Development of new aircraft and cockpits
-
F-15E is far too classified… We don’t know much about her. Also, it’s a really complex aircraft compared to F-16.
Also, F-15E are USAF only fighters. We can’t rely on export information. F-15SG, QA and SA are not F-15E !
Compared to F-16 variants which are in the game…?
-
Compared to F-16 variants which are in the game…?
F-15E is a very sensible aircraft, I don’t know how to tell it differently.
-
IIRC “I-Hawk” had already an generally coding idea … to make the avionic etc. modular,
to be usefull for other AC as well.There was also a thread here on the forum on this topic, … I’m to lazy to search …;)
Cheers, :yo:
LSMaybe this
https://www.benchmarksims.org/forum/showthread.php?42173-hypothetical-question-on-Avionics-in-BMS/page2&highlight=avionics
(TL/DR: platform-izing BMS is a great future vision but a huge level of effort… and will probably happen slowly over a long time horizon) -
Sure it would be nice to have some other aircraft. This is first and foremost a Viper sim. I don’t really see the need to fly “other” aircraft with Viper avionics. Lots of good guys have put in some serious effort into flight models and such but I think it’ll always just be a Viper sim.
-
Sure it would be nice to have some other aircraft. This is first and foremost a Viper sim. I don’t really see the need to fly “other” aircraft with Viper avionics. Lots of good guys have put in some serious effort into flight models and such but I think it’ll always just be a Viper sim.
While it is primarily a Viper sim we have had different flyable aircraft in various flavours or Falcon for almost the past 12 - 15 years. It is still a simulation engine and it can handle different platforms. If that wasn’t the case, BMS would have us fly Vipers only. We have a large community with varying interests and while some will happily only fly the F-16 there are others that see the potential to develop other aircraft as well. The Hornet is point in case. While the underlying tech is still a F-16 the possibility is there to create a more dedicated F-18C version if those with the coding magic can make it happen. If enough effort goes into that aircraft, at some point it will stand on its own feet and then it we will have a very capable F-18C sim as well.
The quality of flying aircraft is directly proportionate to the development time and resources people are willing to commit. While many systems on 4th gen aircraft and up are classified and information is hard to impossible to come by legally, there are many older aircraft that can potentially be developed to a high degree of accuracy. Take for instance older aircraft such as the F-4 Phantom, A-4, F-5 and many of the older MiGs and Sukhois and it could be entirely possible to create very accurate versions of these. While I love watching F-4 Phantom missions that people fly in BMS, seeing the Viper hiding under the duvet is not ideal. If we can develop a more generic system that does not rely on F-16 avionics to “drive” the simulation data and provide hooks/custom variables that third party devs can hook into then it would only take the time and effort for someone to develop a very accurate and plausible non-Viper aircraft that can stand on its own feet.
Debating what kind of sim BMS is of course is moot; it will be whatever the developers want it to be.
-
While it is primarily a Viper sim we have had different flyable aircraft in various flavours or Falcon for almost the past 12 - 15 years. It is still a simulation engine and it can handle different platforms. If that wasn’t the case, BMS would have us fly Vipers only. We have a large community with varying interests and while some will happily only fly the F-16 there are others that see the potential to develop other aircraft as well. The Hornet is point in case. While the underlying tech is still a F-16 the possibility is there to create a more dedicated F-18C version if those with the coding magic can make it happen. If enough effort goes into that aircraft, at some point it will stand on its own feet and then it we will have a very capable F-18C sim as well.
The quality of flying aircraft is directly proportionate to the development time and resources people are willing to commit. While many systems on 4th gen aircraft and up are classified and information is hard to impossible to come by legally, there are many older aircraft that can potentially be developed to a high degree of accuracy. Take for instance older aircraft such as the F-4 Phantom, A-4, F-5 and many of the older MiGs and Sukhois and it could be entirely possible to create very accurate versions of these. While I love watching F-4 Phantom missions that people fly in BMS, seeing the Viper hiding under the duvet is not ideal. If we can develop a more generic system that does not rely on F-16 avionics to “drive” the simulation data and provide hooks/custom variables that third party devs can hook into then it would only take the time and effort for someone to develop a very accurate and plausible non-Viper aircraft that can stand on its own feet.
Debating what kind of sim BMS is of course is moot; it will be whatever the developers want it to be.
I partly agree with your sentiment, however, numerous times it has been stated that to change key aspects of the sim would require an overhaul of the code which doesn’t seem do-able ( I’m not a coder so I don’t really know the tech stuff). At the end of the day I think we’ll always just have repackaged Viper avionics in other platforms. Which doesn’t bother me. I only fly the Viper. If I want to fly a different platform I go to DCS. I think with the current state of the sim it will always be geared towards the Viper.
Maybe I’m wrong though and Falcon 5.0 will be released with all sorts of goodies.
-
Maybe this
https://www.benchmarksims.org/forum/showthread.php?42173-hypothetical-question-on-Avionics-in-BMS/page2&highlight=avionics
(TL/DR: platform-izing BMS is a great future vision but a huge level of effort… and will probably happen slowly over a long time horizon)Yes, that’s the thread!
Thank’s for searching, airtex2019!
Cheers, :yo:
LS -
My 2 cents.
Rather than considering efforts in adding multiple cockpits and flyable a/c, maybe it would worth considering first fixing the existing broken cockpits (F4, M2000 … etc …) and continue the work on the F-18 for which a fair amount of efforts have been already provided to create a dedicated FLCS and develope the carrier OPS.
I am among the guys who (more or less humbly) think that few polished products are more valuable and enjoyable than multiple half backed features.I am criticising DCS for those reasons, it would be unnatural to me to do conciencously worse.
-
F-15E is a very sensible aircraft, I don’t know how to tell it differently.
Considering the level of modeling of the BMS what is missing to be at least a 2nd tier" plane?
I’m speaking about an early '90s F-15E USAF here.- The absolute flight performance of the F-15 is quite well in the game, the AFM part is missing. I guess this would not be possible.
- The AN/APG-70 has do make a real SAR image and not DBS what the AN/APG-68 provides. I guess this need coding if we can’t live with current AG radar modes.
- The LANTIRN is the same what Vipers had.
- Weapons are the same except the F-15E never had AGM-88. So dumb bombs, LGBs, AGM-130, AIM-9M, AIM-7M, AIM-120s without HMSs.
What are missing? Of course a 99% visually accurate cockpit is not possible without code changes.
-
The AN/APG-70 has do make a real SAR image and not DBS what the AN/APG-68 provides. I guess this need coding if we can’t live with current AG radar modes.
-68v9 has SAR too…
-
-68v9 has SAR too…
I do not know what F-16s got this variant.
I guess when the F4.0 was developed and even later this feature did not exist.
Following a quick search this radar is a post 2000 thing, around 2004 appeared the first news about it. -
My 2 cents.
Rather than considering efforts in adding multiple cockpits and flyable a/c, maybe it would worth considering first fixing the existing broken cockpits (F4, M2000 … etc …) and continue the work on the F-18 for which a faire amont of efforts have been already provided to create a dedicated FLCS and develope the carrier OPS.
I am among the guys who (more or less humbly) think that few polished products are more valuable and enjoyable than multiple half backed features.I am criticising DCS for those reasons, it would be unnatural to me to do conciencously worse.
That is a very valid point DJ and I mostly agree with it.
The reason I mentioned the F5 is because it is present in KTO, which is not the case for Mirage 2000. But it would be great if the A-10 could receive some love.
-
A-10 is a good option and very effective in the campagin.
A must have on your side.
-
A-10 is a good option and very effective in the campagin.
A must have on your side.
On my side, I think it’s so dépressive to see same airplanes all the time in videogames….
-
A-10 is a good option and very effective in the campagin.
A must have on your side.
In the 2D world of F4.0 the A-10 always for totally over modeled in 3D world also has some issues but the discrepancy between the two always was hard.
-
In the 2D world of F4.0 the A-10 always for totally over modeled in 3D world also has some issues but the discrepancy between the two always was hard.
What does it means ?
-
What does it means ?
Just check what loss is caused by only two ship A-10 even with just gun and some 4xAGM-65 and some CBUs. A single mission can cause 20+. Just sit in an F-16 in 3D world and check what they kill. 8-10. At best. If they are not downed.
Because of this OP behavior I limited the avail of A-10s in campaign because they are simply OP.While if you arm a Su-25 with 4xAGM-65 and CBU in 2D world their kill count is simply tiny…
-
Just check what loss is caused by only two ship A-10 even with just gun and some 4xAGM-65 and some CBUs. A single mission can cause 20+. Just sit in an F-16 in 3D world and check what they kill. 8-10. At best. If they are not downed.
Because of this OP behavior I limited the avail of A-10s in campaign because they are simply OP.While if you arm a Su-25 with 4xAGM-65 and CBU in 2D world their kill count is simply tiny…
So a de-agg A-10 is more effective than an agg A-10 , iguess in de-agg they apply some statistical model to calculate the kills ?
-
While it is primarily a Viper sim we have had different flyable aircraft in various flavours or Falcon for almost the past 12 - 15 years. It is still a simulation engine and it can handle different platforms. If that wasn’t the case, BMS would have us fly Vipers only. We have a large community with varying interests and while some will happily only fly the F-16 there are others that see the potential to develop other aircraft as well. The Hornet is point in case. While the underlying tech is still a F-16 the possibility is there to create a more dedicated F-18C version if those with the coding magic can make it happen. If enough effort goes into that aircraft, at some point it will stand on its own feet and then it we will have a very capable F-18C sim as well.
The quality of flying aircraft is directly proportionate to the development time and resources people are willing to commit. While many systems on 4th gen aircraft and up are classified and information is hard to impossible to come by legally, there are many older aircraft that can potentially be developed to a high degree of accuracy. Take for instance older aircraft such as the F-4 Phantom, A-4, F-5 and many of the older MiGs and Sukhois and it could be entirely possible to create very accurate versions of these. While I love watching F-4 Phantom missions that people fly in BMS, seeing the Viper hiding under the duvet is not ideal. If we can develop a more generic system that does not rely on F-16 avionics to “drive” the simulation data and provide hooks/custom variables that third party devs can hook into then it would only take the time and effort for someone to develop a very accurate and plausible non-Viper aircraft that can stand on its own feet.
Debating what kind of sim BMS is of course is moot; it will be whatever the developers want it to be.
Well, the name of the kind of gives it away– it is a FALCON sim, not “whatever the developers want it to be”. Or, to put it another way, the developers want it to be a FALCON sim.
Sure, it could handle different platforms. But every minute spent by the developers on other platforms is one less minute spent on the many improvements in progress on the FALCON platform.
I’m sorry, but I’m just tired of those who want to put pressure on the BMS team to develop other planes at the expense of the F-16. There are only so many Falcon weeks in the universe, and they need to be spent on FALCON. JMHO.
-
So a de-agg A-10 is more effective than an agg A-10 , iguess in de-agg they apply some statistical model to calculate the kills ?
Nope, just the opposite. Deagg A-10s in 3D world are impotent compared to aag A-10s in 2D world.