F16V (Block 70)
-
: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…
-
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.
An AESA radar is lot more that if you wish to REALLY wish to model and not just mimic its one feature.
-
The working principles of radar types are based on physics which is not different for different AESA radars…
I’m always amazed at how your opinions or ideas are the truth by which everyone else has to stand. And I’m even more surprised that someone with such strong opinions as you and such amount of knowledge you don’t provide yourself with your own F-16A. Some will say that you provided the community with advanced work that benefit all of us, but I ma really admirative of how you can’t stand anyone not thinking like you and forbid that person has not the arguments that are satisfying in your book. Someone with so much knowledge as you shouldn’t even waste time here. Your time.
-
I’m always amazed at how your opinions or ideas are the truth by which everyone else has to stand. And I’m even more surprised that someone with such strong opinions as you and such amount of knowledge you don’t provide yourself with your own F-16A. Some will say that you provided the community with advanced work that benefit all of us, but I ma really admirative of how you can’t stand anyone not thinking like you and forbid that person has not the arguments that are satisfying in your book. Someone with so much knowledge as you shouldn’t even waste time here. Your time.
Physics is not a matter of opinion…
I can’t do 3D modeling. I tried in 2007 and I found it hard therefore I focused different areas of the sim. This is why looks as the BMS4.35 what you can see regarding of many SAM modeling values and features. -
Molnibalage and his SAM, data change topic. every time when you can’t say something for the current topic, or you don’t have right, bring an other topic (like szu-27 cockpit) or like now the SAM’s data. Just to be polish your ego.
in the virtual place, there is no physics, everything works as the programmer want.
So if they want to move the block 50’s radar dish so fast and ways like the AESA can, then they will.
If they don’t want to recreate the whole system bit by bit just to work like a real one , they can do some cheat .
if they want put 100 normal radardish in one place and all of them can move differently. there is no physical obsticle, they will fit inside the nosecone. -
Physics is not a matter of opinion…
I can’t do 3D modeling. I tried in 2007 and I found it hard therefore I focused different areas of the sim. This is why looks as the BMS4.35 what you can see regarding of many SAM modeling values and features.Physics are not a matter of opinion…
This is surprising to read this, perhaps you never heard about debates about scientific publications. But this is another story.
You indeed rightly have opinions. Please remember than a statement is not a proof. considering than F-16A is closer to F-16C52 than F-16C52 is from F-16V is your very own opinion, which I disagree.
This why scientific facts are always checked numerous times my peers, before getting a consensus. You can be the most talented physician, your publications will be checked and rechecked.
The problem is that the engine is not suitable for this.
I have explained tons of times this.This kind of statement is your opinion. We may agree or disagree you.
You may explain it thousand, million or even billions time it doesn’t really matter : it’s not because you said it that it is true.
Therefore, we can humbly disagree your point of view, like Canuck did.
-
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-6…
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 RWR…
Even the sim. eng. capability of the MiG-31 is not modeled and can’t shoot down any plane any CM only ships and SAMs can do it.So if you are really speaking about “folks want to simulate modern day fighter piloting” I can state, they never will get it. Because it means so large task.
Because even the old tech can’t 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 “complete” 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 can’t 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 can’t handle the SA-10B. It simply massacre the planes - I have no tested the Patriot - because it simply can’t 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 I’m pretty sad that such things have to be explained again and again.
Of course you can dream about the “modern day fighter piloting” just you and everybody had to be understood what it would really mean and why you can’t have them.
Even such thing is classified as the distance between the ALE-50/55 and the plane which uses it…
Good luck for the proper modeling of the n+1 missing things.Dude, get off your high horse, you don’t have to explain anything. If you want to fly bms as an 80’s sim, by all means go do that. I’ll enjoy the way I want to fly it. Don’t tell me how I should enjoy flying the sim/F-16. Of course there are limits to simulating modern day, I get that. I have a pretty good understanding of aviation and military systems. You don’t have to explain that to me. But the 80’s would still have limits as well. It’s not as simple as creating an F-16A cockpit and voila you have a 100% realistic flightsim. That’s BS.
And I wasn’t talking about the F-16V. I was saying give the block30 a bit of love to bring it more to today’s standard.
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.
Yeah, the 80’s were so much better… good fun flying an AIM-9 only equipped Viper against a pair of Phoenix equipped F-14’s… dodge 8 Phoenix, bingo fuel and go home… see how easy it is to make such statements?