2021 A Falcon BMS Year to remember!
-
Happy New Year and much much appreciated thank you to the Devs. Awesome work guys.
-
@jayb said in 2021 A Falcon BMS Year to remember!:
So BMS can bring a lot of enjoyment on many fronts. One thing I particularly has always been impressed about regarding BMS has been the manuals and documentation. I do hope that they will receive some TLC in 2022.
Yeah, @Red-Dog did an amazing job with them to a truly professional level. Now that he seems to have moved on to other projects, I know there is a plan to revamp them. I hope they keep the realism that Red Dog instilled while maybe doing more of new school EFB format that much of aviation has transitioned.
-
@snake122 said in 2021 A Falcon BMS Year to remember!:
@jayb said in 2021 A Falcon BMS Year to remember!:
So BMS can bring a lot of enjoyment on many fronts. One thing I particularly has always been impressed about regarding BMS has been the manuals and documentation. I do hope that they will receive some TLC in 2022.
Yeah, @Red-Dog did an amazing job with them to a truly professional level. Now that he seems to have moved on to other projects, I know there is a plan to revamp them. I hope they keep the realism that Red Dog instilled while maybe doing more of new school EFB format that much of aviation has transitioned.
They should definitely keep the level of professionalism.
Sometimes you read some section of the manual and wish for even better text or a MFD screenshot or something else. I personally edited the pdfs for my own use where I thought the text could be more elaborating, or where a screenshot could be beneficial.
I would suggest to maybe Github them so that people can “push” improvements, more screenshots for clarification etc. So the manual(s) become a live document.
-
@jayb said in 2021 A Falcon BMS Year to remember!:
@snake122 said in 2021 A Falcon BMS Year to remember!:
@jayb said in 2021 A Falcon BMS Year to remember!:
So BMS can bring a lot of enjoyment on many fronts. One thing I particularly has always been impressed about regarding BMS has been the manuals and documentation. I do hope that they will receive some TLC in 2022.
Yeah, @Red-Dog did an amazing job with them to a truly professional level. Now that he seems to have moved on to other projects, I know there is a plan to revamp them. I hope they keep the realism that Red Dog instilled while maybe doing more of new school EFB format that much of aviation has transitioned.
They should definitely keep the level of professionalism.
Sometimes you read some section of the manual and wish for even better text or a MFD screenshot or something else. I personally edited the pdfs for my own use where I thought the text could be more elaborating, or where a screenshot could be beneficial.
I would suggest to maybe Github them so that people can “push” improvements, more screenshots for clarification etc. So the manual(s) become a live document.
If you are in the -1 or -34, that is how it should be written honestly. Red Dog matched Standard Technical English (STE) style for the most part, which is how those real manuals are written. It ismore the other manuals not trying to model that like the Training and Comms that is written in more narrative style and often have the verbose details for which you are looking. The practical problem is the manuals are in several .pdfs so you forget which one has the details for which you are looking. Currently, a .pdf merge does solve most of these problems.
As also @Aragorn can tell you, Falcon documentation isn’t an easy job. He did a lot of of the work with those earlier documents and was more in a narrative tone. However, I cannot understate @Red-Dog 's efforts as well. There is a good reason manuals are written in that style. It delivers maximum clarity for minimum word count.
Crowd sourcing it may make it an easier job for something that is pretty massive job. How I see it though, you would need an “editor(s)” familiar with STE, manual formating, usability, publishing software, and if still wanted by the community, document realism in mind. There are some manual nerd things I would love to see, like List of Effective Pages, but is a huge pain from a work aspect.
-
@snake122 said : As @Aragorn can tell you, Falcon documentation isn’t an easy job. He did a lot of of the work with those earlier documents and was more in a narrative tone.
Hee hee…!!
Thanks for remembering, dude. Indeed, I put together almost 1600 pages.Many of those tech articles contributed by current BMS devs…!
I-Hawk did an article on optimising for AMD Radeon cards.And - the largest “sub-section” within the book was the Nav. section, which was contributed by… RED DOG…!
I did go the narrative style to keep my own sanity. 18 hours a freakin’ day.
I think I enjoyed the Pete Bonanni Vs Chuck Norris bit the best.In fact… I do believe that I wrote the first ever BMS manual…
v.1.43 or summin’.
It was back with Jammer and Charles (CobraCab).
At Frug’s. How’s THAT for trivia…?Bet not many remember that massive 10 page tome…
AraBeenThereDoneThatPr0n
Edit: Actually… maybe it was BMS v.0.98. Summin’…! Too long ago.
-
@apollo-11 said in 2021 A Falcon BMS Year to remember!:
Best wishes for 2022! Its going to be hell of a ride with all these future improvements!!
AIM HIGH BMS DEV TEAM!! -
@aragorn Still have the FreeFalcon4+RedViper Manual (Your interview with Norris ) and the FreeFalcon5 Companion…
-
@maxwaldorf
Happy new year. I will be waiting this
great news, I am happy to see some change in the communications. Will you plan the tools to be available for outsiders also later on? there would be nice if we can use newer 3dmax or blender without conversion. if the BMS is free so we could use for it free softver also. -
What a great way to start the new year…!!! Two BMS versions are coming with amazing changes and improvements, wow!!
Happy year to everybody and my best wishes to BMS developers, guys you keep rocking year after year, 2022 and counting… -
Hee hee…!!
Thanks for remembering, dude. Indeed, I put together almost 1600 pages.Did you use Elmer’s glue or was it more like papier mâché? Or maybe it was like a collage? Did you squint in order not to see the where the edges met?
…just wondering…
-
What is meant by “new terrain”? Will it be higher resolution (less blocky mountains, more defined smaller variations) or will it be higher in ground detail (more objects, eye candy, no more flat textures for buildings etc.) or something completely different?
-
I have a maybe OFF question.
Why is the 4.3x version designation used?I can understand that 4 is likely the legacy of Falcon 4.0.
But what about the “3”? -
@molnibalage said in 2021 A Falcon BMS Year to remember!:
I have a maybe OFF question.
Why is the 4.3x version designation used?I can understand that 4 is likely the legacy of Falcon 4.0.
But what about the “3”?Internal BMS versioning. And no the “4” is also not about Falcon 4.0, if you remember back in the days BMS started with 1.03 (That was the first version I remember), then after a while it became BMS 2.0. I wasn’t there when it came to “4.0” but probably it was a similar decision to “Jump” the version up.
Maybe it means we should move to 5.0 at some point?
-
@i-hawk A friend of mine asked exactly which would not call the 4.37 simply 5.0 because if the terrain engine will be a totally new not matter the large legacy of the F4.0 mostly (?) only the spiritual essence of the F4.0 is the legacy, not the “product” itself.
As I know nobody owns the right of Falcon 5.0 so nobody every would sue the team. I guess.
-
-
-
@molnibalage said in 2021 A Falcon BMS Year to remember!:
@i-hawk A friend of mine asked exactly which would not call the 4.37 simply 5.0 because if the terrain engine will be a totally new not matter the large legacy of the F4.0 mostly (?) only the spiritual essence of the F4.0 is the legacy, not the “product” itself.
As I know nobody owns the right of Falcon 5.0 so nobody every would sue the team. I guess.
Sorry I don’t know yet and anyway I don’t think it’ll be Falcon 5.0, maybe BMS 5.0 but that also doesn’t really matter. What will matter is the content
-
@i-hawk My bad, of course I wanted to say BMS 5.0
In fact I never said Falcon 5.0.
I just thought if ANYBODY ever try to release Falcon 5.0 maybe BMS 5.0 for some jerk lawyer could provide a “target”.
But as I know nobody has such plan so a BMS 5.0 it would be fine. -
@pumpyhead: â é
Look at the big font set on Pumpy…!!
@pumpyhead: Did you squint …?
Only when you undid your fly.
-
@aragorn Get a room guys
-
I hope that before any new features are introduced, all current bugs will be solved, namely the following:
- All impact timers of GBU’s are messed up, they either speed up or slow down and even give feedback if a weapon is guiding properly.
- IAM’s weapons time of flight is way too long and contains very weird slowing down phenomena. Just compare for example a release of a CBU-87 with that of a CBU-103 at the same time and look at the flight profile and especially the velocity of the weapon. For DEAD operations this is very crucial.
- Released weapons having a large horizontal shift upon release in cross wind.
- Release point of AI aircraft for GBU’s is way off compared to human pilots and bomb TOF is also very different.
- AGM-88 estimated impact time and countdown timers for PET shots are way off and even give feedback if the weapon is guiding on something. And often a HARM will not guide onto an active emitter if it has not been detected by ownship before.
- AI fuel consumption is way off compared to human, especially low- and high level.
- AI should not use afterburner when rejoining in flight.
- AIM-120 behaviour is unrealistic. RCS setting in cockpit determines exactly at what distance from the target the missile goes pitbull and that distance does not depend on actual RCS at all. The RCS selection in the pit should only provide an indication to the pilot about when the computer in the jet thinks the missile is going pitbull depending on the expected size of the target.
-
@bowser
1 > - AI fuel consumption is way off compared to human, especially low- and high level.
2 > - AI should not use afterburner when rejoining in flight.1 - Please elaborate.
How did you evaluated this?
Have you considered AI (robot) behavior and leader abilities to be a good leader considering the nature it his wingmen?2 - Please provide factual examples.
Also, consider that is could not be possible to make a difference between rejoin and other flight phases … so … if we prevent IA from using afterburner, it may be all also prevent them from using is in combat …
See the problem ?