Iff you could have one thing in the next update it would be. (Archive)
-
This one is a good idea. I will do a feature request for that stuff in BMS dev Forum.
AF had a similar feature:
-
AF had a similar feature:
Yep … but in AF it was only in live management via comm’s menu.
What we are thinking (at least, it is what I am thinking) is to assign at mission planning on DMPI per wingman. Or (if possible) two DMPI : One primary and one secondary (in case of GBUs dropped in two passes, or by using JDAM.
But assigning in live via comm’s menu would be also valuable, especially for CAS type mission.
-
Yep … but in AF it was only in live management via comm’s menu.
What we are thinking (at least, it is what I am thinking) is to assign at mission planning on DMPI per wingman. Or (if possible) two DMPI : One primary and one secondary (in case of GBUs dropped in two passes, or by using JDAM.
But assigning in live via comm’s menu would be also valuable, especially for CAS type mission.
Yep doing it during mission planning would be ideal, esp. when dealing with multiple flights
-
Yep doing it during mission planning would be ideal, esp. when dealing with multiple flights
Exactly … that is the point.
-
seeing that the dollar is worth chuff all dee-jay that seems reasonable:p
-
Found 1 Thing I miss since Allied Force… My Awacs does not call “Aircraft Launch activity….” since BMS in campaigns Everythign else works fine, but this call I never have heared since I fly BMS…
-
Found 1 Thing I miss since Allied Force… My Awacs does not call “Aircraft Launch activity….” since BMS in campaigns Everythign else works fine, but this call I never have heared since I fly BMS…
fly with a human AWACS more often and it should start working
-
It work if the awacs is inside your package.
-
Things on my wish-list:
AWACS:
- Pro-active: As soon as a bogey/hostile fighter comes nearby, there should be a call from AWACS informing you about that aircraft. As humans aren’t perfect and can be occupied with other things, however, this human behaviour should be simulated by making the range semi-variable and there being a slight chance you don’t get the pro-active approach. E.g. 70% chance that AWACS reports automatically between 30-45NM, 10% chance between 20-30NM, 10% between 10-20NM and 10% that he doesn’t tell you anything at all. That way, you have an AWACS that is actually useful, but not to such extent that you can just relax and enjoy the ride until you get the wake-up call.
- Prioritization: If there’s an IL-76 to my right at 20NM, and a MiG-29S to my left at 30NM, I’m obviously more interested in the latter, yet AWACS will only report nearest aircraft and guide me towards the IL-76.
- Information: If an aircraft has been identified as a certain aircraft type, it should always be shared, not just on a Declare request.
- Speed: Maybe increase the speed of comms a bit. Makes it sound more real, and perhaps less chance of stepped-on comms.
- “Say Again”: Pretty straight forward, I think, that a “Say Again”-call in the Comms-menu might be useful, especially if comm speed were to be increased.
- Human AWACS: Better integration of F4AWACS or another ATC client would also be useful, as I’d love to act as AWACS for our squadron once in a while.
Steerpoint lines:
- Especially in more complex missions with FLOT, several CAPs, AAR areas, corridors etc., 4 steerpoint lines isn’t enough, so I’d appreciate to have more, e.g. as seen in . ( 4:08 and 5:08 )
Eye candy:
- Weather: Just look at the cloud surfing in that video…
- Models: Different, distinguishable ground models, so that a Soviet and US tank no longer look the same, opening up the possibility of Danger Close-environments with sorting, actual ID’ing etc.
Mission Building:
- Triggers: Actual scramble flights to intercept your aircraft would be the main purpose here, but there might be others that require a chance factor or a conditional factor. (e.g. fly above X ft for Y seconds = Z % chance of intercept aircraft launched)
AI:
- Defensive behaviour: Some aircraft, especially bombers, will go extremely defensive at the first signs of a possible threat. Possibility of locking them to their route until they’re actually/nearly under attack might help a lot in getting mission success faster…
- Fluent movement: Instead of banking like a fighter jet when turning, or immediately dropping like a stone when descending, especially large aircraft should make gentler moves.
-
IFF
-
@ventura not going to happen(not soon at least…) search forum for reason or read the thread from the start. it has been discused over 100 times…
-
Although I’ve generally supported the view that BMS is and should be focused entirely on the modelling of the F-16 flight model and systems, it would be cool if there was a adversary aircraft with the same level of detail modelled for multiplayer. Think Apache/Havoc - I’d vote for the Mig-29 being the closest match for the F-16.
-
Although I’ve generally supported the view that BMS is and should be focused entirely on the modelling of the F-16 flight model and systems, it would be cool if there was a adversary aircraft with the same level of detail modelled for multiplayer. Think Apache/Havoc - I’d vote for the Mig-29 being the closest match for the F-16.
yeah… having some other aircraft with up to date capabilities. BMS basically gives you an early 2000’s level F-16 and says the 1970’s Migs and Su’s are that way…
-
Iff you could have one thing in the next update it would be.
1) Memory based Anti-cheat protection and validation - PERIODICALLY (Flight Model Data validated in memory not over file-comparsion methods only)
2) Extended telemetry data in ACMI replays:
- Pitch attitute in degrees (virtual pitchladder)
- G-forces in Gs
- Speed in different units (IAS, TAS & GS)
- Speed as MACH ! (more importand actually)
- Heading
- Altitute in feet or/and meter
- Angle of Attack in degrees
- TURNRATE deg/second
- TURNRATE averaged displayed in x/5 and x/10 seconds
- TURNRADIUS (in feet or and meters)
- TURNRADIUS averaged displayed in x/5 and x/10 seconds
- Vertical Velocity (VVI) (feet/minute)
- Dynamic or current Gross Weight (GW) displayed (fuel and stores depending)
- Thrust in adequate positive force units
- Drag in adequate negative force units (including airbrakes)
I believe all those values should be available anyways in debug mode for FM testings, so it would be nice to advance the ACMI telemetry with them aswell.
BENEFITS.
- first, that data can be used for study in order to learn and understand the flight-regimes better.
- second, that data can be mathematically used to replicate or reconstruct “questionable” flights.
- third, it adds a professional “touch” to BMS as such. Experiencing “flight-feeling” is one thing, but math does not lie!
- last but not least, it adds “technical” confidence and trust for tournament and server participants - hosts and clients.
-
IFF :munch::nosep:
-
-
-
Yep, everyone bought the RWR for over 10years so why wouldn’t a estimated IFF work for a couple too?
-
What if the dev’s tell you that they now want to simulate a block 40 ? no IFF antenna = IFF = because we can ! loool
-
Who told you that the 4 front-canopy bird slicers antennas is the requirement for the bird to actually have IFF??? F-16’s have internal IFF since block 15;
These bird slicers antennas are part of the AIFF.