Hornet Avionics???
-
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.
-
Correct, EGI should be the ONE. But no GPS updates in BMS… I think. Maybe I just mixed all Falcon’s experiences… blah, would need to fly a 2hrs mission to check that again.
But again, I can swear that I saw the drift with my own eyes… but which Falcon was that… I don’t really remember.
-
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……
So…for one, I’d like to see the DED totally eliminated from the Hornet cockpit. Hornets do NOT have DEDs, or anything much like them. The UFC in a Legacy Hornet sort of acts like a DED…but only “sort of”, and only in specific instances. The UFCD in a Super Hornet acts nothing like either a DED or a UFCD.
The HUD symbology and REJ modes also need to be completely redone, and the Indexer should be OFF anytime the gear are up. Also - the HUD bracket needs to reflect the Indexer (in the Viper it is backwards, and has you landing fast vice on-speed, but I’m pretty sure I know why that is) AND the Indexer should have five indications vice three. Hornets also do not have ILS capability - ACLS (Link 4) and ILS are two different, non compatible systems. The aircraft startup sequence also needs to be totally re-vamped to both incorporate two engines and proper procedure IAW NATOPS.
Hornets also have at least two map formats - one is primarily navigational, and one is primarily tactical - both with moving maps. Hornets have had moving maps since first flight, in various incarnations. Older and newer Hornets all have Link 16, so if you leave that out you’ve made a major omission. The ATFLIR also operates quite differently from a SNIPER pod.
I also doubt that the ALR-56 and ALR-67 have much if anything at all in common in their respective integration with their avionics systems (or symbol set). Hornets have also never used HTS, they have a different far more modern kit. The USN also no longer employs the AGM-65F - they use the AGM-65E only.
…and all this is only a beginning.
-
The GPS jamming has not any meaning without modeling the drifting of the INS…
INS (Inertial Navigation System, = only gyroscopes) is not affected by GPS jamming, in case of system failure drifting will happen, among other things.
EGI (Embedded GPS/INS = two different systems acting + self-verifying each other readings) is a system that could be affected by a GPS ground or air jammer platform, IF the “I” (INS -part) fails.
Anyway, I was mainly referring to what happens to radar, mfds etc. when the bird sensors recognize an active jamming condition.
Moreover, think of the possibilities of e.g. a new 3d model/truck acting as an ground jammer (gps or/and radar jam), and put this near ground SAM’s…
-
INS (Inertial Navigation System, = only gyroscopes) is not affected by GPS jamming, in case of system failure drifting will happen, among other things.
EGI (Embedded GPS/INS = two different systems acting + self-verifying each other readings) is a system that could be affected by a GPS ground or air jammer platform, IF the “I” (INS -part) fails.
Anyway, I was mainly referring to what happens to radar, mfds etc. when the bird sensors recognize an active jamming condition.
Moreover, think of the possibilities of e.g. a new 3d model/truck acting as an ground jammer (gps or/and radar jam), and put this near ground SAM’s…
Your MFDs probably aren’t going to care…but your radar, RWR, HTS, weapons, electronic sensors, will. And even that said, it depends on what sort of jamming you encounter as to what the effect will be.
BTW: if you were to try aligning your EGI in the absence of GPS it will take longer.
-
Well no need to add more details about what mfds display.
Also, the further away from the equator the longer it takes.
-
That sort of makes sense, given that your surface rotational velocity would be maxed at the equator…and also indicates that you could not free-align if you were at the North or South pole!
Had a jet on my line once that turned up with a severely bent INU, but it was only discovered after the GPS side broke - GPS had been hiding the problem for months, from what we could tell.
-
Guys, lol, even it is constructive discussion, think this thread needs realignment to op. - Bug’s (bunnny) avionics.
-
INS (Inertial Navigation System, = only gyroscopes) is not affected by GPS jamming, in case of system failure drifting will happen, among other things.
EGI (Embedded GPS/INS = two different systems acting + self-verifying each other readings) is a system that could be affected by a GPS ground or air jammer platform, IF the “I” (INS -part) fails.
Anyway, I was mainly referring to what happens to radar, mfds etc. when the bird sensors recognize an active jamming condition.
Moreover, think of the possibilities of e.g. a new 3d model/truck acting as an ground jammer (gps or/and radar jam), and put this near ground SAM’s…
You misunderstood me.
There is no point to model GPS jamming while you do not have well modeled other NAV system… -
How much level of effort would that be? It would be a great addition for sure but I’m worried it might take away from the main improvement of the Viper simulation