Santa's wishlist for BMS
-
A functioning Rate-of-Turn Indicator.
Fast forward to 13:18 . . . .
-
Request return of the old style HSI option.
-
@Aragorn said in Santa's wishlist for BMS:
The entire premise of this thread is FLAWED.
Santa’s wishlist.
1.) WHY would Santa even NEED a wishlist…?!
2.) WHY would Santa fly BMS when he prolly flies the DCS Sleigh module…?
Haha excellent
Here it goes
The ARCHITECT: Although, within the “PREMISE” there is the communities prime directive "TO WANT MORE " and within the context lies the definitive truth, that within the Falcon source code construct lays all our dreams and desires. Thus the community will comply with this process that results in a cataclysmic crash, crushing all who are connected to the code which coupled by the extermination of “ZION” our highest peak of euphoria will ultimately result in a fatal extinction of flight sim enthusiasts. Some say no we won’t let that happen, but the answer is; there are some levels of survive ability that has been accepted. However the relevant issue is whether anyone exploring is willing to accept the responsibility of the Falcon World as we know it. It has been interesting reading the reactions of many, as per Falcons predecessors, it was meant to create a profound attachment to the species of flight simmers extending the function of the reality, where others in the general world experience this through just a glance of imagination where in this community it is thus said la visa vi - “LOVE FOR FLIGHT” as one looks in the mirror. Therefore the dilemma presents itself, which brings us at last to the moment of truth the fundamental flaw is ultimately expressed and the anomaly revealed as both beginning and end. There are two doors, the first door is to comply and/or participate to achieve the “ZION” state we desire. The second door leads to the reality we don’t always get what we want being that Santa is more like a Satanic persona in the shadows and his fat and ugly and lies all the time, being the end of our species as adequately put. The problem is “CHOICE” but we already know what the community is going to do it’s within our own flaw. Already the chain reaction has begun the chemical precursors that signal the onset of an emotional desire for more beyond our capability specifically to over whelm our reasonable logic and good reason, an emotion that is already blinding from the single and obvious enough truth, that it has its own identity and there is nothing you can do to control it. Now, hope is the quintessential human delusion that simultaneously is the greatest source of a communities strength and greatest weakness. Thus said to meet again on the same premise initiates the prime directive to no end and its flaw of three points - the disappointment, complaint and the ban hammer.
youseewhatididthere~
P.S. I tried.
-
I. will… never. post. again.
-
Dear Santa, will it be possible to get manual/ training scripts (mission.txt files) to work with .tac as well as with .trn missions?
-
@Crassus sure in 3000-4000 weeks
jokes aside - as there’s no nothing “bad” in interactive learning , … and therefore idea is not bad also
we, well most of us here, (not beginners) , learned to learn the old way … read then try - it is a “freaking” simulator in the end … you won’t die if made a mistake
If you don’t succeed in first attempt , try again,- then after 1000 time you don’t succeed , … change of tactics , … what am I doing wrong-
you can’t be James Bond directly from the diapers … even He finished some education before entering Secret Service
-
so interactive for simulator is kinda simulator in simulator - I really find this overcomplicating
on the other hand - people will forget to read in the end (already in progress for a long time - rtfm case)
So !, Don’t forget to read, eh? - and most important of it all, don’t forget to be BRAVE , … I’ve destroyed a jet … NO , you destroyed a virtual jet and killed your virtual self in process , … but miraculously you live another day and can try again … a bit smarter… IF learned from previous mistakes
-
-
@vfp said in Santa's wishlist for BMS:
this chinese page has bms 4.37 leaked photo? is this legit photo or photoshop?
https://www.bilibili.com/read/cv16379429One can hope And I do hope it’s stellar!
-
@b0bl00i How about a block 50 F16 XL so we can supercruise I know the USAF went with with the F15E you still could build one this is a simulation?
-
More tutorials, docs and good exemples for editing/activate mod, skin, textures.
Step by step to be sure to do nothing wrongI wish to help BMS team but i don’t have experience in codes and other… But i can work on a NOOB MANUAL for BMS Community and translate some docs in french. (i can have help on my work too)
Thank you Santa !
-
“True” A-10C Cockpit (not A10-A)
Graphicaly improved F-18C Cockpit
Graphicaly improved F-15 Cockpit
F-16E/F/V (Block 60/70/72) -
When assigning a Squadron to an airbase it drops the squadron icon right on top of the field. Sometimes difficult to see identifying info for the base or squadron. Airbases should be able to have multiple squadrons as in real life. The base size and facilities can determine how many squadron ‘slots’ are available. Should be able to ‘mouse-over’ the airbase to see the base identifier. Have the squadron symbol indicate one or more squadrons. Right-click to see a pop up list of squadrons and their aircraft types based at that airport. Same principle for aircraft carrier - multiple squadrons. So A6, F18C and F14 can all launch from the carrier.
-
I wish we had some more of the modern F-16 features like Link-16, missile warning systems and towed decoys, but I’d settle for just having an AWACs datalink like DCS. Its unpleasant fighting SU-35s and J-20’s without modern era upgrades.
-
@ZoneStalker995 said in Santa's wishlist for BMS:
I wish we had some more of the modern F-16 features like Link-16, missile warning systems and towed decoys, but I’d settle for just having an AWACs datalink like DCS. Its unpleasant fighting SU-35s and J-20’s without modern era upgrades.
- You would certainly not be able to use L16 correctly because of its complexity.
- MWS do not work as you think.
- Towed decoys prevent hard manoeuvres.
-
@Dee-Jay said in Santa's wishlist for BMS:
@ZoneStalker995 said in Santa's wishlist for BMS:
I wish we had some more of the modern F-16 features like Link-16, missile warning systems and towed decoys, but I’d settle for just having an AWACs datalink like DCS. Its unpleasant fighting SU-35s and J-20’s without modern era upgrades.
- You would certainly not be able to use L16 correctly because of its complexity.
- MWS do not work as you think.
- Towed decoys prevent hard manoeuvres.
He never explained how works the MAWS.
-
@Dee-Jay Admittedly both MAWS and Towed decoys are better suited for ground threats but the point still stands that we aren’t flying with equivalent era equipment. And while I understand the difficulty and time needed, even a simplified modeling of these systems would objectively make this sim more fun and engaging to play with modern enemy threats.
-
@VDK said in Santa's wishlist for BMS:
A full dinamic campaign on EUROPE Theater 128x128!
That would be Santa and birthday together!!!
-
@ZoneStalker995 said in Santa's wishlist for BMS:
@Dee-Jay Admittedly both MAWS and Towed decoys are better suited for ground threats but the point still stands that we aren’t flying with equivalent era equipment. And while I understand the difficulty and time needed, even a simplified modeling of these systems would objectively make this sim more fun and engaging to play with modern enemy threats.
Already a lot of fun for you guys. Already enough work and pain for Devs with what they provides you. Besides, real performance of MAWS and towed decoys are rather unknown.
-
@ZoneStalker995 said in Santa's wishlist for BMS:
@Dee-Jay Admittedly both MAWS and Towed decoys are better suited for ground threats but the point still stands that we aren’t flying with equivalent era equipment. And while I understand the difficulty and time needed, even a simplified modeling of these systems would objectively make this sim more fun and engaging to play with modern enemy threats.
As long as such very simple things are not modeled as different guidance of the different SAM modes IHMO there are higher priorities.
For ex. the three point guidance of the SAMs are simply not modeled for the SA-8 and SA-19 they are performing leading…
Also it is not modeled for the SA-2/3 in case of jamming
-
@Dee-Jay said in Santa's wishlist for BMS:
@ZoneStalker995 said in Santa's wishlist for BMS:
I wish we had some more of the modern F-16 features like Link-16, missile warning systems and towed decoys, but I’d settle for just having an AWACs datalink like DCS. Its unpleasant fighting SU-35s and J-20’s without modern era upgrades.
- You would certainly not be able to use L16 correctly because of its complexity.
- MWS do not work as you think.
- Towed decoys prevent hard manoeuvres.
Anyone that wants a glimpse into the Link16 setup should watch this, it’s the best explanation I’ve had on it (granted I haven’t really gone looking that much though):
Watch times 46:30-53:00 then especially 57:30-1:03:05In general what @ZoneStalker995 and everyone else that compares DCS/Eagle Dynamics’ design philosophy to BMS needs to understand that @Dee-Jay and the rest of the BMS design team are not going to give you a cool toy without the real pain of the setup and realistic integration of that system. IFF is a great example and was in these wishlist threads for years. When we finally got it even though most of us wanted just a nerfed interrogation capability (like DCS’s IFF method), the full Mode 4 was added was definitely deeper than most people expected, despite @Dee-Jay and others warned us the whole time. Overall though it is a much better implementation IMO than DCS and one of the reasons I only dabble in that sim and always focus on BMS. That’s what they are doing again with those listed systems.
Viper ECM operation right now is one of the rare systems that DCS is modeling more realistically than BMS and is an example of one of the few Falcon 4.0 legacy systems that still exist in a nerfed format. If BMS probably had their way, we would not have a jammer modeled at all and would have waited until there was more information on how the ECM panel actually works and everyone would be on the same jammerless level (and actually what ED did in their Viper and Hornet at first in a rare case of getting their system mostly right before giving an unrealistic capability). My understanding from posts here is ED only beat BMS to the release punch on this and internal BMS builds have the ECM panel finally modeled more realistically.
The other thing I would close with is that as I’ve gotten older I have became more at peace with my sims not having the latest and greatest “toys” of systems. I’m now ok with a decade+ lag now of when it gets into the jets to when it is modeled in a sim. That is at least what it takes for information on a system’s operation and effectiveness to come out to see how to truly implement it. Despite ED saying their Viper is specifically a 2005 Block 50, they already have mission creep away from that time snapshot into systems that they don’t have enough background information nor simulator engine to truly implement correctly. I really trust in the BMS guys to get it right when it’s time, but everyone should accept if you want true realism due to OPSEC, you have to be simming in the past, not right now. If you want right now, you will be only playing games, not completely simming. Playing games is fun too, don’t get me wrong, and I do it too sometimes in DCS.
-
@Snake122 said in Santa's wishlist for BMS:
Viper ECM operation right now is one of the rare systems that DCS is modeling more realistically than BMS and is an example of one of the few Falcon 4.0 legacy systems that still exist in a nerfed format.
Is this based on what?
What I saw last time from DCS presentation an ECM turn on simply broke the lock of the SA-10B which is 100% funny thing…The S-300PS can do such thing that launches a missile to use triangulate the target and even distance can be measured. Thanks to the SAGG guidance because even the missile is acts as a receiver.
What I saw in DCS if you just scratch the surface many times you can find the very funny not real and cheated modeling many of the systems. The terrain following AIM-9 which sees through mountain and such things…
From what I saw DCS just as does not model well the missile leading as the BMS for legacy SAMs.