Santa's wishlist for BMS
-
@molnibalage
It was 4.33. BMS 4.35 and later are much more performant. One of the goals of converting BMS to newer D3D was ability to handle such detailed scenery. IIRC some devs said geometry (tris-count) is not much a factor anymore, so vastly more populated cities could be a possibility in 4.37 or later. Also better usage of trees autogen to cover with trees all the places where they should be (ie no more trees and forests painted on ground textures) would tremendously help with visual quality.
Tom did awesome job here, just BMS engine wasn’t ready for such a push. -
@molnibalage I understand the difficulty in creating such a damage model, and I don’t expect it to be created. At least not so fast.
About the F-16, I’m talking about the E\F versions. Of course, data on their avionics can hardly be found in open sources. In my humble opinion, it is quite possible to create a cockpit with three MFDs. No big changes will have to be made, I think. And such a cockpit would be somewhat more comfortable…
The Aim-120 C5 and C7 versions have some differences like increased range, improved electronics and some minor changes. It seems to me for the C7 to increase the range to 120 km is quite possible. The true characteristics of the D version are really unknown.
About the Sa-20, longer range might not be so critical with improved versions of AGM-88 like E and F. Again there is a problem with the true data.
But we don’t always get what we want, right?
-
I have one wish…just one… Please, give us an F-14 cockpit… Please
-
@Miron said in Santa's wishlist for BMS:
@molnibalage I understand the difficulty in creating such a damage model, and I don’t expect it to be created. At least not so fast.
About the F-16, I’m talking about the E\F versions. Of course, data on their avionics can hardly be found in open sources. In my humble opinion, it is quite possible to create a cockpit with three MFDs. No big changes will have to be made, I think. And such a cockpit would be somewhat more comfortable…
The Aim-120 C5 and C7 versions have some differences like increased range, improved electronics and some minor changes. It seems to me for the C7 to increase the range to 120 km is quite possible. The true characteristics of the D version are really unknown.
About the Sa-20, longer range might not be so critical with improved versions of AGM-88 like E and F. Again there is a problem with the true data.
But we don’t always get what we want, right?
The Block 60/70 are far more about things that 3MFDs…
- AESA radar
- towed decoy
- IRST (Block 60)
- MAWS
Even just modeling one of them is a huge task.
Such statement is 120 km range is meaningless, missile have ZONES not single range value.
Against 150 km range SAM the AGM-88 in traditional manner is quite impotent in RL. In BMS the bubble is the main issue than the ATO and also the AI to avoid wasting missiles in the way too high range engagements.
-
@Xeno said in Santa's wishlist for BMS:
@molnibalage
It was 4.33. BMS 4.35 and later are much more performant. One of the goals of converting BMS to newer D3D was ability to handle such detailed scenery. IIRC some devs said geometry (tris-count) is not much a factor anymore, so vastly more populated cities could be a possibility in 4.37 or later. Also better usage of trees autogen to cover with trees all the places where they should be (ie no more trees and forests painted on ground textures) would tremendously help with visual quality.
> Tom did awesome job here, just BMS engine wasn’t ready for such a push.Exactly.
-
After using L16 in DCS, I find it extremely useful and a mandatory feature for the next update.
-
@b0bl00i
You mean DCS Link16 or USAF Link16, because I’m not sure they are the same
IIRC Mav-JP after reading docs on that matter came to the conclusion is so complex people without rl fighter pilot training won’t able to use it properly.
So it might be implemented at some point, but not anytime soon. -
@Miron The perennial conundrum with tech sims, it seems to me, is where to draw the line in time- given that the line tends to creep anyway. I personally would rather have a ‘100 %’ realistic block 50 than a guestimate of a 70. If the developers work on the latest SAMS, to take another example, they have to upgrade the F16 weapons and sensors, by informed guessing , to the most modern ( not to mention struggling with the F35 and its ilk) and then all the 80’s era tech becomes confused with 2022 tech.
-
@b0bl00i said in Santa's wishlist for BMS:
After using L16 in DCS, I find it extremely useful and a mandatory feature for the next update.
We had in the past the same feature in Falcon4.0 original and later SP updates. It has been removed lonnnng time ago. This feature looking roughly the same as what is called “L16” in DCS was called “Esay Avionic” in Falcon4.0 realisme setup.
-
Block-60/70/72 …ish
-
-
SR-72 Darkstar
-
Link16 and VR.
-
-
@Xeno I don’t really care but it’s better than nothing.
-
@b0bl00i said in Santa's wishlist for BMS:
@Xeno I don’t really care but it’s better than nothing.
If you don’t care … and if bullshit features are better than nothing, then display labels. Same effects, same results.
-
@Dee-Jay said in Santa's wishlist for BMS:
Provide documents.
Is a passport and driver’s license okay…?
-
@Dee-Jay
Labels? No not at all, that’s not at all the same thing.
Even if the real system is classified, doing what DCS has done is far better than nothing. -
F-16 (it’s in DCS, even half-baked I want this aircraft).
-
I want 120’s I can shoot from the Ramp that will take down all enemy within a 50nm radius… all by themselves. maybe call them 150’s…