F16V (Block 70)
-
+1.
-
-
I still do no get it the love for more and more advanced F-16s. I would choose any day the Block 1-15 than a Block 70.
Perhaps because some folks want to simulate modern day fighter piloting rather than fighter piloting in the 80âsâŚ
To me the old F-16Aâs were awesome, but also kind of yesterdayâs news, so not really of interest anymore for me to fly. But to each his own.I agree with red dog that it would be nice if the block 30 would get some love and an updated cockpit with the cpd and other upgrades that the guard Vipers got.
-
ANG Block 42 got the Center pedestal as well. South Carolina ANG are supposed to get it too.
-
I donât think think the issue is just about trying to replicate the block 70.
If BMS were to chase the most up to date F16s and then the other aircraft and then the ships and then the missile systems etc. that would inevitably be required to go with them, we would increasingly have to rely on guesswork, be drawn away from replication and more into an arcade type sim. Despite all the amazing efforts the team has made over two decades, weâre still some way off totally accurate replicas of the blocks we have, not to mention the accompanying land, sea and air weapon systems.
Personally I would prefer to see BMS focus, at least for the next 3 to 4 Falcon years, on refining what we have- and off course things like graphics.
-
I donât think that the F16 block70 is so big deal. Most of the upgrade are under the hood, so there donât have to change so much things to mock like the block 70. The biggest change is in the cockpit, but the national guard also use almost the same configuration the CDP. So if somebody make a good 3d cockpit with 3 MFD, then we will have block 30/40/70 at the same time. and there will be a good opportunity, to use these set up for another 4+gen aircraft which also have 3 MFD.
The CDP version has only one different that it show the exist things on display not in gauges, so there is only graphics and symbolic changes like the MLU version new RWR display had.Yes it wonât be 100% accurate, but much better than nothing.
If somebody show me how can extract the 3d cockpit from the game maybe I can take a look to modify it. -
Perhaps because some folks want to simulate modern day fighter piloting rather than fighter piloting in the 80âsâŚ
To me the old F-16Aâs were awesome, but also kind of yesterdayâs news, so not really of interest anymore for me to fly. But to each his own.I agree with red dog that it would be nice if the block 30 would get some love and an updated cockpit with the cpd and other upgrades that the guard Vipers got.
The problem is that the engine is not suitable for this.
I have explained tons of times this.Even the older SAM are modeled a single mode generalized SAMs and jamming is literally just a two variable thing as I know.
The aspect and ECM modifier determines the track capability or radars and likely the effect of the chaff. When in reality was useless even against the SA-5 and SA-6âŚ
Even against the SA-2/3 just made impossible the autotrack but manual tracking worked even without the need of three point guidance.
The F-16V, F-35 and every latest fighters have so many sensors and features which are not modeled even for an AI and not for players.
- ESA type radars (which can be PESA or AESA)
- MAWS
- Different data links
- Towed decoy
- Different ECM suit
- Different size of flare
Even the effect is SOJ in not visible on the RWRâŚ
Even the sim. eng. capability of the MiG-31 is not modeled and canât shoot down any plane any CM only ships and SAMs can do it.So if you are really speaking about âfolks want to simulate modern day fighter pilotingâ I can state, they never will get it. Because it means so large task.
Because even the old tech canât be simulated properly only with a very strong abstraction. BMS4 is a very high level hobby project but as everything it has its own limits.
Can you guess how could be simulated the system which are classfied and far more complex than ever was the SA-2/3/5/6 or just SA-10B or SA-11�While for '80s we need only F-16A pit and that is it.
And it would mean a far better abstraction than a funny Block 70.So if you ask me the it would be better to stick to '90s and '80s. It mean better abstraction, we have sources about stuff from that era and it is far easier to do that. And it is more fun.
Because of the lack of shiny electronics and lack of a âcompleteâ SA when only radar, RWR and eyeballs were available game play wise that ere is simply more fun.
In RL in many theaters even the BVR capability was limited or lower quality where the F-4 meant the BVR not the F-15 or F-18 or F-14.- If you ask me there is 0 fun in combat which means lofting ARH guided missiles against the same opponent then you fly home because going close it is simple suicidal.
- Also the ATO canât handle such systems like the Buk-M1 (SA-11) and S-300PS/PM (SA-10B). It is not sent against them lots of SEAD planes from different direction.
- The AI also canât handle the SA-10B. It simply massacre the planes - I have no tested the Patriot - because it simply canât interpret what means if an SA-10B goes active⌠When a fire control radar of a TVM/SAGG SAM goes active in 99% of cases mean missiles are on way. But the AI simply does not care.
I have to say Iâm pretty sad that such things have to be explained again and again.
Of course you can dream about the âmodern day fighter pilotingâ just you and everybody had to be understood what it would really mean and why you canât have them.
Even such thing is classified as the distance between the ALE-50/55 and the plane which uses itâŚ
Good luck for the proper modeling of the n+1 missing things. -
I donât think that the F16 block70 is so big deal. Most of the upgrade are under the hood, so there donât have to change so much things to mock like the block 70. The biggest change is in the cockpit, but the national guard also use almost the same configuration the CDP. So if somebody make a good 3d cockpit with 3 MFD, then we will have block 30/40/70 at the same time. and there will be a good opportunity, to use these set up for another 4+gen aircraft which also have 3 MFD.
The CDP version has only one different that it show the exist things on display not in gauges, so there is only graphics and symbolic changes like the MLU version new RWR display had.Yes it wonât be 100% accurate, but much better than nothing.
If somebody show me how can extract the 3d cockpit from the game maybe I can take a look to modify it.The level of the abstraction would be simply far, far, far higher for the F-16A.
For the Block 70, how you would model the scan time and n+1 feature of the radar?
What about the MAWS?
Or n+1 other things? -
I donât understand your thinking. The BMS is a F16C simulator, So because of you they just throw away the lot of things what we already have in the sim , because you want to play F16A and 80â era? No GPS bombs, LGBâs, sniper pod, IFF, JHMCS,TV maverick etc⌠The BMS is living so long because they implement every time the most advanced technics what we know in public. Nobody say that we want to put in the classified way, but it could be acting like the real one.
But if they start to planing to implement this feature just in basic level it give an oportunity to improve it later on and remain the sim will live longer.
But If they improve backward to F16A then some of the player will lost of interest from the BMS because they canât use the modern era weapons.And last, in the real world there are both era the 80âs era and the most advanced technics, so it doesnât close out each other.
-
Without trowing in all sorts a of real world knowledge,
Very simple, there is Yame64, there is Helios.
We already enjoy a CPD functionality and it is absolute awesome and it deserves more attention imho.
The only question would be to have that integrated in BMS, some people are devs and they know limitations of the software, some are just curious if it is possible.
There are many different ac type cockpits in BMS, which makes you wonder about F16A and perhaps a F16V interpretation.Personally I am already extremely pleased with the level of realism in BMS, maybe Iâm not alone to say that BMS took this development further than I could ever ever dream of.
Rather than the âneedâ to be explained where the limitations are compared to rl, we need to be explained to what it can, what we never use because we never bother using it.
After all these years I still am surprised by the functionality it has. -
Yes everything what we need is already in the BMS to look like an Block 70 version, . only one thing is missing , the 3d cockpit inside the game.
And if there is nothing to change in the system but it has a feeling to use a more modern version of F16 than before.
And As I said, if it is happened , it can be improve further. -
F-16V means AESA radar. BMS does not model AESA radar atm. Needs additional code.
-
we would increasingly have to rely on guesswork, be drawn away from replication and more into an arcade type sim
Yes it wonât be 100% accurate
The problem is that the engine is not suitable for this - I can state, they never will get it
I am pretty sure there will be no âguessworkâ anywhereâŚ
-
I donât understand your thinking. The BMS is a F16C simulator, So because of you they just throw away the lot of things what we already have in the sim , because you want to play F16A and 80â era? No GPS bombs, LGBâs, sniper pod, IFF, JHMCS,TV maverick etc⌠The BMS is living so long because they implement every time the most advanced technics what we know in public. Nobody say that we want to put in the classified way, but it could be acting like the real one.
But if they start to planing to implement this feature just in basic level it give an oportunity to improve it later on and remain the sim will live longer.
But If they improve backward to F16A then some of the player will lost of interest from the BMS because they canât use the modern era weapons.And last, in the real world there are both era the 80âs era and the most advanced technics, so it doesnât close out each other.
Yeah, how âfunâ is flying against stone age enemy with such advanced weaponsâŚ
-
I have explained tons of times this
So if you ask me the it would be better to stick to '90s and '80s
If you ask me there is 0 fun
I have to say Iâm pretty sad that such things have to be explained again and again
Of course you can dream
why you canât have them
Good luck for the proper modeling
:tjacked:
I have to be honest,
I personally find it disgusting to hijack a (any) thread and throw your personal believes about that F-16A model/cockpit/systems as a game-changer feature, while presenting and spreading show-stopping facts about a (any) possible future feature and negativism on even dreaming a wish-list feature or at least typing it here in a forum for sharing view with other interesting parties, individuals, devs, etc.
:yield:
-
:tjacked:
I have to be honest,
I personally find it disgusting to hijack a (any) thread and throw your personal believes about that F-16A model/cockpit/systems as a game-changer feature, while presenting and spreading show-stopping facts about a (any) possible future feature and negativism on even dreaming a wish-list feature or at least typing it here in a forum for sharing view with other interesting parties, individuals, devs, etc.
:yield:
I never said it was a gamechanger. But it would be much closer to reality an F-16A than an F-16V where itâs features would be based on close to nothing.
What is âdisgustingâ in the explanation that F-16V is not just a cockpit with some displaysâŚ?I used the F-16A as an example. A new plane which would need only a new pit.
While the F-16V is also a new plane which none of itâs major function can be modeled without very serious code and DB upgrades.That was the point.
While you was enough brave to use such word as âdisgustingâ.AmazingâŚ
-
I used the F-16A as an example. A new plane which would need only a new pit.
And always that example happens to be the F-16AâŚ
So it @molnibalage:
can be modeled without very serious code and DB upgrades
So it will use same HUD & MFD symbology as C Block 5x, it will use APG-68(v)5 radar, it will have a digital FLCS, it will share the same SMS functionalityâŚ
Donât get me wrong, I do believe that some day we will see that A here, probably is on the bottom of a 2-do list somewhere, BUT it is just too much to hijack a thread named âF16V (Block 70)â with so long negative commends about something entirely different (the A bird)âŚ
-
Hello,
BMS is an F-16 simulator.
Falcon 4.0 then BMS teams devoted their time around F-16C series. Also, some F-16C brothers like MLUs were added, with some minor tweaks and adjustments.
So, the heart of Falcon is centered around F-16C/MLU, by various blocks.
Does it means that F-16 block 5 to 15 are not likely to be included ? No.
Does it means that BMS donât have a place for block 60 and block 70 ? Of course no.
Do we have the resources to achieve the code for it ? Not yet.
Do we have enough information to make something relevant ? For block 60 no, for block 70, we can imagine that exports will lead to public information and documents.
Is there any kind of ideology in BMS ? No. What we do achieve only depend on people who produce these assets, modelers, coders and all those who are needed.
So, there is no need to speculate on âwhat BMS is made forâ, or what âwe shall do or notâ, if one, two, more more of us decide to do something, we will do it, this is that simple.
Regards,
Radium
-
F-16V means AESA radar. BMS does not model AESA radar atm. Needs additional code.
AESA radar, Auto GCAS, new autopilot functions (e.g. autothrottle)⌠I reckon that reliable data on the APG-83 alone would be a pain in the A to source (never mind to code).
That CPD looks awesome, but I would be thrilled enough to have the colour moving map features (present in current gen advanced Block 50/52 series) available in some future release.
Just sayingâŚ
-
And always that example happens to be the F-16AâŚ
So it
So it will use same HUD & MFD symbology as C Block 5x, it will use APG-68(v)5 radar, it will have a digital FLCS, it will share the same SMS functionalityâŚ
Donât get me wrong, I do believe that some day we will see that A here, probably is on the bottom of a 2-do list somewhere, BUT it is just too much to hijack a thread named âF16V (Block 70)â with so long negative commends about something entirely different (the A bird)âŚ
Because every other F-16C is in the game from Block 25 to Block 50/52âŚ
âŚtherefore the closest example to a new plane which needs minimal work is the F-16A, not the Block 70.Every other plane needs much more work if you wish to model their FCS or just want to mimic them with F-16Câs FCS and other things.
Because they need a totally different pit from any F-16 and their other data are also missing for AFM.An F-14, MiG-29, Su-27 or any other western plane needs more work than an F-16A and they wonât be such close to the real as the F-16A Block 1-15.