Ff you could have one thing in the next update it would be…
-
Do AI ever fly that close? Do the test client side when a missile is doing detonation and only check aircraft in that same flight…
-
Another one: missiles in BMS currently only damage the target aircraft and the missile will just fuse inside lethal range. Large warheads such as SA-2 should be able to knock out a whole formation if stupid enough to be flying fingertip, or even fuse on the wrong target. This is something that DCS actually simulates to my surprise.
I wouldn’t say this is the case with bms.
I clearly remember flying no2 and I got hit by an aim 120 which targeted my no1.
Things got heat up badly last minute he turned right and I was following him being on his tail like I could count the bolts on his airframe. I got hit from behind by the aim 120 I didn’t blow so he was ok.
He knew cause he was locked.Never experienced it in SEAD missions as I never flew that close to someone else in SEAD missions. and in tactics this wouldn’t be efficient when you know threats are alive and kicking just for this very reason. if one gets blown and you are that close you might also.
Those params are declared 3d models and missiles data. So if those overlapping criteria are met then sure not just one will be blown. The missile has a blast radius, if the 3d model hit box area is within this blast radius everything will be affected. The one that will be at the center might be blown instantly and the one at the far might just get damaged.
Maybe in DCS those params are exaggerated?
-
I wouldn’t say this is the case with bms.
I clearly remember flying no2 and I got hit by an aim 120 which targeted my no1.This is a different situation, a radar missile can realistically lock a different target when it goes active as you say (have seen several blue-on-blue situations by the AI because of it).
But I was talking about proximity damage not being applied when a missile explodes (this is calculated for bombs for example but not for missiles). But as Mav-jp says it is definitely a matter of balancing CPU usage vs fidelity in specific (and low probability I concur) situations
-
I wonder how large caliber AAA works. Can one round damage multiple aircraft in BMS? I think it would not kill your CPU as missile explosions are not happening that often.
-
This post is deleted! -
If I could have one thing on the next update……minor thing, but it would be a fix for the “killed by self” bug when someone in your flight gets killed, BMS wipes out the consecutive mission score and gives a “killed by self” in survivor pilots’ logbook. Been that way since 1998 IIRC.
-
Full f-16 avionics/ systems implementation with the latest / newer tape version (6.2 is the current tape?).
That would be of course a behemoth task I imagine.
Another cool feature would be to be able to select in TE training missions an AI as Nr 1 to practice formation flying offline (level flight and turns).
In 4.32 that worked pretty well, I made a cap mission and the leader was flying in the cap station smooth turns, me following him as Nr. 2.
In 4.33 it’s not working so anymore, during turns, the AI is employing air brakes initially followed by full AB so it’s impossible to stay in close formation.
In DCS i select the respective orbit option, that works very well. -
Full f-16 avionics/ systems implementation with the latest / newer tape version (6.2 is the current tape?).
That would be of course a behemoth task I imagine.it would, you reckon? Why dont you share some details on what you would like changed? which parts of the sim dont match the tape you want?
I must be out of the loop because I thought tape 6.2 was not the latest.
-
I’m expressing only a general wish to Santa Klaus:) .
I’m sure the devs knows what can / cannot be developed within the limited time / human resources and I support and encourage them 100%.
Well, to be honest, I have another wish, but I know it’s not realistic to happen.
Since bms has , IMO, the best flight model in the entire sim world industry (military and civilian) and the developers are so talented, I would like to see a non FBW aircraft (even a trainer like the T-2) to be modeled in depth,
so we can learn, like real pilots, to really ‘‘fly’’ an aircraft without the FBW shit. I would like to master basic stuff like adverse yaw / coordinates turns, rudder usage in high AoA for roll control, spins, opposite stick / rudder inputs in crosswind landings etc. -
A-10 is using NFBW flight model. That aircraft was actually the base to the new FM code.
Regarding avionics, we have pretty much everything except L16, and I don’t think that one is coming anytime soon.
-
Realistic as possible A-A/ A-G modes specialy for HAF F-16 peace xenia series
e.g CRM-ERS name for A-A
A-G modes MAV
DTOS (Pre-Designate) Using HMCS
DTOS (Post-Designate) Using HMCS
EO VIS
CCIP Cockpit Mod for HAF F-16 Peace Xenia Series
digital altimeter for F-16 Blk 52+ , 52Advanced likeBalkans theater. blk52 cockpit -
@Switch:
A-10 is using NFBW flight model. That aircraft was actually the base to the new FM code.
Regarding avionics, we have pretty much everything except L16, and I don’t think that one is coming anytime soon.
There are more missing things:
IFF, Havequick FH capability, VHF FM capability, COMSEC, Carapace steerpoints and coordinated countermeasure dispensing, MT for Sniper XR, MPRE for JSOW, LSS/LST for Lantrin NAV pod (yes i mean NAV pod, not targeting pod), DTE, multiple jamming modes for ECM, SEAD datalink feature for IDM and HARM DL mode and HARM DED page, receive only mode for TACAN, JFS 1, HMCS AG modes, pylon mounted MWS, “pilot option” for high drag dumb bombs, JPF for JDAM.Thats just a few things i mentioned. But update 4.32>4.33 brought up so many changes in avionics, so i have hope that we will get some of them in a (distant) future.
e.g CRM-ERS name for A-A
Whats CRM-ERS? Can you explain? I am curious about all those HAF gadgets. HAF has nice things like moving map on HSD and so on. Would be nice to see in BMS.
-
@Switch:
Regarding avionics, we have pretty much everything except L16, and I don’t think that one is coming anytime soon.
room for improvement: AVTR, ECM panel, HUD controls, SMS (in particular MDDE page), block 40 and 50 radar differences, RWR, HTS, TRTN, ULS, DBS, backup reticule, depressible reticule, AG solutions (height is used instead of elevation), HMCS,
not modelled at all: RWR slave mode, RCR, AAI (for IFF), SINCGARS, MIDS/LVT (for L16), DTS, TRN, PGCAS, AGCAS, SEADDL, CASDL, ATP(FLIR, PIP, VDL, RECEE, MTT)…
While its not like BMS has bad avionics, I would have to disagree with saying it has basically everything except Link 16. Theres really quite a few systems not modelled at all, and similarly a large number of systems which are in a ‘good enough’ state. Close enough for a video game, basically.
EDIT: Sniped!!!
-
What is AAI and how RWR slave mode works? You mean Carapace? It has a lot of gadgets like coordinated CM dispensing and Carapace steerpoints but i never heard about slave mode.
And i think that CASDL is actually a part of L16. IIRC IDM has no such capability. And what is PIP for targeting pod?
-
Air to Air Interrogator sets are the hardware that allows the Identification Friend or Foe feature to work. So, AAI is basically another way of saying IFF I guess.
RWR Slave is a feature of the CCIP aircraft block 50 radar, which displays the priority RWR target at the base of the FCR, to show its estimated azimuth. It has no range indication, but it can help to indicate the direction of contacts on the FCR relative to contacts on the RWR. I dont know much at all about Carapace so I dont know if it has this feature or not. This is a feature of the ALR-56 and the block 50 radar.
CASDL and SEADDL are IDM features, actually. PIP is Picture in Picture.
-
This post is deleted! -
Well, why bother making ejection seats work in the sim, right? I mean its not like you really die if you get shot down.
Just saying, you can construct any number of justifications for any feature as being unneeded in a simulator by virtue of it being a simulator and doesnt have to be that realistic.
Why do you need secure voice, why not just use different IVC servers?
Why do you need voice, why not just use teamspeak? Or text chat?
Why do you need Data link, why not just use labels?
-
Well, why bother making ejection seats work in the sim, right? I mean its not like you really die if you get shot down.
Cos they are easy to implement? Ejection is a feature of sims since day dot. As an aside though, what I would like to see is if you die in 3D, you lose your logbook. That would put an end to the 6-missile-6-kills mentality (for those that way inclined)
Just saying, you can construct any number of justifications for any feature as being unneeded in a simulator by virtue of it being a simulator and doesnt have to be that realistic.
On the contrary, we are trying to simulate the F-16 here, so IMHO everything should be a close to real as possible (obvious limitations apply)
Why do you need secure voice, why not just use different IVC servers?
Why do you need voice, why not just use teamspeak? Or text chat?
Why do you need Data link, why not just use labels?
I see where you’re at here, but would draw a line at text chat and labels (unless of course they are an otherwise unknown feature of HMCS?)
-
I think your comparisons are not really pertinent.
Secure voice/HQ would bring nothing to the sim. There are been some works on the radio code, but nothing HQ/SEC related. On the other hand, built-in radio (datalink included) bring something. Would you be able to set your radio on the ICP if you were using Teamspeak or Discord as a mean of player communication devices? As you said, you want secure voice while playing PvP, just use different IVC servers.
Ejection seat, well. If you just “die”, then you’re KIA. That’s not happening if you eject and you’re rescued. It is relevant for your logbook, isn’t it?
Some of the “requests” in this very topic have been implemented, hence why I said pretty much. Ok, a little less than pretty much maybe. Which ones? Well, lets just wait 3-4 weeks
-
it should be simulated if that is possible to do
really i think you guys are having two different conversations anyway
the blue man says “everything about the F-16 should be simulated, because this is an F-16 simulator”
dreadlock man says “is not high priority because it doesn’t really change much”
these two datapoints are not really mutually exclusive anyway- i don’t think anyone thinks that secure voice is the 100% highest priority, and that includes the blue man.
still i think in a perfect world it would be cool to have just as a thing i guess.