Hornet Avionics???
-
No disrespect to you guys at all.
I would be a Tomcat guy if anything. Years ago there was a very nice 15 pit in BMS and the systems required would be a lot easier to create than that of the highly complex systems in a Hornet.
Wishing you guys the best with what ever you can build and of course ill be flying it.
-
I will only vote when all of the below have become true for my Viper:
- VR + Mixed Reality
- CFT’s as external tanks
- APG-68(v)9 enhancements
- MMC 5000 & 7000 differences
- Link16
- SAR
- Moving Map HSD
- PGCAS
- Recce
- A/G HMD
- Scorpion HMD
- Remote failures console
- Jammer cones control
- Jamming effects
- Ground jammers
- GPS jamming
- RCS dynamic calculation
- Curved earth coordinates calculation
- CPD
- D backsit cockpit model
- IFF (lol always fills the joke)
I am not adding -16V and AESA on the loop at all, and also left out some others that might be wip…
-
I love this idea but as we discussed in other threads, BMS has some other priorities. I dont think we should spend time working on an naval aircraft until we enhance naval warfare in BMS. With that said I am going to do the second choice, because I think this is something that should happen later on. Maybe if we get a .36? Also, would this new hornet even transfer over to newer versions of BMS? Thats a good question. Another thing we should address with this is about controller binds. Should we work on something so we can bind different controls for each aircraft? Maybe we should sort that out before actually making a Hornet with its own avionics. I love this idea, but their is some other things that need addressed first. Like Hawk and others said, its about priorities. I think this would be wonderful for the future. Ofc really I am still new to this, so maybe I am wrong.
Cheers!
-
If you have the equipment to make the dedicated avionics, go ahead and do it, it would be great.
-
As one who has 600 hours in the DCS Hornet, I will not fly the BMS Hornet until it has proper avionics. Of course I realize this is an F16 sim andso do not expect that to ever happen.
I don’t even know that DCS has things “right”…but they have things better…
-
option 3 not that i wait though
-
I dont think we should spend time working on an naval aircraft until we enhance naval warfare in BMS.
Who is we?
-
I’ve been away for a bit, but if it is feasible, I’d suggest creating a new variant/block that is the “Hornet with more complex avionics”, so that existing users can happily continue with what they have with no changes, while avid Hornet fans can change the variant in the campaign/server they are running to fly the new avionics - I think it would be easier to select or alter a campaign to load a squadron of “Hornet with more complex avionics” than change the playing field for everyone. If it is built from the ground up that way (or maybe that is the existing plan) - it should cause less headaches for the devs. Of course, the avionics work still needs to be done!
I’ve voted, but I’d really vote for “Separate Hornet with more complex avionics”.
-
in my understanding bms coders are only few and have many tasks they need some more talented and devoted coders that its hard to find for free and even harder to accept them .so lets have f 16 for the next 20years
-
The vote is a bit skewed - my vote would be F-16 and only F-16 until its feature compete and priority bugs are fixed but that’s not a survey option
-
I will only vote when all of the below have become true for my Viper:
- VR + Mixed Reality
- CFT’s as external tanks
- APG-68(v)9 enhancements
- MMC 5000 & 7000 differences
- Link16
- SAR
- Moving Map HSD
- PGCAS
- Recce
- A/G HMD
- Scorpion HMD
- Remote failures console
- Jammer cones control
- Jamming effects
- Ground jammers
- GPS jamming
- RCS dynamic calculation
- Curved earth coordinates calculation
- CPD
- D backsit cockpit model
- IFF (lol always fills the joke)
I am not adding -16V and AESA on the loop at all, and also left out some others that might be wip…
In my humble opinion, this is about Joe trying to assess how the community sees his project of improving what passionates him, which is the Hornet. I’m not sure opposing Hornet and Viper will change very much to his ideas. He is confronting comfort of using Viper’s systems versus realism (and ramifications) of using Hornet ones, in both cases for the Hornet. The question for him will persist, if I understand his question, exactly as it is, even with “better” F16 avionics.
To take another example, I would fly your Viper when I have more manual control on a package in flight, but that’s beside the point if you are a dev and decided that you’d love to improve the Viper.
-
This post is deleted! -
I kinda meant the community in general. But maybe that wasn’t the right choice of words, my bad
I was just messing with you Martin, no worries!
-
Who is we?
I meant the community in general but I think I had a wrong choice of words. My bad
-
I will only vote when all of the below have become true for my Viper:
- VR + Mixed Reality
- CFT’s as external tanks
- APG-68(v)9 enhancements
- MMC 5000 & 7000 differences
- Link16
- SAR
- Moving Map HSD
- PGCAS
- Recce
- A/G HMD
- Scorpion HMD
- Remote failures console
- Jammer cones control
- Jamming effects
- Ground jammers
- GPS jamming
- RCS dynamic calculation
- Curved earth coordinates calculation
- CPD
- D backsit cockpit model
- IFF (lol always fills the joke)
I am not adding -16V and AESA on the loop at all, and also left out some others that might be wip…
The GPS jamming has not any meaning without modeling the drifting of the INS…
-
I am for the future development of different avionic and further implementations of interesting cockpits in BMS.
So after the life of this poll and topic is over why not establish some kind of reference library for various pits as they are and perform in the real world.That would be some start and would give a better comprehension of what dev work and how much of it is involved.
-
of course if there’s the possibility to add Hornet Avionics would be SO COOL
-
i love the F18 and i’m flying it with viper avionics, you will make happy hundred people if you add hornet avionics
-
and the final answer to you poll is: OF COURSE YESSSSSSSS PLEASE MAKE HORNET AVIONICS FOR BMS
thanks for you work!!! -
The GPS jamming has not any meaning without modeling the drifting of the INS…
but BMS (Falcon4) has INS drifting for ages already… right??? not???
- it kicks in after an hour or so