Bulleyes
-
Will/doesn’t it use BE until a condition is met and then transition to BRAA within a specified tactical proximity? Unless asked…?..
IIRC, pop up and threat calls use BRAA. Either of us could check - the procedure is detailed in the attach 1 to the brevity words doc.
-
Will/doesn’t it use BE until a condition is met and then transition to BRAA within a specified tactical proximity? Unless asked…?..
Of course.
-
In future version, BRAA will be more realistic (no more “translation” for own player when someone else or IA say/ask for a BRAA). Understand that it will be only valid for the one who reqested the BRAA or if you know where he is. Because of the fix, “Radio Call Use Bullseye” option will become even more valuable.
Good to hear!
-
Will/doesn’t it use BE until a condition is met and then transition to BRAA within a specified tactical proximity? Unless asked…?..
P-825 reckons that for USN crews, they will use BRAA inside 30 NM (Granted, P-825 is specific to one training squadron and is about teaching techniques, but still).
Obviously in the case of the F-16, B/E is a lot easier to translate to contacts downrange than is BRAA.
-
Will/doesn’t it use BE until a condition is met and then transition to BRAA within a specified tactical proximity? Unless asked…?..
I think that’s right, that bullseye is the default behavior up to a certain point (inside 20nm pershaps)? And to override this behavior for BRAA at all times I think set in the config or setup, but I’ve never used it.
Anyway, I don’t think that’s Dee-Jay’s main point there. I think he is saying that you won’t get BRAA relevant to you unless AWACS is addressing you specifically (your “vector to threat” etc request). So if you hear BRAA directed at someone else, it’s going to be BRAA relevant to the directed pilot. So the present BRAA “crutch” if you will is slated for extinction. And I think that’s a good thing to be able to enforce in multiplayer, but I don’t see the harm of leaving the “translation” in as an option.
As I am color blind I’d welcome a few things to help me enjoy this game. For example, even though it might not be realistic to have HUDs with black lettering well that would be a minor godsend for me when flying at day above the cloud layer. Similarly, I don’t use padlock but if someone doesn’t have something like TrackIR, or maybe they just have real bad eyesight, well again why keep them from enjoying the sim. It’s already in there, so don’t take those crutches. Just add an option so that in multiplayer you can enforce rules if you want. Hey, I might have to join the nearly blind crowd here in a handful of years and it would be nice to still enjoy Falcon BMS.
I think of the bullseye in the same way. But instead of a a physical impairment you might have someone that is really and truly having a mental block when it comes to being able to interpret a BE call in a timely fashion. Sure, for the vast majority it’s just a learning curve thing and the crutch delays the learning, but that may not be true for everybody so why take it out? Anyway, it’s not on the top of my list of “I’d like to see”, but if a crutch is already in the game, please just give us more and more realistic options, and please don’t take old options away.
-
I think that’s right, that bullseye is the default behavior up to a certain point (inside 20nm pershaps)? And to override this behavior for BRAA at all times I think set in the config or setup, but I’ve never used it.
Anyway, I don’t think that’s Dee-Jay’s main point there. I think he is saying that you won’t get BRAA relevant to you unless AWACS is addressing you specifically (your “vector to threat” etc request). So if you hear BRAA directed at someone else, it’s going to be BRAA relevant to the directed pilot. So the present BRAA “crutch” if you will is slated for extinction. And I think that’s a good thing to be able to enforce in multiplayer, but I don’t see the harm of leaving the “translation” in as an option.
As I am color blind I’d welcome a few things to help me enjoy this game. For example, even though it might not be realistic to have HUDs with black lettering well that would be a minor godsend for me when flying at day above the cloud layer. Similarly, I don’t use padlock but if someone doesn’t have something like TrackIR, or maybe they just have real bad eyesight, well again why keep them from enjoying the sim. It’s already in there, so don’t take those crutches. Just add an option so that in multiplayer you can enforce rules if you want. Hey, I might have to join the nearly blind crowd here in a handful of years and it would be nice to still enjoy Falcon BMS.
I think of the bullseye in the same way. But instead of a a physical impairment you might have someone that is really and truly having a mental block when it comes to being able to interpret a BE call in a timely fashion. Sure, for the vast majority it’s just a learning curve thing and the crutch delays the learning, but that may not be true for everybody so why take it out? Anyway, it’s not on the top of my list of “I’d like to see”, but if a crutch is already in the game, please just give us more and more realistic options, and please don’t take old options away.
I would imagine some of this has to do with code manageability. When you modify an aspect of the game in a large way to increase the realism factor, there is some serious potential for it to have broad, far reaching impacts on other aspects of the game from a code perspective. Lots of things talk to lots of things. Leaving too many options means you are increasing the number of checks you have to do for a lot of decisions real-time. Take this example: Enabling the user to select BRAA always is one check, BRAA to “requester” vice “ownship” is another check. That means you have to code the scenario for for all 4 potential options, which isn’t terribly hard in this instance, but you have double the amount of “time” it takes to process this request by doubling the number of checks it requires (This is not explicitly true, it’s usually not 1:1, but it’s clOse enough for this discussion). Now throw this into a MP environment where these calls may be coming every few seconds from someone out there who isn’t paying attention, can get ugly quick. An isolated incident such as just this check and that won’t make much difference, but expand that to all the different options out there, and you start eating into valuable CPU cycles rather quickly…especially on borderline or under-powered systems. Or imagine something like “easy targeting” mode (Fictional, just an example to clarify the point) targeting interacts with FCR, HUD, Weapons, TGP, DataLink, NAV, and several other things. Most of those I mentioned allow you select a target in some way, so they would have to have some sort of code added to them to handle “easy targeting mode” in addition to standard ops. The same concept applies to Skill Level settings, Flight Models, AR realism, etc… There is a reason that most games with real-time simulation style play often have a limited set of options which actually impact the 3D environment. And before someone says “What about graphics settings?” that’s an entirely different beast, with a dedicated API and hardware/pipeline.
-
LorikEolmin am from kuwait
-
thnx guys for ur rections… and as i said at first its a sugestions and am really glad to hear ur openions and answers
-
I think that’s right, that bullseye is the default behavior up to a certain point (inside 20nm pershaps)? And to override this behavior for BRAA at all times I think set in the config or setup, but I’ve never used it.
Anyway, I don’t think that’s Dee-Jay’s main point there. I think he is saying that you won’t get BRAA relevant to you unless AWACS is addressing you specifically (your “vector to threat” etc request). So if you hear BRAA directed at someone else, it’s going to be BRAA relevant to the directed pilot. So the present BRAA “crutch” if you will is slated for extinction. And I think that’s a good thing to be able to enforce in multiplayer, but I don’t see the harm of leaving the “translation” in as an option.
As I am color blind I’d welcome a few things to help me enjoy this game. For example, even though it might not be realistic to have HUDs with black lettering well that would be a minor godsend for me when flying at day above the cloud layer. Similarly, I don’t use padlock but if someone doesn’t have something like TrackIR, or maybe they just have real bad eyesight, well again why keep them from enjoying the sim. It’s already in there, so don’t take those crutches. Just add an option so that in multiplayer you can enforce rules if you want. Hey, I might have to join the nearly blind crowd here in a handful of years and it would be nice to still enjoy Falcon BMS.
I think of the bullseye in the same way. But instead of a a physical impairment you might have someone that is really and truly having a mental block when it comes to being able to interpret a BE call in a timely fashion. Sure, for the vast majority it’s just a learning curve thing and the crutch delays the learning, but that may not be true for everybody so why take it out? Anyway, it’s not on the top of my list of “I’d like to see”, but if a crutch is already in the game, please just give us more and more realistic options, and please don’t take old options away.
I think in a way you have captured exactly what I’m thinking of - yes, that AWACS should switch to BRAA once you (or any other pilot) are WVR and being specifically addressed. I hope it does this, and continues to!
-
I think in a way you have captured exactly what I’m thinking of - yes, that AWACS should switch to BRAA once you (or any other pilot) are WVR and being specifically addressed. I hope it does this, and continues to!
If you are WVR, AWACS should only be able to give you FURBALL responses for anything you are WVR with. BRAA for groups it is monitoring is probably not a bad idea, under those circumstances.