Any data link to AWACS & JSTARS ?
-
Hi,
The manual of BMS says it has put out most of the code for pre-planed threats shown in the HSD to accomodate “realism” of F16. I have no problem with that as long as BMS plans to focus only on F16 planes in the way they were handled in the past century. But if one can fly other planes this becomes important.
Other fly-by-wire planes (EF-2000 and more recent planes) focus on precise data links with assets like AWACS, JSTARS and other secret ground & satellite information to boost the pilot’s Situational Awareness in order to make quick decisions. The AA philosiphy today is pretty like: “any radar signal is bad”.
If F16 planes are still flying important missions nowaday, then IMHO, good engineers would throw out the old F16 AA radar to replace it with a new system taking directly account to this (obviously no problems with a stressed handling of a radar system when it comes to 2-seated planes, as the navigator would relieve the pilot’s job in handling such “old” radar systems, but still this is a philosophy of the past).So what about such important datalinks in BMS? Is this planed for the future?
Greets,
XenonS -
:munch:
-
? <<
-
If unclassified data and documents are available that would allow realistic modelling of these systems, then yes. But since this is not the case, there are no future plans for adding anything like this. There have been countless threads on this issue. Here’s a link to a recent one: https://www.benchmarksims.org/forum/showthread.php?19200-Link-16&highlight=link-16
So short answer: no.
-
Thanks for the link. I will follow the discussion.
Actually, when playing the FF series I found that the HSD was a lot more useful than the radar itself… (how is that…)XenonS
-
? <<
L-16 (modern datalink system for NATO aircrafts) is a recurrent topic on this forum.
Answer is : never say never, but there are a lot of things on the ‘to-do’ list first. So wait 4.35, or 4.36……
BTW, the classified part of L-16 are mainly the encryption keys and protocol. The operationnal details, which would be the only things of interest for a potential implementation, are not as sensitive.
-
Id like to see it as early as 4.36, but I think it might be further away than that… to have a decent implementation, will take a lot of work building how the system works (and it would really need to work for and around the AI aircraft too, as well as ground forces…)
I suspect we shall have both of the different models of IFF sets on the newer aircraft in BMS before we have Link 16 in BMS
Incidentally, the F-16s radar is not really ‘old’ per se.
-
(and it would really need to work for and around the AI aircraft too, as well as ground forces…)
Thats another very good point.
If L-16 is implemented, AI behaviour needs to be adapted in consequence. What tracks will an AWACS broadcast ? How do you decide to classify them ? Merge them ? Etc.
So a huge work to do on coding. Before that, a lot of things needs to be fixed. AI basic behaviour, Comms, AWACS/ATC behaviour, etc……
-
Honestly though, Link 16 is the kind of feature that I would consider learning to code for, if it meant that the feature would be implemented quicker. Put a bit of thought into what would need to change in falcon, and its a bit of a list… Im not expecting it, any time soon.
Hmm.
-
I think we should ask Gyro…
-
What happens if you have E-3/E-2 in same package as player? Does AWACS provide yellow “buddy mark” on FCR/HSD just like wingman? If so it could be a great workaround for now in BMS.
-
Thanks a lot for all your posts in response.
I certainly want to honour the work done by the devs of BMS. It’s surely the best F4 ever.
I was not even aware of the existance of L-16, but I only had the intuition that with today’s technology a lot more could be done in things of aircraft and ground detection that the ones you see in the F16. I imagine that developers are afraid of simple solutions: L-16 may be a system hard to implement when it comes to all details, but IMO for a simulator, what counts is the result, that is: the Magic Eye. Even more afraid ?! We have all seen it before, in Total Air War, in EF-2000, these are flight simulations not so serious than BMS, but as for the results, they may come close.My first Aircraft simulation also was a Microprose product: F19 Stealth Fighter. I don’t want to expand here if this is a serious approach to learning about an aircraft or not, just saying: the Magic Eye in the sim was not an impeachment for learning more about aircraft warfare, radar systems, missile defenses and other.
XenonS