Which F-16 does BMS simulate and how far?
-
Question, does BMS simulate a specific block of F-16 or is it a mix between different things? Or like, which one is the most detailed of them?
And, how far detailed is that simulation?
I mean, according to the flight model article, that part seems really in depth. But what about avionics/systems?
-
There are actually a lot of blocks and country specific avionics / pits in bms. A lot is very detailed.
-
I know it has lots of blocks in BMS, but like (I added it in the first post) which one is the most detailed one/originally simulated one?
For example, let’s take the Block 40. Is it a pure Block 40 breed with all the stuff from the Block 40 simulated in it or does it also have some Block 52/15 or whatever aspects in it?
I hope you understand what I’m trying to ask. It’s a bit hard to express for me in english…
-
I know it has lots of blocks in BMS, but like (I added it in the first post) which one is the most detailed one/originally simulated one?
For example, let’s take the Block 40. Is it a pure Block 40 breed with all the stuff from the Block 40 simulated in it or does it also have some Block 52/15 or whatever aspects in it?
I hope you understand what I’m trying to ask. It’s a bit hard to express for me in english…
The Block 40 and 50 will share common ‘stuff’ since they have the same M tape software. You have to look at the M tape software to actually compare the different blocks. With the upgrades, the Block 40/42 can today carry the HTS pod and can perform the same mission as the block 50/52 ( this is technically speaking, since it takes special training for SEAD). And in BMS even if software wise it is the same, the differences between radar types are modelled.
Block 30/32 went trough a similar upgrade called UCP and this is modelled too in BMS, only thing missing is the center console which per latest UCP upgrade is now a big MFD.
The Block 15 …not modelled in BMS. (avionics wise not modelled, but performance wise it is modelled)
The block 25 is modelled to some extends. ( avionics wise to some extends, perorfance wise yes)
The MLU, is a F-16 A block 10/15 that went trough an upgrade similar to the one of the USAF with it’‘s Block 40’s and 50’ called MLU. The MLU is pretty well simulated in BMS.
To that you can add the fact that in BMS, each F-16 from each country has been modelled with it’s specific details. You will see that A USAF Block 50 doesn’t have the same avionics as a greek Block 50. You will see that a Danish MLU doesn’t have the same ECM system as a Belgian MLU etc etc.
But here is something else you need to keep in mind,
There are documents out there on the net that document some stuff, you may think they are available and i that regard the BMS team could model them. But those sdocuments out there only tell you what the system does, but does not tell you the way it works behind the scene, and most of that stuff is classified. And some other stuff like L.16 would require an open hearth surgery … but hey, never say never.
-
I know it has lots of blocks in BMS, but like (I added it in the first post) which one is the most detailed one/originally simulated one?
For example, let’s take the Block 40. Is it a pure Block 40 breed with all the stuff from the Block 40 simulated in it or does it also have some Block 52/15 or whatever aspects in it?
I hope you understand what I’m trying to ask. It’s a bit hard to express for me in english…
Bear in mind that Blk40 was not frozen since its debut in 1988. It got several upgrades (MSIP, CCIP) along with Blk 42, 50 and 52.
-
Ah, okay. I see this can get complex with all those updates and upgrades.
But from what I read above, the (newer) Blocks in BMS are somewhat realistic, avionics wise (If you take into account all the classified stuff of course). So one next question would be, how accurate are all the systems modelled? What I can imagine is that the A/G radar in BMS has some inaccuracies. Is that true? And other systems?
-
I know it has lots of blocks in BMS, but like (I added it in the first post) which one is the most detailed one/originally simulated one?
For example, let’s take the Block 40. Is it a pure Block 40 breed with all the stuff from the Block 40 simulated in it or does it also have some Block 52/15 or whatever aspects in it?
I hope you understand what I’m trying to ask. It’s a bit hard to express for me in english…
Actually my use of block is a poor choice because block denotes an airframe more than a capability. In BMS there is an F-16CG block 40 US that would be more representative of the pre CCIP upgrade, whereas there is also an F-16CM block 40 representative of CCIP phase 1. The CCIP version still has the same radar and WAR hud of the earlier model and no AIFF like the real thing, but adds some other features in terms of weapons capability etc
-
Ah, okay. I see this can get complex with all those updates and upgrades.
But from what I read above, the (newer) Blocks in BMS are somewhat realistic, avionics wise (If you take into account all the classified stuff of course). So one next question would be, how accurate are all the systems modelled? What I can imagine is that the A/G radar in BMS has some inaccuracies. Is that true? And other systems?
Only a pilot or a dev can asnwer those questions., or someone with extensvie knowledge on the radar. I am not that person :bolt:
-
https://www.benchmarksims.org/forum/showthread.php?25987-AG-radar-in-BMS
You can check here.
-
Question, does BMS simulate a specific block of F-16 or is it a mix between different things? Or like, which one is the most detailed of them?
And, how far detailed is that simulation?
I mean, according to the flight model article, that part seems really in depth. But what about avionics/systems?
i can confirm for FM each block has been modeled specifically
for avionics, this is in real a whole world in itself … the poor Guys talking about FrankenViper when they refer to BMS just demonstrate they have no idea about the real, as in real the F16 IS a frankenviper
-
That being said, individual systems do have rooms for improvements though, especially the A-G radar (on radar mapping mechanics) and HTS (if possible to be more realistic than our “arcade” one now; really looking forward to DCS’s implementation). Systems like Link-16 is still being modelled as well.
-
i can confirm for FM each block has been modeled specifically
for avionics, this is in real a whole world in itself … the poor Guys talking about FrankenViper when they refer to BMS just demonstrate they have no idea about the real, as in real the F16 IS a frankenviper
I was actually afraid to quote the guy in question, i was shocked by his statement and it showed me how ignorant a communuty can be. Ignorant is an understatement.
-
Now that you mentioned Frankenviper, I have never heard of it yet and browsed a bit through the net. What is it about this term? And are they correct when they say ours is a mix between different F-16s?
-
Now that you mentioned Frankenviper, I have never heard of it yet and browsed a bit through the net. What is it about this term? And are they correct when they say ours is a mix between different F-16s?
what exactly are you looking for ?
-
They call it Frankenviper because apparently the F-16s in BMS are mixed together with different updates and all that stuff, is that correct?
-
Now that you mentioned Frankenviper, I have never heard of it yet and browsed a bit through the net. What is it about this term? And are they correct when they say ours is a mix between different F-16s?
It’s old Falcon thing, term coined by Falcon critics. Long story short: in each Falcon/BMS iteration Viper is better and more acurate epresented.
-
Now that you mentioned Frankenviper, I have never heard of it yet and browsed a bit through the net. What is it about this term? And are they correct when they say ours is a mix between different F-16s?
What Mavjp said - really F-16s are a mix of other F-16s - especially upgraded ones - and different versions still have things in common
Your question is impossible to answer because of the multitude of systems in F-16s and the complexity and the amount of usable public data. However from what is available a lot of it is accurate to the manuals etc what I have seen - well the non classified stuff that is. How deep you code a system is not always on whether you can, it is whether there is any point spending time on things that wont be used.
The APG-68(V) 5 is still a very sensitive and classified system mostly so the MFD procedures and symbology can be correct but a lot of specifics to the workings of radar is not for the public domain.
-
They call it Frankenviper because apparently the F-16s in BMS are mixed together with different updates and all that stuff, is that correct?
From what I saw that was in reference to people wanting the DCS F-16 to be a mix of everything to everybody instead of the single version they want to do. Some might have took that as a swipe at BMS but really cant say and best if both sides just STFU.
-
This is an interesting read. this says more about human nature and consumerism than it does about any flight sim. The only criticism in my mind that truly holds up on falcon topically, are graphics, which is a note of vanity, again- vanity applied to a video game, or lack of it- it’s only when we are challenged we get philosophical or rhetorical, it is only when we need to overlook hypocrisy or dissonance we engage philosophy, or rhetoric, in law, in war, in life.
they deserved to die
he had it coming
etc etc etcback to the real criticisms. Anything this old, aged this well is not old, it’s vintage. But I am one man. The real criticism that sticks, in my view, is the amount of attention the viper has gotten in contrast to the enemy mud and air. I think the AI , the pilot skill and strategy of the AI both in 2d and 3d is lackadaisical. It could be that I’ve been flying it since the late 90’s and I am proficient, but it is not something I would point out earnestly, just something I hear and kinda went “yeah I can see that”
the f16 is like a super fighter when flown against the AI by a veteran bms flier. you’ll lob pinpoint accurate missiles with no failure rates at four flights which will always track perfectly from 35 miles out. That is not accurate, and it creates somewhat of a pocket.
This all stirred back into my recollection upon reading. I don’t feel that way, I think in the endgame you should be dominant, But facts commonly eclipse feelings.
-
That being said, individual systems do have rooms for improvements though, especially the A-G radar (on radar mapping mechanics) and HTS (if possible to be more realistic than our “arcade” one now; really looking forward to DCS’s implementation). Systems like Link-16 is still being modelled as well.
(… for both titles.)