BMS F18 A and C upgrade - community involvement
-
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:
-
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.
For the F-16 and all other a/c … the main problem is not avionic coding (which is certainly possible, but will takes years for sure.) … but it is mainly to get real documentations & manuals. For F-18 … IMO it is alright … For A-10, well, at least ther is DCS that we could mimic… and for the others? Especially the latest version of F-16Blk60 … we have nothing.
Rather than explaining it again and again … please, refer to those older discussions:
Block-60
BMS F4 New F-16V Block 60 EvolutionYep, 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.
Especially for that reason. To avoid ppl to be disappointed, they must be pragmatic.
Up to us (the few guys giving few informations here ad there about on going and future projects that we know) … to say : this: maybe … this: well, prepare to enjoy it … this: no, certainly “never” … for technical reason or philosophy reason.Not saying what BMS can or can’t do (we do not really know) but can give you a good idea where BMS is going. Then after that, if you prefer not to have ANY informations, we may go back the the pre-release status where ppl had no informations at all and where everything was only rumors.
If you prefer than … no problem… that will save few of my free time to do something else.
And finaly … if you are upset about my posts … feel free to use the “Add to Ingore list” button that you can find by clicking here.
No hard feelings.
**EDIT: I think it time to switch back on topic. Or … if you want to continue this discussion, please, open another thread … or continue it there.
Back on BMS F-18 topic.**
-
agreed… back on F18 topic !
-
And SevenG will certainly be the future for (hardcore) F-18 Sim … maybe DCS one day (?)
This video has been giving me a hard on each time i watch it, and for month !!!
The wings bending under high G is really adding to the dynamic flying sensation ! I hope we can see that in all future sims !
I have high hopes for 7G
-
Nice feature. I do agree. NVG’s rendering & basket AAR as well.
-
-
Dee-Jay,
A lot of the flight manuals for relevant or interesting fighters are fairly easy to find over the net. The lacking documentation with regard to TO’s are the myriad -1 documents. I had a thread not too long ago, actually pertaining to the A-10A, where I was asking about the weapons system operation and the RWR. I’m sure there’s something about that in a shady corner of the net, but it wasn’t anything I was willing to go to those depths to get. I assume that’s the stuff you’re referring to in that department.
…On the other hand, barring all except the RWR, it would be very easy to simulate the weapons system of the A-10A. Stations are armed by pushing light-up push buttons, nothing shoots unless the master arm switch is flipped to active, and the release mode is changed by turning a knob. You basically would not need a manual to replicate it, or even teach someone how to operate it.
In fact, a lot of your aircraft before the time of the A-10 work in exactly the same way with their armament control panels - early F-5’s, first-gen Harriers, and countless other fighters. If you are to ever “open the layers” of the avionics code, you can then depart from the MFD interface for working the weapons and then just use switchboards. I must admit that if seconds count, MFDs, pre-programmed before the attack must be better, but switchboards are SO much easier to use.
As per the Hornet and maybe even the AV-8B+, well, yeah, a lot of that information is quite well documented for the public as well. And, because those fighters use much of the same hardware in their cockpits (the MFDs, for instance), “cheating” and using F-16 avionics in not likely to offend anyone too seriously… which pretty much echos what Toonces already said.
-
As I said … A-10 and F-18 should not be a problem. F-16Blk60 … forget.
-
Not to offense you TCKnight
No problem, my friend…I agree with you
-
As I said … A-10 and F-18 should not be a problem. F-16Blk60 … forget.
Why are you saying that?
Is it because the AESA radar? If yes, than I think it should be feasible to have an AESA radar in Falcon (or in any other modern combat flight sim that models a radar) - Basically the only difference between a “conventional” radar and an AESA radar is that the former has a mechanically moving antenna while the later doesn’t. In practical terms this means that an AESA radar scans an area almost instantaneously while in a “conventional” radar the antenna must move in order to scan that same area which means that the AESA radar is much, much faster while scanning an area.
How can this (and AESA radar) be modeled in Falcon? “Easy”: Increase the radar’s “scan speed” very, very much so that for the player the radar seems to scan the area almost instantaneously just like an AESA radar would do. One just need to find where to increase the radar’s scan speed within the game (Falcon). -
Why are you saying that?
Is it because the AESA radar? If yes, than I think it should be feasible to have an AESA radar in Falcon (or in any other modern combat flight sim that models a radar) - Basically the only difference between a “conventional” radar and an AESA radar is that the former has a mechanically moving antenna while the later doesn’t. In practical terms this means that an AESA radar scans an area almost instantaneously while in a “conventional” radar the antenna must move in order to scan that same area which means that the AESA radar is much, much faster while scanning an area.
How can this (and AESA radar) be modeled in Falcon? “Easy”: Increase the radar’s “scan speed” very, very much so that for the player the radar seems to scan the area almost instantaneously just like an AESA radar would do. One just need to find where to increase the radar’s scan speed within the game (Falcon).I thought the array was made up of a load of TR modules that could act independently or together - so you can do ground mapping and other modes at the same time etc.
Would hazard a guess that the UAE dont put their manuals on the internet as readily
-
Basically the only difference between a “conventional” radar and an AESA radar is that the former has a mechanically moving antenna while the later doesn’t.
Basically the only common stuff are less than 3%…
-
Why are you saying that?
Is it because the AESA radar?No … because of everything.
Please read again this post and go to linked threads … https://www.benchmarksims.org/forum/showthread.php?7248-BMS-F18-A-and-C-upgrade-community-involvement&p=209123&viewfull=1#post209123
-
I thought the array was made up of a load of TR modules that could act independently or together - so you can do ground mapping and other modes at the same time etc.
Would hazard a guess that the UAE dont put their manuals on the internet as readily
Yes, in terms of hardware with AESA antenna (array) is indeed made up of a load of TR modules which can be programmed to act independently (or together) -> But what you get in terms of software (what the pilot sees and interfaces with) is:
1- The ability to almost instantaneous scan the space ahead, since there’s no moving parts (no moving antenna) and the several TR modules can send signals for the different angles at the same time towards the space in need to be scanned.
2- The AESA radar can also scan in Air-to-Air modes and Air-to-Ground modes at the same time since like you said, the TR modules can be programmed individually to perform several different functions.But in the end the AESA is still a radar and as such it works and shows the pilot the exact same stuff as a normal radar does! The difference is that an AESA is more capable and scans much faster than a “conventional” radar.
Take for example the difference between the APG-73 found on the F/A-18C and the APG-79 AESA found on the Super Hornet (afterall this thread is about the Hornet, right?), in terms what the pilot sees (the radar “scope” or the radar “interface”) the differences are almost none, the APG-79 AESA even has the same B-sweep bar found on the previous APG-73 - The differences between the APG-73 and APG-79 are in terms of capabilities (for example: the APG-79 AESA scans, much much faster).