Santa's wishlist for BMS
-
@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.
-
I wish . . . that the CANOPY JETTISON will be functional on the next updates/versions.
On my last mission i did a flameout landing, landing gears collapsed, i was too slow and driftted to the side of the runway.
Couldn’t open the canopy and wished i could use the CANOPY JETTISON . . . -
@molnibalage switchology and operation of the F-16 ECM panel only. The rest of DCS’s jammer modeling, like most of the stuff under the hood, is simplified.
-
@Mack_F4 said in Santa's wishlist for BMS:
Request return of the old style HSI option.
The old style HSI is on older blocks
-
Please listen me too here now, Gentlemen.
After having read all these - interesting! Fine? - posts of yours above, why did I started to think that poor Santa would be better to give me a top performing computer this year instead?
With best regards.
-
So, more seriously now.
Would it be more complex, for the devs., adding or allowing in the Mission Editor the faculty of adding/changing a name to any waypoint each?
That only “TGT” one, assigned to its own waypoint, is really disappointing since 20 years of development.
This apart from the consideration that having a 2D map still nowadays is… terrible! And making our “competitors” (who? when? where?) making great larfs at usBut I am almost sure that we will get all of these above in Falcon 4.3(…).
So, Merry Christmas in advance to all of us, Gentlemen!With best regards.
-
@Jackal said in Santa's wishlist for BMS:
So, more seriously now.
Would it be more complex, for the devs., adding or allowing in the Mission Editor the faculty of adding/changing a name to any waypoint each?
That only “TGT” one, assigned to its own waypoint, is really disappointing since 20 years of development.
This apart from the consideration that having a 2D map still nowadays is… terrible! And making our “competitors” (who? when? where?) making great larfs at usBut I am almost sure that we will get all of these above in Falcon 4.3(…).
So, Merry Christmas in advance to all of us, Gentlemen!With best regards.
Very seriously, we arestill using real charts/maps nowadays that are 2D (not practical to draw a 3d paper map with a pencil). What is nice with that method is that it doesn’t require electric power.
About WTP name, it is rather a matter of UI, and as you should know as an old Falcon guy, UI need total rework. Any modification is true nightmare and have large impacts.
DCS user can laugh no prob (laughing is good for health).
As long as DCS AIs are not able to properly recover and land on an airbase without stupidly orbiting on runway axis and colliding … etc … , I prefer by far BMS UI than DCS AIs. -
Thanks a lot for your kind attention and quick reply to this mine, dear friend (how you, BTW?).
I agree on all yours, and this told not because “this had to be so because it’s him stating that”, but because you are far experienced in real life and are one of the Seniors. Or before being that, as I prefer to believe about.
So you are one of those can tell and testify to anyone how Falcon is and works, and how many efforts you and all the other devs. spent in making, and improving, our simulator as good as it is nowadays, not to mention how much better it will be since the near future.
I still owe you that, and this is my chance to thanks you for all you did and you are still doing, in spite of all real life is bringing and asking from you (as well as it is for all of other us, I guess).About using maps in real life… I too (in a different kind of job, of course) am using the same ones as you are, truth to be told.
But the same… oh, that one was only a Christmas wish, after all.
I never had the willing to impose anything to anyone (here at least… ), please you and all believe me on that.And about that DCS… what is it, by the way?
With best regards and have a nice day, mate.
-
@Jackal said: And making our “competitors” making great larfs at us…
Dude…!
You know when the jealous kids in the playground laugh, you can pity them for that which they do not have, yet so sadly seek.
-
I would like to see animated ramp crew….
-
@Snake122 said in Santa's wishlist for BMS:
@molnibalage switchology and operation of the F-16 ECM panel only. The rest of DCS’s jammer modeling, like most of the stuff under the hood, is simplified.
Switchology isnt right either, they just guessed
-
@OPPOTATO said in Santa's wishlist for BMS:
@Snake122 said in Santa's wishlist for BMS:
@molnibalage switchology and operation of the F-16 ECM panel only. The rest of DCS’s jammer modeling, like most of the stuff under the hood, is simplified.
Switchology isnt right either, they just guessed
I can believe that too, I’d assume that’s part of the reason BMS didn’t attempt it before as a well since there is a lack unclassified documentation on it.
-
Request to change EF-2000 RWR symbol from ‘E’ to ‘EF’ as per RL (for ALR-93 at least) when possible.
Implementation of jamming and dispense chevrons for RWR threats. -
set g_npercentage_available_aircraft 100 // Determines what proportion of your squadron's roster will be available (in %)
Same setting for general fragging (including AI ATO), to throttle the intensity of aircrafts use in a campaign.
-
Please add DLINK to the HAF Block 50 aircrafts… Thank you!
-
…
And what about adding AMI (Italian Air Force) Eurofighters/Typhoons/EFAs to the database?
We too have ours, you know. As Spanish Airforce do, by the way.With best regards.