Development of new aircraft and cockpits
-
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.
-
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.
What pressure? What is bothering you? Why making other airplane more fun would spoil the fun for you?
This is a brainstorming thread. Not a pressure or must do thread. Chill and cheers
-
On my side, I think it’s so dépressive to see same airplanes all the time in videogames….
I share fully this
A10 booring
F15 boooring
F5 what ???SU34 RULES !!!
-
Not at all my dear Seifer.
There is a lot still missing and not necessarily Uber complex.
TACAN REC functions, ECM pannel, STBY ADI, SMS setup page, just to name few of them. The A/G radar itself would deserve a total revamp. … And I already hear some guys thinking loud about the L16.And working VRP/VIP/A-CAL functions for early F-16C blocks.
-
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.
Hello,
I think that you missed a really important point. Not all the devs are F-16 gurus. it may look strange, but this is a fact.
Many people who strongly contributed to enhance our F-16 were not F-16 maniacs.
For many of us (I take myself as a dev even I’m no longer a member of BMS dev team), we just love to… dev, and especially within the environment of Falcon BMS.
Some of the devs almost never fly BMS. The passion for many of us is just to create, to offer something.
I’m not a F-16 guru. I like this aircraft, but I far prefer Rafale, Mirage 2000, Su-34, Su-35 Mig-29, Mitsubishi F-2, F/A-18E and F-15E. That being said, it’s always possible that I decide or not in the next weeks (do not take it as an announcement, it’s just a pure example) to rebuild F-16 external models, starting by F-16 block 52/50/72/70/15/60 (because I like them). It’s my freedom to bring what I want to.
Why do I explain this : to show you that it’s not because there is devs, that they want to work on F-16, and on the domains you would expect.
When people say : we want dev to concentrate on F-16 and not something else… It just doesn’t work like that ! It’s not because we do not work on F-16 in favor of another project that we would have worked on F-16 ianyway !
Also, something which is done without love will be often messy and this is what’s happening with DCS : money prevails on love. So, at BMS, we work with love, with our envies.
Also, we don’t need a nanny as we are big boys, most of us believe that a F-16 oriented team wouldn’t be a good idea anyway because you would have a gorgeous F-16 with an ugly environment. Being a fighter pilot is not so much about piloting a fighter aircraft, but fighting with a fighter aircraft in a complex environment.
I share fully this
A10 booring
F15 boooring
F5 what ???SU34 RULES !!!
F-5 is an elegant, small, and incredibly cute little fighter aircraft (and I love it when flying low in the Alps !)
For Su-34, you know that I love it. I just have issues to finish my model, because there is complex angles that I can’t really understand. One day, I will have the patience to come back on her !
Also, this aircraft would really be a serious candidate to me to receive an accurate cockpit. (I already hear fury in somebodie’s mind) !
Cheers,
Radium