockpit … but that is easy since repairing the pit inside LOD (with Lodedit) is probably more problematic then anything … afaik… and only way to do it
Cheers
-
… for 2.A
this might help … docs for adding new jet and cockpit … but that is easy since repairing the pit inside LOD (with Lodedit) is probably more problematic then anything … afaik… and only way to do it
Cheers
Thanks, W_F. I think this will help. Fox tells me 3ddb is the way to go for our "fix the gauges " project, but so far it’s manual might as well be in Swahili for me!. But, to paraphrase Nietzsche, The Manual that doesn’t kill you just makes you stronger
-
Changing the subject: Labels now are almost unreadable at 4.35, its size is much smaller than at 4.34.- Is there a way to fix it ?
-
Changing the subject: Labels now are almost unreadable at 4.35, its size is much smaller than at 4.34.- Is there a way to fix it ?
I agree, and the font spacing seems to be messed up also… please bring 4.34 (of fix 4.35) labels back. Even better would be multiple label choices, like just a dot as a minimum.