F16V (Block 70)
-
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 I’m not alone to say that BMS took this development further than I could ever ever dream of.
Rather than the ‘need’ 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 won’t 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 “guesswork” anywhere…
-
I don’t 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 80’ era? No GPS bombs, LGB’s, 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 can’t use the modern era weapons.And last, in the real world there are both era the 80’s era and the most advanced technics, so it doesn’t close out each other.
Yeah, how “fun” is flying against stone age enemy with such advanced weapons…
-
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 I’m pretty sad that such things have to be explained again and again
Of course you can dream
why you can’t 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 it’s features would be based on close to nothing.
What is “disgusting” in the explanation that F-16V is not just a cockpit with some displays…?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 it’s 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 “disgusting”.Amazing…
-
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-16A…
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 functionality…
Don’t 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 “F16V (Block 70)” with so long negative commends about something entirely different (the A bird)…
-
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 don’t 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 “what BMS is made for”, or what “we shall do or not”, 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 saying…
-
And always that example happens to be the F-16A…
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 functionality…
Don’t 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 “F16V (Block 70)” with so long negative commends about something entirely different (the A bird)…
Because every other F-16C is in the game from Block 25 to Block 50/52…
…therefore 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-16C’s 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 won’t be such close to the real as the F-16A Block 1-15.
-
Because every other F-16C is in the game from Block 25 to Block 50/52…
…therefore 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-16C’s FCS and other things.
Because they need a totally different pit from any F-16 and their other data are also missing for AFM.So You want to say that the F16A is closer to block 50/52 than the block 50/52 to block 70?
Did you see A version cockpit? According to you it would be easier to make ? there is no ICP, Nor such HUD than C version have. there are no DMS,TMS, CMS buttons on the stick and also no functions to it.
on the radar screen there is almost noting to show like now. totally different than the modern radar screen. we should throw away almost 70-80 % os the functions and weapons.
But it is worth to do because of your fetish.But the Block 70 is so much work to du like it is. Because there is almost same cockpit except the CPD.Even if everything remain from block 50 subsystem then it would be closer than your imagination .
No AESA radar? And what it shows differently than the current one? the most of the function is in it just there are some extra feature which is hardly used by most of the player.I think now it is coming the part that you will flood the whole topic with your opinion to convince everyone that your imagination is the one and only which we have to accept .As you use to do,because you know also everything better .
-
So You want to say that the F16A is closer to block 50/52 than the block 50/52 to block 70?
Yes.
Did you see A version cockpit?
When comes the time when ppl. look beyond the cockpit…?
Block 70 is not about the cockpit. Even if it had only F-16C’s pit but with AESA + MAWS it would be brutal.the most of the function is in it just there are some extra feature which is hardly used by most of the player
Are you kidding? The quasi-simulations AA and AG mode and the very quick scan are “hardly used” by any player…?
This is what an AESA radar can perform…
This is the big issue. You and as I can judge most of ppl. see only the cockpit. Which is just a “GUI”. Behind it the whole combat avionics which can’t model the code.
-
Because every other F-16C is in the game from Block 25 to Block 50/52…
…therefore 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-16C’s 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 won’t be such close to the real as the F-16A Block 1-15.
Hello,
no, F-16A do not need minimum work…
-
Stores control panel (SCP) is something that does not exist in BMS. It shall be written from scratch. I do not know exactly what it controls, but it would need a huge amount of work to have something realistic.
-
Radar/electro-optical display (REOD) is very different from F-16C’s MFD. It would need a lot of work to have something functional, that has no impact on F-16C series. It would then depend a new RTT entry. As far as I know, it would be long to achieve.
-
Early F-16A had slightly different elevator… It would then need flight dynamics sources to have something realistic.
-
F-16A HUD control panel need a lot of new functions, DOFs and Switches that we don’t have yet. A lot of work shall be done here too.
-
Fire control and navigation panel (FCNP) mostly does not exist in F-16 (being put in both ICP and DED). A lot of work shall be done here too.
This is just examples.
Compared to F-16V :
-
New stores layout (not so much work)
-
Cockpit adjustment with CPD : big task, but only moving map will be a big deal
-
AESA : it’s would be non-3D development, so, it would be virtually just a new radar to add, with some new functionalities. in term of code structure, it’s not super difficult to achieve. Maybe one day of two would be enough.
-
The rest of the aircraft is generally close de F-16C series.
My conclusion is : F-16A would not be easier to do than F-16V.
Cheers,
Radium
-
-
This post is deleted! -
And I ask again, what can we see on the screen different than now? We can increase the antenna scanning speed and bars to detect more targets faster and we are almost done to be acting the new radar version.
-
And I ask again, what can we see on the screen different than now? We can increase the antenna scanning speed and bars to detect more targets faster and we are almost done to be acting the new radar version.
Well, it’s not a matter of what you can see or not, but the logics out of it.
AESA and legacy radar do not operate at all the same way. It means that while it looks like a a multi-target radar, it’s so different in term of behavior. It need a whole new code to have something nice.
That being said, it’s not that complicated to build, as this is mostly a backstage process.
it’s like analogic FBW and digital FBW : it feels same for handling, but logics are totally different. If you want something realistic, we would need to code analogic FBW for F-16A (F-16C block 50 uses digital, like F-16V).
Regards,
Radium
-
And that is the whole of the point - a simulation does not have to model how it works, it only has to model how it behaves.
Has anyone looked at Prepar3D to see if there is an F-16V in it? Or if there is one available for it? If there is, that would be the definitive source, given that LM is putting it out there.
-
This is what an AESA radar can perform…
This is specific to the F-35 aesa radar ONLY, F-16V aesa scan works in a totally different way.
-
This is specific to the F-35 aesa radar ONLY, F-16V aesa scan works in a totally different way.
The working principles of radar types are based on physics which is not different for different AESA radars…