BMS F18 A and C upgrade - community involvement
-
No probs positively offering to a conversation m8
But,
It seems that you are putting all your money to the HARDWARE -part of the AESA radar, which is somewhat wrong. The big difference is actually the SOFTWARE -part, not only for the radar’s computer itself, but to the overall ability to receive data from other sources, internal and external, and provide them fused to the human in front of the screens. So, as per your sentence, “programming” of this system to BMS is referring to the -software part simulation, which although not difficult for an experienced coder with deeper Falcon/BMS code knowledge to implement, it is impossible due to luck of exact documentation. If you find and check the 2-3 available videos from the F-16IN real simulator (which is almost identical to the E/F Block 60 version) you’ll see yourself too that nothing is similar in man-machine interface and displays symbology comparing with the older standard F-16 birds.
There have been small parts of F-22-1 leaked out there, but you can’t find anything on the Block 60…
Again don’t get me wrong but it seems that you are forgetting that an AESA radar in the end it still a radar! Yes, the AESA radar have some extra capabilities compared to “conventional-antenna” radars such as for example the capability to sending the signals emitted by an ECM gear/equipment, allowing it to jam a particular target/threat.
Nevertheless, don’t forget that “ability to receive data from other sources, internal and external, and provide them fused to the human in front of the screens” has nothing to do with the radar being AESA or not! Data is received from other sources by datalink (such a Link-16) which transmits (or receives) the information that one aircraft is receiving (from it’s onboard sensors) to other platforms (or vice-versa), for example you have this in Falcon BMS which models the F-16 Block 50/52 (equipped with a “conventional-antenna” radar) and in many aircraft the data is usually either displayed on the radar scope (even on “conventional-antenna” radar scopes) or in dedicated Situational Awareness pages/displays (such technology was already present for example during the 70’s in the F-14 despite being more primitive technology than what we have now).However, I do agree with you that not having an idea what is the symbology of a radar (such as the F-16 Block60 radar) makes it very hard (if not impossible) to model that same radar realistically.
Actually when I posted my idea of making an AESA radar by increasing “dramatically” an existing radar scan speed, I was thinking about the APG-79 AESA (and of course a future F/A-18E/F Super Hornet), afterall this is a thread about the F/A-18 (albeit not the Super Hornet) - If and in case it’s possible to make an APG-73 with realistic symbology than making an APG-79 AESA would also be possible (realistically) since the APG-79 AESA has basically the same symbology as the APG-73.
-
Well, like it or not all and every PC flight sim will always have “oversimplifications” no matter how realistic they claim or aim to be! For example, just look at the AWACS Declare function/call, is there anything more “oversimplificated” than that? I won’t say no but the fact is that the AWACS Declare in Falcon BMS is an oversimplification! Besides, lets look into the IFF interrogator (or the lack of it) in Falcon BMS - Isn’t it more realistic to have a simplificated or “oversimplificated” IFF interrogator than none?? IMO yes, there’s no margin of a doubt that having a simplified IFF interrogator is much more realistic than not having anything at all (regarding IFF interrogator) since and because the real aircraft does have an IFF interrogator and not having an IFF interrogator in the sim is ultimately Unrealistic not matter what someone may say.
So and resuming:
1- All and every PC flight sim will always have oversimplifications (no matter what realism they claim to have).
2- It’s better and more realistic model a system even if it’s modeled in a simplificated way than not having it at all.well first lets look at your example. not all F-16s carry an AIFF interrogator. tell me which tail number F-16 is simulated in BMS, and we can determine whether it should have that capability IRL.
now lets look at your point. every PC sim will have simplifications, yes. the processing power of the universe has been roughly determined - and obviously we cannot match it with a computer system. even for a limited finite state simulation, we will have to limit it in certain areas to prevent excessive run time or memory usage (and given that we want results in REAL TIME, those limits are noticeable).
now, you have taken simplification and oversimplification to mean the same thing, and whilst you can take it as such, you are missing my point by doing so, either willfully or negligently. so lets hypothesise:
1- Any PC flight sim not using the universe as its processor will always have simplifications - even if it uses navier stokes equations with real aircraft data and a server consisting of 10 cray computer systems, there will be a limit to the system somewhere.
2- this point was kind of obvious, I mean if your simulation cannot model the weak nuclear force, you dont just ignore it. If it is supposed to be there, it should - although if it is included, wrongly, then that should at the least be mentioned.I would love to see IFF featured in BMS. I mean, we have missile systems using incorrect avionics in 4.32, why not have IFF even if it is wrong? Id also note that Id prefer other incomplete things fixed or improved first.
so backing away from IFF, which was clearly not the point of your argument, we have simplification - take for instance newton’s law of gravity compared with einstein’s theory of special relativity. one is significantly more complex, and more accurate. one is simpler, and is used far more often because of that. it is not an oversimplification however. an example of an oversimplification might be having a flat plane which all objects are attracted to equally. depending on the purpose of your simulation, that might be sufficient - although clearly it was not for BMS.
BMS could model an AESA radar by making the scan and refresh rate higher - but that is not the key difference between a conventional radar and an AESA one. as it would require avionics changes regardless, it might as well be done properly.
but its nice to hear an alternate point of view anyway
-
Useless to wonder if is possible or not to model ti into BMS … There will be no AESA radar as long we do not have manufacturer resources or RL manuals.
This is the 1st initial requirements before thinking about implement it. -
Isn’t it more realistic to have a simplificated or “oversimplificated” IFF interrogator than none??
Depends if it make the simulation more or less realistic concerning identification process & criteria.
So maybe … maybe not … the point is that it will require a lot of effort and time to implement it anyway … whatever is made, “oversimplificated” or not.
So … (IMHO) coders do not want to spend a lot of time (with all possible issues concerning solo and MP stability) to implement an approximated/oversimplificated IFF like in FreeFalcon e.g. … but honestly … I do not really know how to do it better since IFF efficiency is directly linked to how pilots will use it and is theatre’s SPINS dependent… Talking AI wise … it is very complicated to determine how AI should use their IFF and witch mode etc … I do not see the point to model it if it is only for MP (human) use (?). -
I don’t really see the point of a transponder in BMS, i mean for MP maybe, but the single player can’t really benefit from it’s use, ATC does not use it, Ai flyers well … how many people in Virtual squad do actually have SPINS and ROE in their TE’s or modded campaign’s ? Is it worth dev’s effort?
-
I don’t really see the point of a transponder in BMS, i mean for MP maybe, but the single player can’t really benefit from it’s use, ATC does not use it, Ai flyers well … how many people in Virtual squad do actually have SPINS and ROE in their TE’s or modded campaign’s ? Is it worth dev’s effort?
I do not agree Spooky. IFF could be a nice and useful feature …. but must be implemented as correctly as possible and would be actually most useful for MP (AI call “Buddy Spike” … human sometimes won’t … or too late. )
-
Yes i see what you mean Dee-Jay, i was just wondering how many virtual squads out there really will have the use of it, i was just looking at it from the Devs side if it is worth their time ? i guess my argument is a bit invalid since they don’t really develop something for the mass.
Would save some time for sure
-
Yes i see what you mean Dee-Jay, i was just wondering how many virtual squads out there really will have the use of it, i was just looking at it from the Devs side if it is worth their time ? i guess my argument is a bit invalid since they don’t really develop something for the mass.
Would save some time for sure
Well … we already have some features in future version that (IMHO) many PPL won’t use in MP.
-
I think so too
-
so uh… is there any downloadable and flyable F/A-18 mod for BMS now? anything? I can’t believe if nothing has been done since this thread opened in late 2011?!
-
so uh… is there any downloadable and flyable F/A-18 mod for BMS now? anything? I can’t believe if nothing has been done since this thread opened in late 2011?!
Don’t expect any separate release. I think it will be in the release of BMS 4.33
Greetings
-
so uh… is there any downloadable and flyable F/A-18 mod for BMS now? anything? I can’t believe if nothing has been done since this thread opened in late 2011?!
Not yet uh… you will certainly have to wait few more years …
-
@NIL:
Don’t expect any separate release. I think it will be in the release of BMS 4.33
Greetings
oh really? is that official? what to expect from it then? thing like a new flight model or what?
-
Reading between the lines, ^ this.
I think 4.33 is going to be a game-changer update with a host of new flyable aircraft with cockpits (and who knows what else), and other features these guys have been working on. I don’t have anything official to back that up, but having followed enough threads and seen some of the WiP that folks are doing but not releasing, it seems that many new goodies are being withheld for the big new release.
I am also pretty impatient to fly the new Hornet. It helps to have other hobbies, I’ve found.
-
that’s great, all hornet fans should rejoice as there are now expected 3 hornet pc simulators in the near future and a super hornet one; if you know what I mean.
-
that’s great, all hornet fans should rejoice as there are now expected 3 hornet pc simulators in the near future and a super hornet one; if you know what I mean.
“the other ones” won’t come in the near future, but if 7G and BMS come out in 2013, we can all be very happy.
-
I was aware of 7G, and BMS hornet addition. Whats the others? The FSX addon.
-
-
DCS hornet.
DCS? Weren’t the working on a F-14A defender of the fleet or something? Or do they have multiple projects?
-
DCS? Weren’t the working on a F-14A defender of the fleet or something? Or do they have multiple projects?
Eagle Dynamics themselves are developing the f-18. the f-14a project was being done by IRIS, but they have removed the entire development forum for that. So i don’t know if the project is stopped, or other reason.
There are multiple 3rd party projects being done, will have to see how many of them actually get completed.