Re-skinned F-16s?
-
With the new aircraft that we have in 4.33, I wonder if we can still call them “re-skinned F-16s”?
In other words, how accurate are the flight models of the new aircraft? How “far away” are they compared to the F-16’s characteristics?
Here is the topic that made me ask this question:
Every plane is really just a faceplate over the F-16. Any switches that are selectable in a non-Viper flyable are simply a callback to an identical function in the F-16. If you go to the DOCS folder and find the FA-18 pdf you will find that each switch has its F-16 keymap callback listed. And it is here where we need to keep it honest. DCS models their planes and helos with nearly a clean slate. BMS allows only a few tweaks away from the underlying F-16 in order to create a plausible flyable.
<snip!>The BMS team is quite upfront about this. The F-16 FCS is tangled all throughout the code. This isn’t to say that other flyables aren’t convincingly different, but whatever is done to make them so, is just nudging the F-16 numbers.</snip!>Thanks!
-
I’m interested in this topic also.
I do recall reading somewhere a good portion of 4.33 changes involved some manner of untangling or modularizing the code so that it will easier in future to add new aircraft.
I also wonder about the VTOL capability of the Harrier. Certainly the AV-8s flight model must be beyond simply nudging the F-16s numbers?
-
Bumping this thread again as the topic came up again and I wasn’t too sure how to respond. I’ve not flown 4.33.1 yet and even with 4.33, I never really flew the other aircraft.
How far removed are the systems/avionics on other aircraft compared to the F-16? How accurately modelled are the flight models and avionics of the other aircraft? Is the F-15/F-18/Harrier’s radar totally different or just a “tweaked” F-16 radar?
-
BMS is still an F-16 sim, and everything in the avionics is “F-16ish”, and it will probably remain like this for quite some time.
however there is a misconseption that the FMs are all “F-16 based” - which is plain wrong.
currently very few aircraft in BMS have the AFM complexity of the F-16. because it is the main focus. however, AFM is also available on the F-18 and IIRC the M2K.
the rest have a dedicated OFM, some older and less accurate as others as getting data is problematic, but understanding it and creating a proper FM from it is a specialized skill that takes time.But many aricraft FM had gotten some love for 4.33 others had been worked up for 4.33.1 and more and more are “in the pipeline”.
currently, FM-wise, BMS is heading to a good line up of fairly realistic OFMs for the AI.However, while OFM is what Falcon4 started with, in today’s standards it’s good for the AI, but the user experience is very different flying AFM aircraft.
So don’t go looking for F-15 flight experience in falcon, because OFM does not provide it as AFM does. -
OFM?
AFM = Advanced Flight Model?So AFM is the F-16, F-18, and ??M2K, the Harrier is OFM?
-
OFM?
AFM = Advanced Flight Model?So AFM is the F-16, F-18, and ??M2K, the Harrier is OFM?
OFM vs AFM :
https://www.benchmarksims.org/forum/content.php?121-Flight-Model-%28FM%29-Developer-s-Notes-Part-2As for which AC has what, cf BMS-Manual.
-
Thanks!
How accurately modelled are the flight models and avionics of the other aircraft? Is the F-15/F-18/Harrier’s radar totally different or just a “tweaked” F-16 radar?
-
Thanks
-
Well, in my opinion BMS is a F-16 study sim and it’s very complex and precise.
By using / superimposing / attaching different 3D external and cockpit models (Harrier, MiG-29, Tornado, F/A-18 etc) players get a variety of planes to mess with but all based on a “tweaked” Falcon. This is actually good 'cause spending years developing a free Harrier module (keyword is free) for only a handful of players that are really interested in Harrier and are avid Harrier fans is kinda timewasting, don’t you think?!
For instance, I strayed away from DCS ever since it became DCS and stopped being Lock On - Modern air Combat where keywords (at least for me) were MAC. It’s kinda weird and historically inaccurate flying P-51 over Georgia and to be honest, although a great and probably the best piston engined fighter of WW2, P-51 is something I’m not very interested in. When I am I run other WW2 focused sims like for instance Sturmovik.
You may ask why’s there no Harrier dedicated sims and the only and most correct answer would be a lack on interest by flight sim population. That sim would end up being a great sim for few of You, I’d never get interested even though it’s a VTOL aircraft, something that’s worth just spooling to see how it really works and how it’s modelled in 3D world. Let alone other less interesting jets.
Look at DCS: L-39C Albatross module - detailed to the rivet and I believe it’s made really good but in the eyes of Virtual Breitling Team it’s a best DCS module ever going to happen. I’m not gonna play it though 'cause I can only do stunts with it, probably slightly better stunts than with an average Cessna 150.
So yes, flyables in BMS are tweaked Falcons, if you zoom out external view You probaply won’t notice…
