BMS F18 A and C upgrade - community involvement
-
It would be overkill, but BMS F/A-18C would be just pretty fantastic! And next BMS A-10A please…;)
I wonder if “modularity” idea could break the limitations of simulating one avionics per game instance, even if the ‘new’ AC wouldn’t be as polished as F-16 already is.
Even if it was tried, we’re lightyears away from anything like BMS F/A-18 and like DeeJay said it would still be veeery far from the real thing due to FM and avionics. If you want a solid F/A-18 sim, Jane’s put that up in '99
This is of course my personal POV supported by years in Free Falcon which was certainly ahead concerning models, pits and skins but still had close to no implementation in avionics for anything other than the Viper. You’re always gonna have a derivative version of the F-16 concerning avionics short of recreating the entire avionics suite…
Anyone please correct me if I’m wrong…
Given the state of the flight sim landscape/industry I’m immensely grateful to have something like BMS F4 because it still at its core has the best (some say only) working dynamic real time campaign in any sim ever and F4 is to date the overall best flightsim ever.
Just my 2 cents…
PS: I do care for the bug afterall
-
–-- sorry for my bad grammar —
this is my personal point of view…
BMS It’s an hardcore F-16 flight sim, period… but “Falcon” remain a virtual world.
The impressive effort to simulate all the aspects of the F16 (even the more little things) It’s huge, nothing can change that… and all the rest It’s secondary… AC models, skins, cockpits, terrain texture, flight model, theater… etc …
Years of top quality mods have permitted to increase that level of secondary details, but the realism of “F16” remain at the top… so…
Should like to tell that nothing but the F16 is important in this virtual world ? … Or (in a different way) … “all the Falcon world” must reach - soon or later – the same level of “realism” ?
IMHO the time It’s arrived that the gap between the F16 and “all the rest of the sim” must be reduced.
This is not for criticism… this is for talk about Falcon future (not sure about mine after this post)
-
If you want a solid F/A-18 sim, Jane’s put that up in '99
And SevenG will certainly be the future for (hardcore) F-18 Sim … maybe DCS one day (?)
-
Jesus man, what is that??? Awesomeness!
Music choice: A+
-
–-- sorry for my bad grammar —
this is my personal point of view…
BMS It’s an hardcore F-16 flight sim, period… but “Falcon” remain a virtual world.
The impressive effort to simulate all the aspects of the F16 (even the more little things) It’s huge, nothing can change that… and all the rest It’s secondary… AC models, skins, cockpits, terrain texture, flight model, theater… etc …
Years of top quality mods have permitted to increase that level of secondary details, but the realism of “F16” remain at the top… so…
Should like to tell that nothing but the F16 is important in this virtual world ? … Or (in a different way) … “all the Falcon world” must reach - soon or later – the same level of “realism” ?
IMHO the time It’s arrived that the gap between the F16 and “all the rest of the sim” must be reduced.
This is not for criticism… this is for talk about Falcon future (not sure about mine after this post)
I concur Qawa … “problem” is that many t(important or even critical) things are still in a VERY unfinished to non-implemented status… AWACS, ATC, RADIO, AI effectiveness, IFF, L16, … and I don not talk about database refinements/revamp.
-
Given the state of the flight sim landscape/industry I’m immensely grateful to have something like BMS F4 because it still at its core has the best (some say only) working dynamic real time campaign in any sim ever and F4 is to date the overall best flightsim ever.
Any ideas as to why no one else has developed a dynamic real time campaign engine on par with F4?
-
probably wasn’t needed anymore / usaf had their own software guys to do modern ones for themselves afterall the dc of falcon is based on a rather obsolete (even then) usaf concept of waging war, can’t recall the exact name but it was echelon something iirc… it’s written vnam all over it, imho at least.
-
I agree that there are things that still need to be fleshed out in the Falcon world. On the other hand, I’ve been flying the same campaigns in the same Korea for more than 10 years now, and I’ve adapted to whatever limitations there are in ATC, AWACS, etc.
I wrote an article that should be published soon, and one of the interesting parts is the use of existing military simulators to “simulate” different types of OPFOR jets. A great example was a study I referenced from the late 70s or early 80s where one F-4 Phantom cockpit would be flown as an OPFOR jet for the other F-4; the OPFOR F-4 looked like a MiG-21 to the BLUEFOR Phantom, but was essentially an F-4 with an adapted MiG-21 flight model.
This is, exactly, the same thing we are doing putting a Hornet into BMS Falcon.
If it’s good enough for the pros, I don’t see why it shouldn’t be good enough for us.
-
Any ideas as to why no one else has developed a dynamic real time campaign engine on par with F4?
They have. But it is not something you or we will see on our desktops anytime soon. In fact some of the original Falcon4 developer’s\producer’s now work for the US DOD. Go figure.
On the other hand Falcon\BMS, since it’s release, has given us a fresh lease on the VUv2 engine that drives the Dynamic Campain’s in Falcon.
We only need to go as far as flying some of the Multi Player offering’s out there, to see the progress that has been made.demer
-
Personally I don’t.
Result could be a bunch of unfinished things a different polish level … and no other or very reduced innovations concerning the Viper. (Many thing remains on the list … IRS drift, improved HTS, TGP, FLIR, AIFF, L16, AVTR, new weapons & systems … etc … )This result already exists… it is called DCS… some planes to fly but not ven one product of the line you can call finished… even A-10 is still in work and Buggy… the promised Nevada-Map not included…
So staying at 1 Jet in BMS for me is the best desicion.
-
This result already exists… it is called DCS… some planes to fly but not ven one product of the line you can call finished… even A-10 is still in work and Buggy… the promised Nevada-Map not included…
So staying at 1 Jet in BMS for me is the best desicion.
+1
Better to stay just on plane and make it right.
-
Still OFF TOPIC sorry … If I have Admin Privilege, I would have been opened another thread and merged the last posts.
Hi Toonces!
This is, exactly, the same thing we are doing putting a Hornet into BMS Falcon.
If it’s good enough for the pros, I don’t see why it shouldn’t be good enough for us.
This is exactly why I’m not in favor of multiple flyable a/c in BMS … https://www.benchmarksims.org/forum/showthread.php?14653-Bug-since-Update-5&p=208913&viewfull=1#post208913 Imagine that with having >10 different a/c !.. (Not to offense you KCKnight … thank you for your report. I’m just taking the example to show how it could be time consuming for DEV to have more and more semi-“implemented” a/c …;) )
EDIT: Not a criticism against the F-18 … I like Bonedust and co. team!!! But Just saying … not to have each single a/c … We already have M2000, A-10 & F-4 (partially) … maybe in the future F-14, F-18, AV8 … I would say stop … unless it will need to hire DEV to take care about those models!
-
-
This post is deleted! -
Carrier ops are highly anticipated, no other developer has come out with such sim since Jane’s fa18. Just look at the fighter wishlist pool at ED. 75% voted for carrier-based fighter. It’s great that BMS will include one in the next version.
-
you give me a pain Deejay
As I said Qawa … It is my personal POV … and … It does not mean that I do not appreciate your and Bonedust & Co. 's work!
Whatever the BMS decision is, I’m with you and will support BMS as much as I can.
-
As I said Qawa … It is my personal POV … and … It does not mean that I do not appreciate your and Bonedust & Co. 's work!
Whatever the BMS decision is, I’m with you and will support BMS as much as I can.
Yep, and with all due respect, I think everyone on these forums and the falcon world knows your position. I haven’t even been around that long here in the BMS forums and have figured it out. What doesn’t stop amazing me is your instinctive need to post it at every chance you get ;). Seriously, we get it. But unlike you, a lot of us are looking forward to it, but we don’t take every chance we get to rub your nose in it either. No hard feelings.
-
As I said Qawa … It is my personal POV …
I know DeJay… I can only imagine a real F16… here there are ex-pilot (or on duty) and I can’t imagine how they feel a PC simulation (probably a functionalities training)
but all the other things that I imagine in a sim, they live !!! respect !
No hard feelings.
absooolutely not, we are a good community
-
Just a question…
Falcon 4.0 originally supported 3 F-16 variants, did it not? I think they were all F-16C models, so the differences were not anything as vast as say, a pre-INS A-10A and the Viper, but those differences were there.
I do not think it impossible that, at some point down the road, someone will be able to tap into the general mechanics of how the avionics work, and then they will be able to write specific functions for systems of the aircraft in question. In fact, most of the major general flight sims work like this (X-Plane, MSFS, Flight Gear), and those programs get better and better at modeling a wide range of systems used on a massive number of dissimilar aircraft. This is possible due to the fact that most aircraft all have similar systems, but they work differently; therefore, from a small number of types of systems used on aircraft, a huge number of those systems can be replicated.
So… computer software that replicates hardware and software (flight sims in general) kind of act like the real things themselves from the user’s perspective. When you operate an MFD to manage the weapons system, those user inputs affect harware which manipulates software and then manipulates hardware again! It’s a layered system, and a software program is no different. Once the coders figure out how to open those layers up, you should be able to simulate the earliest F-16s, if you think the sim should be for the Viper alone, or simulate the Harrier or the good 'ole A-10A, with or without the INS.
And if that happens, poor Qawa has hopefully stashed a set of cockpits away that have the right number and configuration of switches and softkeys on the panels and consoles.
-
:lol: