Real Spanish Eurofighter solo display in BMS
-
Less study physics laws and more real flying. Yoy are saying I’m lying. Stop saying a lot of things about my thoughts about OFM comparing with Eurofigher.
I say again: Eurofighter = unknown world for you man.
-
Less study physics laws and more real flying mav.
It is finally better to stay where i was during 6 years and where i belong
bye bye BMS public forum you won’t be missed
-
I don’t know how realistic the F16 acts in BMS but i have a few guidelines.
One is how enhanced the cockpit looks compared to OF which means to me at least "Hey, here’s someone who cared for how it feels and looks, i don’t think someone like this would programm the most important part namely Flight Model half-heartedly.
This thing “feels” right, i mean when i look at DCS A10C it’s not far off from the experience both sim give you.Just my two cents to appreciate this marvellous piece of work.
-
This anal nitpicking is typical of engineers, most especially about our own work.
Less study physics laws and more real flying.
I say again: Eurofighter = unknown world for you man.….
Without this “anal nitpiking” you would not have the Advanced flight model in BMS, which is pretty much the closest you can get to a real aircraft in a PC simulation with public data.
Without engineers and studying physics law the Eurofighter would not even exist.
Most of your actual flying is done by a computer in the Eurofighter, I hope you know that at least. As in a F-16, or F-18, or Rafale, or anything Fly By Wire, BTW. So you can fly these jets because an engineer designed laws and control systems for you beforehand.
Now maybe the Eurofighter is more stable than the F-16 because of a better FLCS. Maybe the OFM is not so bad for emulating flying an Eurofighter.
But what is sure is that the OFM is a really poor simulation of flying overall, because a lot of effects are not included.To have a good qualty simulation of any jet, you need good aero data AND the Control laws of its FLCS. Then - and only then - you can have good results. With the AFM, for the same conditions and the same pilot input, the real F-16 and the jet in BMS will react exactly the same, I hope you know that. A lot of pilots have confirmed this - there are even
You might be a pilot, man, but I would tell you the same as the average noob : go read these articles. Then you will see the difference between AFM and OFM.
-
So you are the boss? Lol
-
Are you gona show me something l3ctusader?
-
I’m not a “boss”. All I’m saying is : see the links in my posts.
-
Easy guys…… pls cool down a bit.
I think real pilot like Chichowalker knows the physics well enough. My guess this thread is just for fun by sharing airshow flight patterns. No need to drag him into a serious discussion of AFM VS OFM…
-
For Chichowalker.
A short demo display i made 2 years ago. I flew passionatly aerobatics in other sims and as BMS came out, i couldn´t resist to give it a shot in this new sim aswell.
Bear in mind, that this display is “from the hip”, meaning not planed nor trained… just improvised on the fly (and AFM).Enjoy. (watch in 720p)
PS: @Mav-Jp. Did you edit your posts afterwards, or did you forget how to write in letters ( … ) ? :mrgreen:
-
….
Without this “anal nitpiking” you would not have the Advanced flight model in BMS, which is pretty much the closest you can get to a real aircraft in a PC simulation with public data.
I said several posts ago that I like BMS AFM a lot. Please read a little more.
….
Without engineers and studying physics law the Eurofighter would not even exist.Man, without pilots Eurofighter and more aircraft would not even fly.
….
Most of your actual flying is done by a computer in the Eurofighter, I hope you know that at least. As in a F-16, or F-18, or Rafale, or anything Fly By Wire, BTW. So you can fly these jets because an engineer designed laws and control systems for you beforehand.I know that better than you. I have not said that before. Again, please read more.
….
You might be a pilot, man, but I would tell you the same as the average noob : go read these articles. Then you will see the difference between AFM and OFM.Now I think that I dont need to read anything that you are saying.
-
@A.S:
For Chichowalker.
A short demo display i made 2 years ago. I flew passionatly aerobatics in other sims and as BMS came out, i couldn´t resist to give it a shot in this new sim aswell.
Bear in mind, that this display is “from the hip”, meaning not planed nor trained… just improvised on the fly (and AFM).Enjoy. (watch in 720p)
PS: @Mav-Jp. Did you edit your posts afterwards, or did you forget how to write in letters ( … ) ? :mrgreen:
Very nice A.S. I like your demo.
-
I cannot escape the irony of the general given situation here in the case that a man who has experience on the plane says what is close or not to FLYING it and gents with technical experience and no flying time on the plane in question tell him it is not.
Are you kidding. Except you assume he is NOT a real pilot then you’d have a point.What on the other hand is cool is that no one bows down in fanboy humble style when a pilot posts, after all we are all fans of a sim. Personally I always like to hear pilots and engineers opinions on my favourite sims.
I wonder if Chuck Yeager had the same discussions with his engineers-…:D
-
Of course he did (Chuck Yeager), and he called them idiots, and they called him names etc… It’s the nature of the industry, sometimes people get passionate about their work just like everywhere else.
If I ignored my technicians, or ridiculed them constantly for questioning me nothing would ever get done, I’d miss errors that I might have made, and we’d have one shitty working relationship. You can’t have thin skin in this type of hobby/development/interest.
It’s not a lack of appreciation to question a designer/integration of any particular system, it’s seeking clarification or general discussion about something within that system.
During the long history of the development of the FMs in this game, most especially before Mav-jp was able to pick up what had been done thus far and actually complete it, there were other AEs etc that made changes/hacks etc to bring the performance of the models closer to real world performances with the limitations of the software. This was kind of half-assed, but still efforts to create a more accurate simulation. Nonetheless, the data collection, and work that had been done was collective efforts; albeit the final work was done the “right” way with Mav-jp and Raptor-One. And just to clue people in, there were SEVERAL errors made along the way that were NOT discovered by those that were developing the models, but by end users/testers.
There’s no need to get uber defensive, the models speak for themselves. As an engineer, when ‘dumb’ end users or technicians ask stupid questions or are waaaay out in left field on something during a discussion, it serves no purpose to get hyper-defensive…this is when you need patience and use your genius for something constructive that helps the dumb (m)asses understand the details of the technical discussion.
-
As an engineer, when ‘dumb’ end users or technicians ask stupid questions or are waaaay out in left field on something during a discussion, it serves no purpose to get hyper-defensive…this is when you need patience and use your genius for something constructive that helps the dumb (m)asses understand the details of the technical discussion.
+1
Engineer << >> Testpilot
No teamwork and communication = No good solutions. Whereas sometimes one can mislead the other unwillingly, because bias egoism or attitude.
But data (physics and math) does not lie ever.An an analogy: Ferrari can´t built a great Formula 1 cars on “paper” only, if people like Schuhmacher don´t put it on the track and bring valueable data from the drivers perspective back.
-
i hope you guys understand that all that was mainly due to language barrier ….