Hornet Avionics?
-
@Snake122 - because there is simply too much information that is simply not available about the Hornet Series, and won’t be until long after I’m dead…if ever. I have some 500+ hours in the Fleet Trainer, so I’m pretty confident of what’s not possible in our world.
…and MIDS/Link 16 has never been “sunsetted” by he USN.
-
@Stevie Interesting. So have you dabbled with the DCS one at all or I believe your other work baby of their AV-8 module? If so, did it make you so frustrated you turn away from it?
I was saying that in order to do a C model at it’s USN sunset it seems Link16/MIDS is required to model it correctly, not that the system has been sunsetted. Just my limited experience with DCS’s C systems, datalink seems that is very integral to the air to air displays compared to the Viper. I can’t remember when they are modeling the Hornet like the ir Viper being supposedly a 2005 USAF Block 50.
-
I’m not sure I get the purpose of that survey…
What exactly are you trying to achieve?Only someone in BMS team can do it and it is only him that can decide to where he wishes to go…
-
@Snake122 said: “I find your black of faith disturbing”
BLACK FAITHS MATTER
-
@Aragorn Thanks buddy, dang phone typing
-
@Snake122 What about this one…?
Snake122 said: “One of the things DCS beat into mean…”
I honestly thought this was some term of which I was unaware…!
Same as “Black of Faith”. I honestly thought it was a reference which I didn’t get…! Hahaha…!!
-
Good Day, All, and thanks for the replies!
'Gorn- Hi, Buddy. I understand your viewpoint. I understand Xeno’s view on “Frankenplanes”. I respect it. The OFM membership, others who enjoy the Other Jets, and yours truly, just don’t agree with it. Not to ignore the Other Jets in BMS, but just for the sake of convenience, let’s limit our talk to Hornet and Viper. I believe the Frankenjet group view is that the BMS Hornet is “just a Viper in a different skin”. If so , they must believe that strictly because of the avionics. True 'dat, but the BMS Hornets are different. Try hooking a Viper to a carrier catapult , and that’s just the most basic thing. They have different ranges and loadouts and they simply don’t fly the same( at least, not with the OFM flight model ) All that brings a different set of tactics and procedures. In fact, I enjoy hopping in the Lawn Dart ( sorry, couldn’t resist) just because you do have to fly it differently.
Xeno, I don’t see it as “demanding” at all. If Option 1 is what you want, we want to know. As for contributing, who says you can’t? Every talk we’ve had about this concept led to the conclusion that it would be a BIG project. We would need all the help we can get!
Stevie, Don’t be glum, Dude. DCS is doing it right now. I am a admittedly a BMS Guy, so forgive me for saying what DCS can do, BMS can do better!
SoBad, Sorry you feel that way
Max, You ask the purpose of this thread. I thought I had made it very clear. I am curious what the Group thinks about this topic. I am also curious, IF the 4.38 “modularity” turns out to be true and IF that means a third party could change it, would the Group want us to. ? If so, then we have data to collect! We would have to determine if the OFM would want to, and start “marshalling our forces” And, I swear to you I didn’t think of this when I started the thread, but if option one is a big “winner”, maybe that will be a message to those who can change the avionics.
If so, then what they do with that message is up to them. -
@drtbkj I think Max’s implied point, is that they’re refactoring code internally to allow differing avionics behavior/appearance… but that’s not the same as opening up, and documenting, a programmatic interface for third-parties to author plugins.
That would be an order of magnitude harder… as discussed at length in older threads.
So in foreseeable future, if we want hornet avionics, we still have to be real nice to someone on the BMS dev team.
-
@airtex2019 Cool. Thanks, Airtex, good to know. We were wondering. That was why all the “ifs” were there
-
@Snake122 - actually, I’ve been warned to stay away from DCS…I spent some time looking over DCS documentation over the last week or so and now I’m convinced I’m going to stay away from it.
-
@airtex2019 exactly…
The avionics are only possible through code right now and don’t dream of an API system before a very long time.
So that’s why I was wondering what was the intent behind the survey…
If this is an attempt to get into BMS team, that’s not very subtle
Cheers
-
@Stevie seeing the things that bother you about BMS, yes I think DCS would make your head explode. me too probably.
-
There are several ways of doing new planes. One of them is the “soft” way. It uses all avionics (FCC/FCR/SMS/CMS/…) of the F-16 and draws new HUD/MFDs/FCR instead of F-16 ones. This approach requires that we continue using the HOTAS of the F-16, otherwise would be not possible to control the avionics correctly. So callbacks remain, and you can fly these new planes as the F-16. This more like a cosmetic surgery.
Another way, at the other side of the spectrum, is like an open chest surgery. One changes the avionics…FCC, FCR, SMS, CMS, and so on. This requires to change the HOTAS, since the avionics are different. Take an example the F-15C: Selection of wpn priority is done by the weapon select switch and the boat switch. There is no PB on the MFD to choose a different MSL as we have in the F-16 SMS. So, if the HOTAS is not done properly, we cant use the weapons. If one go for the real avionics, real HOTAS with correct callbacks are required and you got learn a totally new plane.
It is very hard to do the middle term, change some part while keping others. For example, FCC and FCR are strongly interconnected and is very hard to reuse only one of them. Other systems are so different between different planes like the SMS (-16) and the PACS (-15) that is hard to implement the pages of the PACS in the SMS structure.
It is natural that all projects will start as “soft” ones but may be eventually evolve to more detailed ones.
-
@MaxWaldorf said in Hornet Avionics?:
@airtex2019 exactly…
If this is an attempt to get into BMS team, that’s not very subtle
Cheers
It was not, as I clearly said.
-
@tiag Hi, and thanks for a very useful post. Given the new understanding that “open heart surgery” avionics is in the hands of the Devs, and what they will or won’t do, the question becomes what can we do?
Your “soft approach” comment reminded me of the one of the first things we talked about in the OFM Journal thread. Perhaps we can call it “pre-soft”. You can make a Hornet-like HOTAS with workable Weapon Select ,Sensor Control,TDC, ATC ,FOV ,uncage and include things like Cursor Enable. In, fact, I fly with one every day And, that’s with the a stick with no separate DMS. Looking at Other Jets, the Av-8 is very close to the Hornet, the F-15E is a possible can-do. I haven’t found a good layout diagram for the Tornado . The point is, it can be done.
Wheelchock has done a Hornet-pit with the correct labels on the switches/buttons/knobs, so the pit(s) themselves can evolve. Your “soft approach”? You have we wondering what we can do if some cockpit builders come into, or back into, the mix. -
@drtbkj - having worked extensively on both platforms, I can say that the AV-8 - even the Radar one - is a complete level of sophistication behind the Hornet Series…but/and still, is a FAR and away better candidate for a deep upgrade within BMS because there is far more information available on it to support doing a very nice model/sim.
-
@Stevie said in Hornet Avionics?:
@drtbkj - having worked extensively on both platforms, I can say that the AV-8 - even the Radar one - is a complete level of sophistication behind the Hornet Series…but/and still, is a FAR and away better candidate for a deep upgrade within BMS because there is far more information available on it to support doing a very nice model/sim.
Hi, Stevie. I was talking about HOTAS.
-
@drtbkj - me too…
-
I would love hornet avionics as the idea of naval operations interests me a great deal. However I am entirely happy with what is currently available and the direction the BMS team is moving.
If I were to throw my absolute wish list plane out there it would be a fully developed mig 21/29. Would make for some very fun TvT events I feel.
-
@fizzy51
+1 Also early Fulcrums/Flankers and obviously older redfor planes have no FLCS, so it’s all about avionics/systems.