Hypothetical question on Avionics in BMS
-
It’s not impossible but the first thing that needs doing is actually rewriting the code in a way that makes the avionics modular. Iiirc the dev who mentioned this in the past, is currently busy with other stuff. Probably same goes for a potential SDK for such modules.
-
@moidesko I am of a similar mind … there was a great thread on this, about a year ago. Will see if I can find it.
The biggest challenge, as I recall, is not so much modelling a plug-in architecture for the components of the plane itself… but defining its interface boundary with the entire rest of the world. (Thinking about “avionics” like AESA radars, and new sensors like IRST.)
The prior discussion left me with a sense of just how horribly intertwined the campaign / world-model code is (which is part of why we’re still stuck with the 2D interface from 1998). Refactoring all of that, and defining a stronger interface boundary around all the entities in-theater, would probably be a necessary prereq step.
-
I think the current radar warning receiver as introduced with BMS 4.33 is certainly a good starting point. It may start with something like adjusting the layout and position of HUD, DED, MFD symbology to begin with. Allow tweaking of some radar data and properties beyond what’s available already and stuff like this. There have been lot of additions for none F-16 aircraft over the years which make the sim more customizable for these. I think this would help to make the sim more attractive for a wider audience wishing to fly more aircraft with a greater immersion than flying the F-16 with a different cockpit, external model, tweaked FM and altered weapon loadouts. We can be dreaming, can’t we
-
@Scorpion82 indeed, rwr would be a good starting point as it needs environment awareness without being as complex as implementing a full radar from the ground. It will force to refactor the code to give it access to other objects in the simulation and that could be the starting point for other more complex features.
A plugin architecture for third party planes I think that would be an inflexion point about not only the sim being more attractive for people interested in other aircrafts including redfor ones, but also for the community involvement on the BMS development without the inconvenient of sharing the “core” sim code. I think it would launch BMS to another level :).
And yes, dreaming in free… but well, maybe gathering some people with interest, knowledge and some time for it, maybe it’s feasible to bring it to reality…
-
@moidesko
IIRC modular avionics was discussed few times already, it was relatively easy job, but all the devs are already busy with higher priority subjects to tackle it.If anyone is willing and able to to work on avionics, I-Hawk is the person to talk to. He was working on BMS avionics in the past. Even he might be a bit busy with new terrain engine for 4.37 but probably he’ll be able to provide some hints.
-
@moidesko https://forum.falcon-bms.com/topic/20664/hypothetical-question-on-avionics-in-bms
you may have already searched this … here was a pretty good thread on this topic, from about 1 year ago
-
-
Type me your 5 planes most appropriate to work with different avionics in future bms.
-
merging
-
@Raptor said in Hypothetical question on Avionics in BMS:
Type me your 5 planes most appropriate to work with different avionics in future bms.
I can give you one, Raptor, the Hornet. I say that because it would help the greatest number of people. Not only that the F-18C is the most popular after the Viper, but that opens the way to the Rhino,Growler,EF-18M, CF-118A, etc.
-
@Raptor
A-10A because there is almost no avionicsOr Eagle, a little bit more complicated, still much less than Viper or Hornet.
-
- F-16V (block 70/72) which is probably different enough in avionics, to consider as a different plane?
- F-18C
- F-18E
- A-10A/C
- MQ-9 Reaper (j/k … maybe)
- Su-27/33/35 variants … I have no clue how similar or different the avionics are, across Flanker generations
I leave off F-15C and F-15EX… they seem relevant, but otoh almost every mission profile would be covered by Viper or Hornet… and for the two-seater Eagles, I don’t know how accurate we could make the overall avionics experience. Same for F-14 Tomcat.
I don’t know if enough is yet known about F-22 and F-35, in terms of avionics, but establishing a platform for BMS to eventually cover those, in the future, would obviously be great…
-
@drtbkj said in Hypothetical question on Avionics in BMS:
I can give you one, Raptor, the Hornet
Umm… that’s two.
Srsly I just want to second that… the strength of BMS is in its depth, more than breadth. DCS provides every plane imaginable but only a block 50 viper.
That said, going for similar depth on just one other plane, from similar era and country of origin, eg. F-18C, is of great value. I feel like I learned a lot about the Viper (understanding its strengths and weaknesses) after spending some time learning the Hornet.
-
@airtex2019 said in Hypothetical question on Avionics in BMS:
- F-16V (block 70/72) which is probably different enough in avionics, to consider as a different plane?
- F-18C
- F-18E
- A-10A/C
- MQ-9 Reaper (j/k … maybe)
- Su-27/33/35 variants … I have no clue how similar or different the avionics are, across Flanker generations
I leave off F-15C and F-15EX… they seem relevant, but otoh almost every mission profile would be covered by Viper or Hornet… and for the two-seater Eagles, I don’t know how accurate we could make the overall avionics experience. Same for F-14 Tomcat.
I don’t know if enough is yet known about F-22 and F-35, in terms of avionics, but establishing a platform for BMS to eventually cover those, in the future, would obviously be great…
Hi, Airtex. Some thoughts on you list, which I generally like…
It might be tough to the the V, F-22 and F-35, though I agree it would be great. Not only because of the lack of available data you mention, but because the Dev’s have made it clear AESA is not on our horizon.
I would say that a legacy avionics suite would work in the E,F,G, so we could combine that
A-10, Concur!
I was interested in your choice of the Reaper, but again do we have available data?
I would be curious what percentage of our BMS membership would fly them. If I wrong on that, let us know!
Airtex, I’m not trying to nitpick your list. I just see this as a situation where we’d have to make tough choices. If I may, here’s my list, based on what people have said to me …
1)F-18 C,E,F,G
2)AV-8B++
3)Tornado
4)A-10
5) F-35, just because I’d love BMS to have 5th Gen. -
There is a global consideration though…
Opening the door to API and other avionics means BMS cannot control the quality of 3rd party addons that can be made…
We are very picky when it comes to the F-16, if something else was made, we would have to start supporting aspects of the sim we did not consider before this more work for us…
We are just an handful… I cannot imagine anything like that happening in the near future given our size and ambitions…
-
Are there any useful public data for all these assets?
-
@MaxWaldorf About the quality of the 3d party ac, you’re right. But I think of that as a first step forward from what we have now, for instance, in the F18 with F16 avionics that people flyes. Having an own avionics would be a boost in realism and very attractive for the F18 lovers who fly in BMS (and a whole world of CV operations that opens up). The quality issue that arises could be tackled with some kind of quality “standard” that ensures some kind of BMS “seal of approval” conceded over the time amd experience with the asset, and then maybe some kind of official support if there are resources for that.
I agree that systems like FLIR would be tricky to “APIce”, as it needs access to the 3D rendering engine… but not much sure about that as I’m only guessing.Anyway, as I said before this is not a thing I demand from anyone: only a few ideas and suggestions to make my mind around the feasability of the feature in terms of time, resources and “policy” (maybe is not the word, not an english speaker here).
-
@drtbkj I think that F18 will be a good point of start as it currently has some people actively putting work on it and fying it in BMS. Not sure about the versions, as it needs to be clear before development that all the info is publicly available in order to be able to provide a highly realistic plane. That’s why I think that 5th gen aircrafts are out of reach right now.
Harrier and A10 are pretty good options, too. Would be lovely to fly them in BMS
-
Hello,
From my perspective, we already have a great US/NATO fighter with F-16.
It would be far more interesting to have a full avionics suit of a possible opponent, such as Su-30 than just another 10 times rebuilt A-10 or F-18…
Regards,
Radium
-
@Radium a MiG 29 would be very, very interesting to have. And for the first versions I think that there are public info out there: did some research about the n019 radar a while ago and I’ve found some interesting sources. They only need to be translated from Russian, though…
About SU 27 or other more modern redfor jets, I think that the Russian policy about the info on their systems will be an obstacle to have a fully realistic simulation of them.
But well, maybe SU-25 as ground attack plane and some older jets like the MiG 23, although that last isn’t a rival against the F16, will be a very interesting addition. -
@moidesko How many Mig29 did we had in simulation… Su-35, Su-30 or Su34 would be more interesting !