Iff you could have one thing in the next update it would be. (Archive)
-
If you think there is 100% accurate god eye in BMS you are strongly mistaken.
I could hide from a mig radar for a loong time
…
Though i admit sensors could be more weather dependantHuman hiding from IA? Of course. What about IA hiding from human?
-
Yep!
Clouds (dense to storm type) can clutter radar. Certain types of fog can make things difficult to get a proper return. That would be good stuff!
Indeed, but then both sides (AI) should suffer from degraded sensor info when that happens.
-
Human hiding from IA? Of course. What about IA hiding from human?
That is about AI brain not sensors issues
-
I would really appreciate a better AI. I fly offline and have a wingman that is an idiot sometime is a bit frustrating! Better AI would be a big implementation, but I don’t know if it can by done!
-
Indeed, but then both sides (AI) should suffer from degraded sensor info when that happens.
Agreed!
-
Im not sure I understand what you are wanting here?
cockpit details:
not all the buttons work in the cockpit for example:
- Jet starter 2
- ECM panel classified but think impossible?
- IFF Friend or Foe
MFD:
- Better tgp operating system
- Better AG Mode
RWR:
This i classified stuf but can better i falcon bms
-
lol, is that all you have?
-
:munch:@Red:
lol, is that all you have?
-
I dunno if this has already been proposed, if yes then sorry, also maybe this is currently possible? It would be very handsome if one could setup and use 2 JOYSTICKS (or even more devices) at the same time.
XenonS
-
I would really appreciate a better AI. I fly offline and have a wingman that is an idiot sometime is a bit frustrating! Better AI would be a big implementation, but I don’t know if it can by done!
You are asking a lot
AI perform much better if you have an offensive waypoint selected, and use Weapons Free, unaware of where you are flying.XenonS
-
You are asking a lot
AI perform much better if you have an offensive waypoint selected, and use Weapons Free, unaware of where you are flying.XenonS
I was talking about AA combat. For example if you say weapons hold he shots anyway!
-
Personally for me, what I’d like to see is proper modelling of navigation performance and bombing triangle calculation.
By this I mean having a true INS drift model that produces inaccuracies in the actual aircraft position and would require regular fixing to correct (assuming no GPS). Having to use a properly implemented FIX page on the ICP would be awesome.
But this should be taken one step further in that any drift in system position should have a direct impact on computed bombing mode accuracy. Having to correct for imperfect system altitudes using ACAL page and a modelling of all the different ranging methods, would make be an incredible addition. Currently falcon assumes a perfect bombing triangle calculation, where slant range is perfectly known (I assume). A simulation of the secondary ranging methods - BARO, RAD ALT, PR (Passive Ranging), and TGP Laser as well as the current AGR, would make me lost for words……
Couple all this with improved JDAMs and AGM-65 mechanisation - wow. The only other thing would be a true implementation of the LANTIRN nav pod. E-scope display on the MFD and a true block 40 FLIR HUD picture…one can dream.
-
I was talking about AA combat. For example if you say weapons hold he shots anyway!
And thats good, he will Fire if enemy is too close or threat to get shot from enemy is imminent
Works right.
-
Personally for me, what I’d like to see is proper modelling of navigation performance and bombing triangle calculation.
By this I mean having a true INS drift model that produces inaccuracies in the actual aircraft position and would require regular fixing to correct (assuming no GPS). Having to use a properly implemented FIX page on the ICP would be awesome.
But this should be taken one step further in that any drift in system position should have a direct impact on computed bombing mode accuracy. Having to correct for imperfect system altitudes using ACAL page and a modelling of all the different ranging methods, would make be an incredible addition. Currently falcon assumes a perfect bombing triangle calculation, where slant range is perfectly known (I assume). A simulation of the secondary ranging methods - BARO, RAD ALT, PR (Passive Ranging), and TGP Laser as well as the current AGR, would make me lost for words……
Couple all this with improved JDAMs and AGM-65 mechanisation - wow. The only other thing would be a true implementation of the LANTIRN nav pod. E-scope display on the MFD and a true block 40 FLIR HUD picture…one can dream.
Most of it would probably decimate the number of people flying this sim. The more realistic every feature is simulated, the fewer people will be capable of mastering the jet. If you present the player all the problems a real F-16 pilot faces, only very few will stay interested in it. After all this is a game, remember? Albeit probably the most realistic one available about modern jets.
-
Most of it would probably decimate the number of people flying this sim. The more realistic every feature is simulated, the fewer people will be capable of mastering the jet. If you present the player all the problems a real F-16 pilot faces, only very few will stay interested in it. After all this is a game, remember? Albeit probably the most realistic one available about modern jets.
I disagree. Make it an advanced option in the configuration tool if you like, but don’t limit the quality of the simulation based on average user competency. No combat sim has ever modelled such detail, it would be an amazing addition. Remember that some of the best add on developers for FSX, think PMDG, have been simulating nav performance, RNP ANP, INS drift etc for years. Most users wont even notice it’s there, but it is, and this hidden depth is the whole soul and mentality of their high quality add ons.
-
Most of it would probably decimate the number of people flying this sim. The more realistic every feature is simulated, the fewer people will be capable of mastering the jet. If you present the player all the problems a real F-16 pilot faces, only very few will stay interested in it. After all this is a game, remember? Albeit probably the most realistic one available about modern jets.
At first,its a simulator .Gaming experience is present of course for those who want to shoot down 1000 Migs bla bla bla.I dare to say that the “few” you mention, are the ones that will loose interest.
I would like you to compare the original Falcon 4 with BMS. Once you have done that, tell me how many of us “few” are left. -
You could model ACAL, FIX, GPS keys, and more all in rigorous detail and you won’t drive anyone away. With EGI and the common nature of PGMs few would even notice. The only people that would experience this extra depth are those that chose to. Think of it this way, if it was in BMS today you would be the antichrist to suggest removing it. It’s a lot of work of course.
-
Most of it would probably decimate the number of people flying this sim. The more realistic every feature is simulated, the fewer people will be capable of mastering the jet. If you present the player all the problems a real F-16 pilot faces, only very few will stay interested in it. After all this is a game, remember? Albeit probably the most realistic one available about modern jets.
Although I disagree, I see your point and understand where you are coming from. But where do we draw the line? When is a feature “too much”? We moved the random failures to being a selective only option because of that reason, but where do we stop? Lets not develop the FM better because rookies will depart the aircraft, get infuriated and quit? How about RADAR modelling? Better/more complicated avionics that people get fed with because of the steep learning curve?
I do not think that anyone who has come thus far with BMS, has a reasonable knowledge of the aircraft and its systems, as well as how the simulator works overall (campaign, TE creation, UI, etc) will leave simply because “BMS has gone way too hardcore” and “this is too much” for him to handle.
Having said that, in my opinion, the sky is the limit, the simulator is what you make of it. Those who are interested in learning, will stay, those who are passers by, “saw the door open” and just came right in looking for their next thrill/air-quake, will lose interest and leave, which is fine with me because we don’t want them around anyway.
-
Most of it would probably decimate the number of people flying this sim. The more realistic every feature is simulated, the fewer people will be capable of mastering the jet. If you present the player all the problems a real F-16 pilot faces, only very few will stay interested in it. After all this is a game, remember?
Negat. BMS is working on a simulator.
Call it a game if you want, but what you said about “decimate the number of people flying this sim” is no factor here.
We have nothing to sell and do not earn money … if we can one day implement all the INS drift ACAL, IFF and all the stuff … we will do it weather if it makes the sim too hard for most ppl. And if they want to enjoy it, they will just have to spend a little more time studying.:)
-
Negat. BMS is working on a simulator.
[…]
And if they want to enjoy it, they will just have to spend a little more time studying.:)
Personally, I’m all for full realism, but losing pilots will inevitably happen when the balance sim-game tilts too much towards sim. Might not necessarily be a problem for BMS team, but it can be for virtual squadrons looking to gain and/or maintain pilots.
At this point, for example, our squadron is expecting a big realism update with 4.33, but we are already afraid of what the outcome will be for some of our members. I’m still young and very capable of studying new material, even without flying for a week, but some of our older pilots admit they need their daily flight and “study hour”, and are still so focussed on just flying/managing the jet in 4.32 that they sometimes don’t hear when they’re called over IVC…