Hornet Avionics?
-
@fizzy51
+1 Also early Fulcrums/Flankers and obviously older redfor planes have no FLCS, so it’s all about avionics/systems. -
Yes, I would most like to see the East German Mig-29 in Product 9.12A Warsaw Pact export version or even Mig-29G upgraded avionics version and might fit with BMS avionics modeling the best. The Mig-21 it’s very Gen3 and may be hard to do with BMS avionics being Gen4 focused. The Mig-29G or maybe the original East German exports supposedly have a lot of documentation on them out there. But Russia goes after their still classified Gen4 documentation very aggressively as both War Thunder and DCS people have apparently experienced. It seems like the Flanker information unfortunately is still very controlled by Russia or just isn’t out there like the Fulcrum.
But the nostalgia it would be cool to see both the Hornet and the Fulcrum done in a bit of a homage to the Falcon 3.0 expansions.
-
@Snake122 i dont think a 1-1 will be possible, but it is certainly possible in the future, the mig29.
-
Hornet and Mig29 and we will have Falcon 3.0 again
-
for me there is no point in flying any other planes than the viper in BMS, if the avionics dont match the airframe.
on the other hand i would rather like the team to focus on core features, such as graphics, weather engine, map/theater limits and further perfecting the viper than implementing other avionics. -
@Ferde Falcon3.0 OOB with current graphics…?
Built around the 80’s and with force balance relevant to that…?
Around which Falcon3.0 and 4.0 were designed and built…?
Geez’ - we can only hope.
The F22’s and J20’s et. al. have been injected into a framework which was never intended to support them; a motor which was built specifically to drive the OOB of the original campaigns.
I’ll forever happily take the 4th (and 3rd) generations for which the engine was built.
Because it is the 2020’s, we have collectively forgotten that F4.0 is a product of the 20th century. It is a work of art which perfectly simulates a particular time and space; imperfectly simulating the many additions craved for in a plethora of J20, F35, Link this; Data that; Radar this; etc. threads.
It reminds me of Total War. Medieval 2 simulates medieval warfare. Napoleon simulates early 18th century rank and file warfare. The F4 community keeps moving away from its niche and wanting a Total War game which has campaigns from Troy to Rome to Empire all in the same game. And then, we keep asking for trench warfare from the same engine…!
Falcon3.0…? My black heart doth skip and beat in joy.
(n) OOB pr0n.
-
@HILOK said in Hornet Avionics?:
for me there is no point in flying any other planes than the viper in BMS, if the avionics dont match the airframe.
on the other hand i would rather like the team to focus on core features, such as graphics, weather engine, map/theater limits and further perfecting the viper than implementing other avionics.Hi, Hilok, There are people I have talked to that share your view. Perhaps the poll question should have been “I will fly the Hornet ONLY if it has RL avionics”.
This thread was meant specifically for us in the OFM to gauge what the BMS Membership wants. Frankly, was it worth our time to do it. However, as it turns out, avionics will apparently only be a hard code/Dev only thing. Less work for us, I guess . Seriously though, most of the things you list are also in Dev World, so we’ll have to see what the future brings. -
@Aragorn said in Hornet Avionics?:
@Ferde Falcon3.0 OOB with current graphics…?
Built around the 80’s and with force balance relevant to that…?
Around which Falcon3.0 and 4.0 were designed and built…?
Geez’ - we can only hope.
The F22’s and J20’s et. al. have been injected into a framework which was never intended to support them; a motor which was built specifically to drive the OOB of the original campaigns.
I’ll forever happily take the 4th (and 3rd) generations for which the engine was built.
Because it is the 2020’s, we have collectively forgotten that F4.0 is a product of the 20th century. It is a work of art which perfectly simulates a particular time and space; imperfectly simulating the many additions craved for in a plethora of J20, F35, Link this; Data that; Radar this; etc. threads.
It reminds me of Total War. Medieval 2 simulates medieval warfare. Napoleon simulates early 18th century rank and file warfare. The F4 community keeps moving away from its niche and wanting a Total War game which has campaigns from Troy to Rome to Empire all in the same game. And then, we keep asking for trench warfare from the same engine…!
Falcon3.0…? My black heart doth skip and beat in joy.
(n) OOB pr0n.
Hi, Buddy. This post intrigues me. Actually, I wonder about a LOT of things you write, but I digress When we make a Theater, we try to give something for everyone. So, usually you’ll see the first 2-3 campaigns are old-school, then we do more modern. Mixing them would be weird.
The Viet Nam Theater is an example. The Bastion Gambit campaign was set in a modern scenario.
If what you’re meaning such things as AESA, I concur. But, we do what we can. What about the Super Hornet, just as an example, is a question my Navy-Puke mind asks. It wasn’t around in the 80’s , Compadre.
More to the point, you mention the F-22. As you may know, we have put a good bit of work in into the F-35. As discussed previously, we have “detuned” stealth in our Theaters. That seems to be what the most people want. However, in my personal set up I have found it interesting to “crank it up” and develop tactics to exploit, and counter, stealth.
Compadre, it all boils down to what the BMS Family wants. We can’t help people like Hilok. We can help others. -
@drtbkj said : So, usually you’ll see the first 2-3 campaigns are old-school, then we do more modern.
This is something which I think is wonderful. Best of both worlds.
Kudos.Having been on the scene for so (too) long, I sometimes get the inkling that a lot of newcomers arrive at what they think is Falcon BM(DC)S, and don’t always get the subtleties in the differences between a study sim (narrow; deep; grounded and built around 3td/4th gen.) and a sample sim (grounded and built around a broader, yet much shallower foundation) .
It is not so much even the jets I am talking about. It is the constant barrage of threads asking to implement classified systems that were not even known when Falcon4.0 (as a spirit / concept) was developed and released. Systems that just take away any threat or challenge. You cannot be seen. You are invisible to RADAR. Your intel is constantly updated by eyes from all over every position in the theatre. Etc. etc. etc.
Because of the type of warfare simulated in Falcon4.0 + (grounded in the fundamental architecture of the software/concept), many if not all of these requests would lead to a simulator which is fundamentally NOT anything at all like what Falcon 4.0 + even IS; even represents.
Nothing from Art of the Kill relevant. No danger; No WVR. BVR simply becomes… well… like a VIDEO game INSIDE of a video game. I am in an invisible death machine that sees the entire battlefield with complete 360 SAW extending from FLOT to REMF, and I can engage, succeed and leave without ever entering what was in 3rd/4th gen tech. “Danger”.
Just make it a DRONE sim…?
Again - an analogy - a Medieval Battlefield. Archers are ranked behind protective lines of spears; cavalry are waiting on the flanks, as light horsemen harass the flanks of the enemy. Exciting times await.
Suddenly, a single assassin - who is shrouded in a cloak of invisibility and has a psychic link to his levitating commander - shoots invisible poison darts at every enemy commander. The army routs without a single sword ever being drawn.
Colour me excited… NOT.
I am only touching very peripherally on the WONDERFUL work which the MAFIA does…! More jets…? Great. Keep 'em in the Gilman Louie spirit of the Falcon OOB and rock on.
My thoughts are more about the incessant requests to implement tech which would debase the entire concept of Falcon4.0 (whether that be 1.08 - SP - OF - FF - AF - BMS)
MAFIA-lovin’ pr0n
-
@Aragorn Dude, I couldn’t agree more . We were talking before about the F-35 and our “detuning” of Stealth in our releases. When we were developing the AIM-120D, we literally had the “don’t make it too good, make it as real as possible” conversation. We do goof around sometimes,though . Once me made a bomb that could wipe out a whole tank battalion, like the Iron Eagle Hades bomb . I have, believe it or not, been known to play with loadouts. We call that AWAS, for Airwolf’s Wild Ass … Stuff. We just don’t put it in our releases.
Earlier, I described how in my personal BMS flying how I will put realistic(or as real as possible) Stealth value in . But, when I do that, I generally fly against it. Why? Because BMS is all about challenge. Maybe it’s just me, though from what you write it’s not just me. Being an unstoppable killing machine would be boring.
Meanwhile, we’ll continue to enjoy to do what we can in BMS. I still think about Tiag’s “soft approach” post from 9 days ago.