Hornet Avionics?
-
Good Day, All. I believe I asked this question years ago, but I’m curious about your current views…There has been recent talk about 4.38 and how things may become more “modulized” to where Hornet avionics may be made possible. How does the BMS Membership feel about that? Your votes and especially your opinions would be most welcome.
I, personally, am Choice 3. I like the fact that I can fly and fight multiple jets with one set of “muscle memory” . But, the important question is what you think -
@drtbkj said:
I like the fact that I can fly and fight multiple jets with one set of “muscle memory” .Hee hee… Then… what is the point of flying multiple jets…?
I like red candy and pink candy and green candy.
But, only if it is blue.Dude. You know I love ya’. But… I don’t quite get it.
P.S. As a Mafia Dude, I really thought you’d be option 1
P.P.S. I’m option 3. Not because I want to fly all jets with Viper avionics, but, 'cause - I want to fly the Viper.
-
Well it’s kinda tricky one for me. First I’d love to see Hornet and other planes being developed close to the Viper fidelity and not really interested in ‘frankenplanes’
But no amount of polls will gonna make it happen. BMS team ain’t work that way. It’s more of the meritocracy and code is what matters. There has to be enough interest in it among devs for proper Hornet in BMS to happen.
So i’m not really comfortable with #1 which feels like demand, without contributing back enough, as much I want it to happen. -
Seems like it’s going to happen – with F-15C happening first, but clearly once the code is factored to support 2 separate avionics suites, it can be extended to support N separate avionics suites. Then, yes, N should definitely include legacy hornet and super hornet.
Personally I’m still on the fence… I do want added realism for more planes. But when it comes to modelling differences in the HOTAS controls… I’m not looking forward to the complexity of managing N different key files, or profiles etc, for N different jets. (If that’s the direction it’s going – idunno.)
And what that might mean for pit-builders, with a ton of viper-specific switchology wired up to viper-specific callbacks? I have no idea.
-
@drtbkj - I’m all for option 1…but I’m also pretty confident that will/can never happen. Not within my lifetime.
-
@drtbkj said in Hornet Avionics?:
Good Day, All. I believe I asked this question years ago, but I’m curious about your current views…There has been recent talk about 4.38 and how things may become more “modulized” to where Hornet avionics may be made possible. How does the BMS Membership feel about that? Your votes and especially your opinions would be most welcome.
I, personally, am Choice 3. I like the fact that I can fly and fight multiple jets with one set of “muscle memory” . But, the important question is what you thinkI would have selected a fourth option, had it been available: “None of the above three options are interesting to me”
-
@Aragorn One of the things DCS beat into mean, it’s pretty hard to jump from jet to jet, even with the Viper, Warthog, and Hornet being similar, it’s still different enough to where I’ve never forced myself to get truly proficient in the other planes systems to be really combat effective. And like you I love the Viper, so honestly I see @drtbkj’s point. There is something to the ease of Viper avonics across the BMS platform but still having all of the realism perks that BMS brings that DCS doesn’t: dynamic campaign, realistic ATC, better AI allies and opponents. But all that being said I can’t tell you the last time I seriously took a non-Viper plane for a serious spin in BMS.
@Stevie "I find your lack of faith disturbing" (EDITED to fix typo @Aragorn) Seriously, why do you think a C at least would be not be possible? Is that you want it as it currently is equipped by the USMC with AESA etc , and wouldn’t want a mid life C, or even if Link16 was possible, maybe done as sunsetted by the USN?
-
@Snake122 - because there is simply too much information that is simply not available about the Hornet Series, and won’t be until long after I’m dead…if ever. I have some 500+ hours in the Fleet Trainer, so I’m pretty confident of what’s not possible in our world.
…and MIDS/Link 16 has never been “sunsetted” by he USN.
-
@Stevie Interesting. So have you dabbled with the DCS one at all or I believe your other work baby of their AV-8 module? If so, did it make you so frustrated you turn away from it?
I was saying that in order to do a C model at it’s USN sunset it seems Link16/MIDS is required to model it correctly, not that the system has been sunsetted. Just my limited experience with DCS’s C systems, datalink seems that is very integral to the air to air displays compared to the Viper. I can’t remember when they are modeling the Hornet like the ir Viper being supposedly a 2005 USAF Block 50.
-
I’m not sure I get the purpose of that survey…
What exactly are you trying to achieve?Only someone in BMS team can do it and it is only him that can decide to where he wishes to go…
-
@Snake122 said: “I find your black of faith disturbing”
BLACK FAITHS MATTER
-
@Aragorn Thanks buddy, dang phone typing
-
@Snake122 What about this one…?
Snake122 said: “One of the things DCS beat into mean…”
I honestly thought this was some term of which I was unaware…!
Same as “Black of Faith”. I honestly thought it was a reference which I didn’t get…! Hahaha…!!
-
Good Day, All, and thanks for the replies!
'Gorn- Hi, Buddy. I understand your viewpoint. I understand Xeno’s view on “Frankenplanes”. I respect it. The OFM membership, others who enjoy the Other Jets, and yours truly, just don’t agree with it. Not to ignore the Other Jets in BMS, but just for the sake of convenience, let’s limit our talk to Hornet and Viper. I believe the Frankenjet group view is that the BMS Hornet is “just a Viper in a different skin”. If so , they must believe that strictly because of the avionics. True 'dat, but the BMS Hornets are different. Try hooking a Viper to a carrier catapult , and that’s just the most basic thing. They have different ranges and loadouts and they simply don’t fly the same( at least, not with the OFM flight model ) All that brings a different set of tactics and procedures. In fact, I enjoy hopping in the Lawn Dart ( sorry, couldn’t resist) just because you do have to fly it differently.
Xeno, I don’t see it as “demanding” at all. If Option 1 is what you want, we want to know. As for contributing, who says you can’t? Every talk we’ve had about this concept led to the conclusion that it would be a BIG project. We would need all the help we can get!
Stevie, Don’t be glum, Dude. DCS is doing it right now. I am a admittedly a BMS Guy, so forgive me for saying what DCS can do, BMS can do better!
SoBad, Sorry you feel that way
Max, You ask the purpose of this thread. I thought I had made it very clear. I am curious what the Group thinks about this topic. I am also curious, IF the 4.38 “modularity” turns out to be true and IF that means a third party could change it, would the Group want us to. ? If so, then we have data to collect! We would have to determine if the OFM would want to, and start “marshalling our forces” And, I swear to you I didn’t think of this when I started the thread, but if option one is a big “winner”, maybe that will be a message to those who can change the avionics.
If so, then what they do with that message is up to them. -
@drtbkj I think Max’s implied point, is that they’re refactoring code internally to allow differing avionics behavior/appearance… but that’s not the same as opening up, and documenting, a programmatic interface for third-parties to author plugins.
That would be an order of magnitude harder… as discussed at length in older threads.
So in foreseeable future, if we want hornet avionics, we still have to be real nice to someone on the BMS dev team.
-
@airtex2019 Cool. Thanks, Airtex, good to know. We were wondering. That was why all the “ifs” were there
-
@Snake122 - actually, I’ve been warned to stay away from DCS…I spent some time looking over DCS documentation over the last week or so and now I’m convinced I’m going to stay away from it.
-
@airtex2019 exactly…
The avionics are only possible through code right now and don’t dream of an API system before a very long time.
So that’s why I was wondering what was the intent behind the survey…
If this is an attempt to get into BMS team, that’s not very subtle
Cheers
-
@Stevie seeing the things that bother you about BMS, yes I think DCS would make your head explode. me too probably.
-
There are several ways of doing new planes. One of them is the “soft” way. It uses all avionics (FCC/FCR/SMS/CMS/…) of the F-16 and draws new HUD/MFDs/FCR instead of F-16 ones. This approach requires that we continue using the HOTAS of the F-16, otherwise would be not possible to control the avionics correctly. So callbacks remain, and you can fly these new planes as the F-16. This more like a cosmetic surgery.
Another way, at the other side of the spectrum, is like an open chest surgery. One changes the avionics…FCC, FCR, SMS, CMS, and so on. This requires to change the HOTAS, since the avionics are different. Take an example the F-15C: Selection of wpn priority is done by the weapon select switch and the boat switch. There is no PB on the MFD to choose a different MSL as we have in the F-16 SMS. So, if the HOTAS is not done properly, we cant use the weapons. If one go for the real avionics, real HOTAS with correct callbacks are required and you got learn a totally new plane.
It is very hard to do the middle term, change some part while keping others. For example, FCC and FCR are strongly interconnected and is very hard to reuse only one of them. Other systems are so different between different planes like the SMS (-16) and the PACS (-15) that is hard to implement the pages of the PACS in the SMS structure.
It is natural that all projects will start as “soft” ones but may be eventually evolve to more detailed ones.