BMS F18 A and C upgrade - community involvement
-
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). -
Basically the only common stuff are less than 3%…
Only if you consider the antenna to be 97% of an entire radar system!!
But no, that’s not correct. Basically the difference between a “conventional” radar and an AESA radar is the antenna itself and of course the AESA also has some added capabilities only possible due to its antenna array.
For example the APG-79 AESA is based on the APG-73 but with an AESA antenna array.
Or also for example, the difference between APG-63(V)2 and APG-63(V)3 and the APG-63(V)1 is the APG-63(V)2 and APG-63(V)3 are AESA radars while the APG-63(V)1 is a “conventional” radar but otherwise the same radar (APG-63). -
Talking for the Viper, the only common stuff between the old APG-68 radar vs the new AESA APG-80 of Block 60 or the even newer RACR and SABR AESA’s, are approx 3%, and that is for common screw adapters, elec buses and minor stuff like that. Everything is changed, would be a huge post to mention most.
-
Talking for the Viper, the only common stuff between the old APG-68 radar vs the new AESA APG-80 of Block 60 or the even newer RACR and SABR AESA’s, are approx 3%, and that is for common screw adapters, elec buses and minor stuff like that. Everything is changed, would be a huge post to mention most.
Well, you have to remember that the Block 60 is a specialized F-16 version made specially for the United Arab Emirates and since the Block 60 was never intended to enter in service within the USAF so therefore there’s no need for the Block 60 to have any commonality with former Blocks (such as the Block 52) and due to this and the fact that the Block 60 is made specially for the United Arab Emirates, many avionics are in fact new in the Block 60 compared to older F-16 Blocks and it’s not only the radar that’s completely new, for example the Block 60 cockpit has 3 LCD MFD displays while older Blocks only have 2 CRT MFD displays.
-
Well, you have to remember that the Block 60 is a specialized F-16 version made specially for the United Arab Emirates and since the Block 60 was never intended to enter in service within the USAF so therefore there’s no need for the Block 60 to have any commonality with former Blocks (such as the Block 52) and due to this and the fact that the Block 60 is made specially for the United Arab Emirates, many avionics are in fact new in the Block 60 compared to older F-16 Blocks and it’s not only the radar that’s completely new, for example the Block 60 cockpit has 3 LCD MFD displays while older Blocks only have 2 CRT MFD displays.
I think he knows that already lol no offense
-
What?? 3 screens?? NO WAYY!!! :eek:
-
What?? 3 screens?? NO WAYY!!! :eek:
Might as well give it two vertical stabilizers and make it into a Navy fighter/bomber……oh…wait!
-
I think he knows that already lol no offense
My point wasn’t to “preach to the choir” but instead it was to make a point why the F-16 Block 60 AESA radar is completely different to the conventional antenna radar found on older blocks while this doesn’t happen with many other aircraft, namely the F-15 and F/A-18 where their AESA radars are very, very similar to their predecessors, the conventional antenna radars of older versions (the difference being the AESA antenna and the better performance that it brings).
Anyway, my point was that in terms of programming is “easy” to model an AESA radar, one just has to find where to make a radar scan in a much, much faster rate than an already modeled radar.
BTW, no offense taken…
-
Might as well give it two vertical stabilizers and make it into a Navy fighter/bomber……oh…wait!
LoL
-
My point wasn’t to “preach to the choir” but instead it was to make a point why the F-16 Block 60 AESA radar is completely different to the conventional antenna radar found on older blocks while this doesn’t happen with many other aircraft, namely the F-15 and F/A-18 where their AESA radars are very, very similar to their predecessors, the conventional antenna radars of older versions (the difference being the AESA antenna and the better performance that it brings).
Anyway, my point was that in terms of programming is “easy” to model an AESA radar, one just has to find where to make a radar scan in a much, much faster rate than an already modeled radar.
BTW, no offense taken…
I still think that it is an oversimplification of modelling, and to my mind, runs counter to all the points that BMS made publicly about using accurate database figures and making the code work.
besides, the radar avionics would need to be detailed too, so you’ll still need a -34-1 for the block 60 before you can model it correctly.