Hornet FM
-
but for avionics it sounds like only the devteam is able to develop that aspect of BMS.
Wasn’t there a possibility to work on MFD screens without coding?
-
This is the point I was making - I don’t need to be part of the BMS team to create a cockpit or other 3D models or theatres, but for avionics it sounds like only the devteam is able to develop that aspect of BMS. That’s a shame because there are people in the community who would like to work on avionics, there just isn’t a way for them to do that today.
Now I understand that the Falcon code architecture is probably the reason for this, and it would take work to modularise the Viper avionics and provide an API, documentation, scripts whatever to allow the community to develop avionics.
Which takes me back to the intent of my original question - could there be a way for someone today to work on avionics for another module and submit that to the devteam? This is quite difficult without access to the BMS source, or at least knowledge of the code architecture. I’m thinking rather than submitting C++ maybe there could be a way for people to develop the avionics in pseudocode or another format that would be easier for the dev team to translate. It would need to be high-level enough not to depend on specific functions and classes (because we don’t know what they are), but clear enough that a developer with knowledge of the BMS code could take it and translate it to the appropriate function calls etc.
The answer may be “not today - check back in 3-4 weeks”, or it might be “join the devteam - here’s what we’d like to see to consider your application”, or “hey that sounds great, here’s a couple of guidelines, now go write up a specification for FalconScript”.
I think for small stuff it’s possible but for major changes it’s impossible
I do think that externalizing everything (sms , fcc, mfd, hud, electrical, hydraulics, engine , cockpit etc…) is impossible it’s really everywhere in the code with an horrific dépendance of everything everywhere
-
OK, I have two questions.
Many people complain about Hornet’s gauges. I will also want to have more real UFC buttons. Can you please have a look at it? Gauges were already corrected in 4.33.2 because the same bug was introduced in 4.33.1 and now it reappered in 4.34.0.
If I will provide you new textures for UFC (and the rest of the cockpit as well) can you please remap UFC backlight? This is something I cannot do.
-
OK, I have two questions.
Many people complain about Hornet’s gauges. I will also want to have more real UFC buttons. Can you please have a look at it? Gauges were already corrected in 4.33.2 because the same bug was introduced in 4.33.1 and now it reappered in 4.34.0.
If I will provide you new textures for UFC (and the rest of the cockpit as well) can you please remap UFC backlight? This is something I cannot do.
I am not the right person to answer for the reasons mentionned before
-
I think for small stuff it’s possible but for major changes it’s impossible
I do think that externalizing everything (sms , fcc, mfd, hud, electrical, hydraulics, engine , cockpit etc…) is impossible it’s really everywhere in the code with an horrific dépendance of everything everywhere
+1. And especially with AI, which is a pain.
-
That’s a common thing in older programs, actually. Today, a game or sim is generally made by taking an existing engine, which has a lot of general purpose code built in, and building atop it. If done right, this results in a reasonably modular product that can, as long as you have access to the source, be adapted, sometimes even without the source if it uses scripting heavily. Developers today often try to account for possible expansion, too. Back when Falcon 4 was written, this wasn’t the case, and everything was done from scratch, on a bespoke engine, and shortcuts were taken at expense of modularity, because expansions weren’t all that common and devs didn’t think about modders. Working with such an engine entails a lot of dancing around built-in assumptions, and AI tends to be especially brittle because of its complexity.
Some of the switchology that doesn’t relate to things that the AI uses would probably be possible to implement. Indeed, the Hornet does have a fair number of its own callbacks. Touching anything that’s referenced in the AI code is asking for trouble.
-
That’s a common thing in older programs, actually. Today, a game or sim is generally made by taking an existing engine, which has a lot of general purpose code built in, and building atop it. If done right, this results in a reasonably modular product that can, as long as you have access to the source, be adapted, sometimes even without the source if it uses scripting heavily. Developers today often try to account for possible expansion, too. Back when Falcon 4 was written, this wasn’t the case, and everything was done from scratch, on a bespoke engine, and shortcuts were taken at expense of modularity, because expansions weren’t all that common and devs didn’t think about modders. Working with such an engine entails a lot of dancing around built-in assumptions, and AI tends to be especially brittle because of its complexity.
Some of the switchology that doesn’t relate to things that the AI uses would probably be possible to implement. Indeed, the Hornet does have a fair number of its own callbacks. Touching anything that’s referenced in the AI code is asking for trouble.
the good news tho is that when we have let’s say a missile modeling th tis working, it works for ALL aircrafts :)….
It’s difficult to imagine for me that the same missile type behaves differently from a module to another LOL
-
That’s no inherent in either model. In fact, there’s no reason for there to be much difference, code-wise, between an AI aircraft and a missile, other than the AI routine that it uses. Yeah, DCS bungled weapon implementation on their part, but they didn’t have to do it that way.
-
i dont think the F18c FM is…. and why you said avionics are pretty bad??? of course all we know hornet is using f16 avionics but do you know that the bms f16 avionics is the best modelled code in the sim business??? so don’t say BAD just say DIFFERENT
Before I reply, Seb, let me say to Mav that he’s made 2 people happy. I know the purists disagree(sorry Brother Stevie ), but I love the Hornet with Viper avionics. I enjoy the fact that I can jump back and forth from it to Viper. If the Hornet cockpit could be made slightly more interactive and the Rhino could be brought to Bug standards I’d be REAL happy…but I digress.
Now, Seb, to answer your question- I have it on very good authority the the Hornet FM IS very good. Much more refined then the Rhino. So, IMHO, enjoy it as I do -
Before I reply, Seb, let me say to Mav that he’s made 2 people happy. I know the purists disagree(sorry Brother Stevie ), but I love the Hornet with Viper avionics. I enjoy the fact that I can jump back and forth from it to Viper. If the Hornet cockpit could be made slightly more interactive and the Rhino could be brought to Bug standards I’d be REAL happy…but I digress.
Now, Seb, to answer your question- I have it on very good authority the the Hornet FM IS very good. Much more refined then the Rhino. So, IMHO, enjoy it as I doNice to know that bro, the hornet has a big future i’m sure