Ff you could have one thing in the next update it would be…
-
By the way, does “Traffic in sight” have a consequence?
-
Technical/Code limitation or just nobody wants to work on it?
Rather because everybody is working something different at present time.
By the way, does “Traffic in sight” have a consequence?
Yes.
Oh, and because it hasn’t been mentioned in a while… Link 16–ahaha
As my friend says :
-
This post is deleted! -
This post is deleted! -
I believe something missing in comms from AI AWACS etc is the command repeat last transmition. I know the command in Greek but not in English and iirc doesnt exist in Falcon.
Simultanious overlapping comms are common i believe. So u ask by id to repeat.
Like tango and lima overlap.
U ask first tango to repeat as u believe most importand and then ask lima to repeat.sent from my mi5 using Tapatalk
-
MorteSil … Joke aside I propose you something different. Rather than loosing time on asking why we are gonna do it or why we think it is a big “peace of cake”, why not trying on your side to do it on an SP4 base, and if you succeed (which I have no doubt since it seems easy for you) transfer the part of the code which might be copied (or mimicked) on our side. Even if only partially implemented … such as a demonstrator lets say. … Take your chance … ! … maybe by doing this, you could raise the interest of the team. Chitchatting here won’t help you nor will help us I am afraid. I am not a coder.
-
-
This post is deleted! -
IMO it’s not too “hard”, it’s just a matter of time (like any other major piece of Falcon code). Time required to 1) Read/know/digest the real system; 2) Given F4’s structure, come up with a framework plan to implement it 3) Put in the wrench time to do it. There are plenty of people on this forum that know how complex L16 is and it’s not impossible, it’s just a HUGE project. BMS has the talent for sure…
Perfect example was the new AFM and FLCS code. Remember that took Mavjp 3 years to complete (and then some additional time to tweak)…
-
This post is deleted! -
True–not AFM–I probably exaggerated some timeline-wise. However, I was never suggesting that we try to emulate a L16 network. I know all about it, trust me–I used to put information out on that link in a former life–stuff the pointy-nosers could shoot at, jam, drop on, etc. I only meant that it could take a coder months (6 or more, with a year possible–based on historic trends) to do.
I agree with all of your points, well said.
-
-
The One thing I would like to see is the DED in the hornet updated so you wouldn’t have to zoom in so much when you enter data. It is quite fuzzy.
-
I would like to see some serious commercial shipping lanes. Having a lane of dozens of ships that HAVCAP missions protect then trying to disrupt the shipping could be interesting. Maybe even trucking routes or commercial flights to harass.
-
Cell phone and radio towers. RL sh*t that gets in your way at low alt.
-
MorteSil, I like your posts … you have probably some good points, but I am not in a position to asses the “cost” of such features. But what is interesting me the most among what you’ve said, is the idea of deagg each members of a flight. A human AWACS in 2D would be indeed a very nice feature.
About the L16 … Never say never. You will see why I am telling this in 3-4 weeks. But honestly, before come cing the L16, I would in fact start with the IFF, and start an overhaul of the HTS/HAD thing to get something a bit more conformal (without entering into the sensible area which is the PT mode of HTS).And before AI tactics overhaul, we need a better basic flight behavior (climb, time management, hold management, attack run … ) then we can dig into tactics. IMHO, it would be a waste of time to start by the end.
My personal wish is rather a more realistic HAD page. And an engine not flaming out at 00000lbs exactly forcing a more realistic (and sometimes more exiting) fuel management.
Have a Falcon day gents!
Edit: Cell phone, radio tower and windmill , this also something I would like to see one day!
-
To be fair though this isn’t AFM. And it’s really not that complex to MODEL it. You will never be able to truly emulate a L16 network in a sim. The real key is to determine what features you are trying to implement first, then find a way to draw them out of the existing code wherever able, then make as few changes as possible to finish the stuff that can’t be drawn from the existing framework. 99.99999999999% of JTIDS capabilities can’t be used in Falcon anyways (And not much more than that actually ever get used IRL to be honest so we aren’t missing much). So you’re left with “theater wide” track sharing for everyone in the network and 2D, target separation inside a flight, ownship reporting, and MAYBE the ability to allow a GCI/AWACS mode in the future to do target assignment (Which is much easier than it sounds because you can sort of already do it with IDM). But the way L16 functions underneath is all wash, we don’t care because you are never going try to do freq hopping, encrypted TDMA in a sim, that would just be ignorant, and computationally not possible for more than a couple terminals. No need to send J-Messages to other terminals, no J-Voice, no Airfield reports and NOTAMS, etc… because none of it could be used in the other aspects of Falcon. Simulated functionality that is indistinguishable from how it would be in the jet without all the technical garbage talk because most of it doesn’t matter anyway. In the end, it’s basically just a much bigger IDM that doesn’t suck, isn’t limited to your package, has some slightly different symbols, and a little more information about the tracks. At least at first, because that’s all the other areas of Falcon can support. L16 can certainly do much more, but to get the most realistic product and not change 75% of the other code, that’s the realism factor you should aim for.
I am not coder, really wish I am to contribute.
All I can say is that the bms forum has got brilliant set of people. Conceiving the idea alone and the workaround it’s implementation is just terrific.
What is needed is directing the laser point of these incredible knowledge and energy to fruition harmoniously.Cheers all
Sent from my F3213 using Tapatalk
-
I am not coder, really wish I am to contribute.
All I can say is that the bms forum has got brilliant set of people. Conceiving the idea alone and the workaround it’s implementation is just terrific.
What is needed is directing the laser point of these incredible knowledge and energy to fruition harmoniously.Cheers all
Sent from my F3213 using Tapatalk
We are looking for good will which could help a lot on some area … it long, but not a difficult task : Tactical Reference overhaul.
-
MorteSil, I like your posts … you have probably some good points, but I am not in a position to asses the “cost” of such features. But what is interesting me the most among what you’ve said, is the idea of deagg each members of a flight. A human AWACS in 2D would be indeed a very nice feature.
About the L16 … Never say never. You will see why I am telling this in 3-4 weeks. But honestly, before come cing the L16, I would in fact start with the IFF, and start an overhaul of the HTS/HAD thing to get something a bit more conformal (without entering into the sensible area which is the PT mode of HTS).And before AI tactics overhaul, we need a better basic flight behavior (climb, time management, hold management, attack run … ) then we can dig into tactics. IMHO, it would be a waste of time to start by the end.
My personal wish is rather a more realistic HAD page. And an engine not flaming out at 00000lbs exactly forcing a more realistic (and sometimes more exiting) fuel management.
Have a Falcon day gents!
Edit: Cell phone, radio tower and windmill , this also something I would like to see one day!
What is PT mode? Can you explain? If you have any documentation about HTS can you post a links? I am very interested in HTS.
And have you any drawings of real HTS page?
-