Block 70/new cockpit release plans?
-
Simple question: Are there are any current plans to create and implement the block 70 style glass cockpit for BMS?
-
No plans at all and out of scope. Maybe in 10 or 20 years. (?)
-
Fair enough.
But, here is my opinion: With DCS being highly competitive, updating BMS to offer features DCS doesn’t offer, such as Block 70/72 functionality would be good for maintaining a viable position against the competition.I don’t really see that it makes sense to view BMS as a sim that is based on a legacy fighter. The moment that’s what it becomes, ignoring the present day F-16, it becomes no different, really, than a sim based on the F-4 Phantom or B-17.
The visual engine could stand updating, too. DCS has visuals that are at a higher level than Falcon/BMS and I’m not in any position to even guess at the viability of significantly updating the BMS visuals, but if BMS can’t match DCS visuals then it needs to offer something DCS doesn’t offer such as the Block 70 and simulated JHMCS just for starters.
-
Actually, if I’d had to choose, I’d rather be an F-4 jock than curbstomp everything with a Block 70. I’d love a B-17 sim, as well, I think there was one, but it was really old. FIY, DCS has WWII modules and early MiGs, out of which I have the MiG-21, and it’s a really fun aircraft. The F-4 is in the making, too, and I’ll be grabbing it the moment I can get a good deal.
Falcon already offers much more than DCS does. It’s not always about who has the latest tech. Information on Block 70 is scarce, and it can’t be simulated to a degree of accuracy offered with other Viper blocks. The only sim doing a fighter that modern is DCS JF-17 Thunder, and that’s likely because it’s an export fighter, so it’s not classified a tightly as something actually flown by the Chinese would be. DCS only has a single block, while BMS runs a gamut, and there’s a brilliant F-16A cockpit in the making. I’m hoping it’ll inspire someone to model accurate avionics for it, it’s actually far more interesting than the highly computerized Block 70.
-
Buzzbomb … do you have all the Blk70 documentation? … We don’t.
So lets suppose that we wished to do it, and that we would not have any possible issue legally speaking, … we can’t simply do it due to lack of documentations. It is not a matter of inventing an F-16 … Benchmarksims like to simulate an F-16.
I don’t really see that it makes sense to view BMS as a sim that is based on a legacy fighter. The moment that’s what it becomes, ignoring the present day F-16, it becomes no different, really, than a sim based on the F-4 Phantom or B-17.
Your opinion. Personally, I don’t share it. At all.
BMS is and will remains for a long time an F-16C blk 15 to 52 simulation. No need to speak more about it as it has been already discussed to death on the forum. May I suggest to search and refer to those discussions.
Regards.
-
Fair enough.
But, here is my opinion: With DCS being highly competitive, updating BMS to offer features DCS doesn’t offer, such as Block 70/72 functionality would be good for maintaining a viable position against the competition.I don’t really see that it makes sense to view BMS as a sim that is based on a legacy fighter. The moment that’s what it becomes, ignoring the present day F-16, it becomes no different, really, than a sim based on the F-4 Phantom or B-17.
The visual engine could stand updating, too. DCS has visuals that are at a higher level than Falcon/BMS and I’m not in any position to even guess at the viability of significantly updating the BMS visuals, but if BMS can’t match DCS visuals then it needs to offer something DCS doesn’t offer such as the Block 70 and simulated JHMCS just for starters.
This is triggering me on so many levels.
1/ BMS does not have time to do everybody’s pet aircraft. Or to do the next thing advertised by a manufacturer. Block 70, or Eurofigher or Rafale or Jaguar or F-35 or F-15E or AESA or IRST or whatever : dont care.
The F-16 Block 50-ish as is in BMS has tons of stuff missing, or that could be done much better, before going into the next new toy.2/ We dont do things out of thin air. No manuals, docs or anything already public on the Block 70. So we would have to invent stuff to fill in the blanks. That not how we do things here. This is a sim, not Call Of Duty.
3/ We see tons of posts with ideas or opinions on what to do next. We dont need ideas on what to do next, we need people, and time, and motivation (that’s what I lack right now, and this is not helping) to move forward the ideas we already have.
4/ We dont need business advice on how to beat the supposed ‘competition’. DCS or anybody else can do whatever they like. We dont need to overperform DCS or get market share or whatever. This is a free sim, done as a hobby. If people like it great, if they dont, too bad.
-
Bottom line for me on questions of this sort:
- I’m not aware that any of these type jets have even been sold, let alone deployed. So I don’t miss them.
- given that they are as new as they are, I doubt there is very much hard info available on them to do a “good” simulation. So I don’t miss them.
- I’m perfectly happy with what we have. (other than lacking LMAV…but I hear there could be a future here - so I can wait.)
-
Slightly off topic, but the term “curb stomp” can be a sensitive term for some folks on the forums, if you know your History, specifically WW2.
Nuff said
-
Are there are any current plans to create and implement the block 70 style glass cockpit for BMS?
There is not even 1 public photograph of the REAL upgraded cockpit of V / Block 7x yet, with all the new details and panels…
but if BMS can’t match DCS visuals then it needs to offer something DCS doesn’t offer
Oh it does, and DCS will never be even close…
-
- I’m not aware that any of these type jets have even been sold
Yes for a couple countries. We’ll have a prototype here at Q4 this year.
-
Fair enough.
But, here is my opinion: With DCS being highly competitive, updating BMS to offer features DCS doesn’t offer, such as Block 70/72 functionality would be good for maintaining a viable position against the competition.U made me laugh m8.
Have dcs do what bms does first for free and on their free time. Then you might have a comparison.
As you say it from my perspective and going to your unequal no common ground competition well BMS is way ahead… light years ahead.Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-T818A using Tapatalk
-
-
IOC date?
First 2 airframes (a C -005- and D) have been send over to Hellenic Air Industry to start local migration to prototypes, around December they will fly to US for additional tests and certify AESA cooperation with our ASPIS II ECM suite. This will take less than 1y, meanwhile around February-2021 local migrations will start. Plan is 1st Sq to be operational on Q1 2023, with all deliveries finished up to 2027.
-
Hey Buzzbomb go over to the Air Combat Podcast Jabbers interviewed I-Hawk and Max Waldorf the title “Falcon BMS a deep dive” they talk about falcon 4.0 history I -Hawk said the team works at there own pace this is a hobby not a job and its free.
so grab a beer and listen -
I agree. It’s a fascinating podcast.
-
Gents, I must say I don’t think some of you were very kind to the OP. I understand you get tired of suggestions that you are not inclined to implement in the near future etc and what not, and the basis for your opinion is sound but the tone used by many was not charitable.
-
The person who wrote the original post isn’t asking, but demanding and using arguments akin to those a boss gives to employee “if you don’t do what I want then you’re useless”. Why should anyone be charitable?
-
Fair enough.
But, here is my opinion: With DCS being highly competitive, updating BMS to offer features DCS doesn’t offer, such as Block 70/72 functionality would be good for maintaining a viable position against the competition.I don’t really see that it makes sense to view BMS as a sim that is based on a legacy fighter. The moment that’s what it becomes, ignoring the present day F-16, it becomes no different, really, than a sim based on the F-4 Phantom or B-17.
The visual engine could stand updating, too. DCS has visuals that are at a higher level than Falcon/BMS and I’m not in any position to even guess at the viability of significantly updating the BMS visuals, but if BMS can’t match DCS visuals then it needs to offer something DCS doesn’t offer such as the Block 70 and simulated JHMCS just for starters.
1. In fact the Blokc 70 does not exist. It is a paper (digital paper…) jet. There is not Block 72 because of the weight of the plane it has to have the GE F110. The 30/40/50 got the GE engine.
2. Currently ASEA or any ESA radar is not modeled.
3. As well as the towed decoy.
4. And the IRST…I simply do not get it.
And what competition…? The DCS fails to model even the basics of a Block 50/52 so far. They are years being competitive on any level comparing to current F-16 versions of the BMS.
Ok, maybe the cockpit looks nice but with 4096 size textures and DX11 engine is not a big achievement…Tons of times I have explained that the engine of the F4 fits much better on equipment from late '70s to late '90s…
…while still ppl. wish to see non existent jets which cannot be modeled. And even they were they would be simply OP in any campaign… -
Fair enough.
But, here is my opinion: With DCS being highly competitive, updating BMS to offer features DCS doesn’t offer, such as Block 70/72 functionality would be good for maintaining a viable position against the competition.While it’s always great to have new features added and I agree - the more the merrier - this argument in particular isn’t all that true.
DCS still has no ground radar implemented, basically cutting F-16’s functionality in half, it has issues with BVR missiles where their range is still not much higher than that of sidewinders (to accomodate for more arcade-y Flaming Cliffs), not to mention - its campaigns are very static whereas Falcon 4 offers a dynamic living gameworld.
Point is - Falcon BMS certainly isn’t competing with DCS much, which - as of now - really is more of a dogfight/CAS game, they occupy very very different niches.
-
I agree we don’t have to think about Block 70 yet, it’s too far in the future to get enough information. Maybe it could be added as a non flyable aircraft, but that’s not for now to think of. But what I remember:
Since Super Pak we always thought things cannot be done. New graphics engine? This extreme enhancement of the systems we have now? Working theaters and their sheer number and quality now. That was astounding when all this arrived!DCS is a neat piece of software. I really love to fly the detailed MiG-21, F-18 and even F-16. But the Viper is not really ready in DCS. You can have some fun with ramp start, A2A, dumb bombs and in a limited way with LGBs. They have a far way to go even with the avionics. After building some missions it gets a bit boring if you are accustomed to the campaign engine and this full developing battlefield of Falcon. Besides the graphics I can see nothing were DCS even gets close to BMS. The problem for this is that it wasn’t planned and developed in the beginning days of Flanker > Lock On > Flaming Cliffs > DCS. Thats also true for the maps: Persian Gulf only has a small area worked out in detail. I’d say it’s more for scripted Multiplayer, no challenge for BMS. But who knows, first they copied the clickable cockpit, now they do for sure with the F-16 avionics of BMS… Could they do a dynamic campaign system? I think they are earning money with aircraft and maps, the business guys wouldn’t give green light for a campaign engine.
I’d say: copy their automatic rampstart and shutdown for the Viper! (no, just kidding, no need to do that )A more realistic approach for BMS would be to fine tune theaters other than KTO and add a few most modern planes like SU-57 non-playable. In a veeeeerrrryyy far future (9 to 10 Falcon weeks) an overhaul of the graphics engine could be nice. This Block 70 idea could even be further away IF someone finds a way and the time to model displays like in an F-35. But that’s a huge maybe I think