Hornet Avionics???
-
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
-
Should depend on the avionics involved - if the INS model includes GPS aiding, there should be no drift…unless there is a GPS failure of some sort.
This is a problem with RL systems as well - INS failures can get masked.
-
but BMS (Falcon4) has INS drifting for ages already… right??? not???
- it kicks in after an hour or so
I have never experienced. As long as you set up well you have exact GPS position.
I never could experience a working NAV system and INS drift.
Is this possible at all in 4.35? -
But BMS don’t have GPS … well kind of…
… there is no “GPS aiding” (updates) … after an hour you’ll see drift … after 2 hrs even maybe about mile or so.In BMS You have 2 types of alignments , normal, and in-flight … normal is perfect , gps-like ., but! one-time… In-flight is somewhat worse , … you’ll see that steerpoints are drifted
So IIRC , BMS should have INS drift … I can swear I saw it before in Falcon, oh I dunno 20yrs - but not before FalconAF, since that was my first F4… but there were FreeFalcon/OpenFalcon …
@Monli should also know them all (Falcon’s), so I’m curious , why he said that there’s no drift … ???
-
Just a couple of thoughts on the Hornet avionics discussion:
It would be cool but what F/A-18 systems would you have to, or want to model that couldn’t be reskins (more or less) of existing sim components? You could easily (being relative, I’m not a programmer or coder, but have quite a bit of experience in that area) make the APG-68 look like an APG-73, and maybe even account for some of the performance differences to get a passable A++,C or D. You can reskin ALR-56 to look like ALR-67 and remake the HUD. Those are cosmetic that would add some immersion into Hornet like world. From there, it probably gets much more difficult.
E/F and maybe G would be more realistic for the modern fight, since legacy Hornets are beginning to lose relevance in the modern air to air fight. Newer E/F/G software releases look very different than the older versions, and actually kind of have a video game feel (to me anyway).
As for your list, that is impressive and not easy to do. Link-16 is complex, but you can do moving map HSD with YAME (I even reconfigured the compass overlay to be Hornet-like). Any EW (jamming and its effects especially) and dynamic RCS continue to kick the butts of real simulators, so anything that approximates that stuff here by this crew is impressive.
In any event, Hornet revamp would be neat and I think you could make an initial cosmetic attempt without having to actually build it from scratch. Of course, then there is the flight model……
-
But BMS don’t have GPS … well kind of…
… there is no “GPS aiding” (updates) … after an hour you’ll see drift … after 2 hrs even maybe about mile or so.In BMS You have 2 types of alignments , normal, and in-flight … normal is perfect , gps-like ., but! one-time… In-flight is somewhat worse , … you’ll see that steerpoints are drifted
So IIRC , BMS should have INS drift … I can swear I saw it before in Falcon, oh I dunno 20yrs - but not before FalconAF, since that was my first F4… but there were FreeFalcon/OpenFalcon …
@Monli should also know them all (Falcon’s), so I’m curious , why he said that there’s no drift … ???
So…again, this comes down to just what sort of INS modeling is done in BMS - most GPS aided INS systems these days are embedded into one box, so unless you know, you don’t really know. GPS-INS, GINA, EGI (which I think is what BMS is supposed to be modeling, and actually stands for Embedded GPS INS), ANAV, etc. are all variations of the same thing. Unless you are modeling an older system, you’re more than likely including GPS aiding in the model…if you’re doing it right.