@Geraki
“Internal sounds” (important for realism and immersion) : What people don’t understand (especially if they newer flew in a fighter jet) is that what they hears on videos is NOT what the pilot hears.
This is a sound recorded from a plastic/metallic GP PRO that is not “wearing” (covered by) an helmet.

A better way to understand it to listen the audio loop of the intercom rather than pure camera recording :

Actual physic reality of pilot’s audio perception … or a kind of mix of both :

Also, what ppl don’t (or don’t want to) understand … what pilot hears in cockpit is more the pulsed air from the aircond system (ECS) and the airflow on canopy than the engine itself which is almost inaudible.

Please guys (3rd party Dev or even some internal Dev) … for the L.O.V.E. of the hardcore simulation, stop calling things “realism mod” when you don’t know what “realistic” really really is.

…

About external … BMS do not simulator the Doppler effect and sound attenuation with distance correctly. It is almost impossible to enhance the external sound and not possible to tune them without scrubbing some internal results.
Needs a new external sounds system first. If I set engine external sounds in a nice way for external views, inside cockpit, you will hear other a/c up to 10Nm * … and will mute suddenly in an extremely unrealistic way.

• IRL it is no more than few meters.

Can you hear other jet on this video ? (direct cam recording) :

… do you think the pilot can ?

Just pay attention here, do we hear something from the leader while it is only few meters away (no sound change at 1:37 when leader’s AB goes off) ?

… no much more here :
We can only hear a difference a little bit when leader releases the breaks.

…

An interesting one :
We definitively here something when wingman is crossing the flight path of the leader … Do you think we hear the leader’s engine ? … nope.
What we hear it the engine airflow striking the canopy :

@amr35 said in Intra-Package Comms:

Is there anyway to hear reports for flights within the package. UHF Channel 6 gives picture calls but anything relevant to SA during a strike package (like flights pushing, escorts engaging, SEAD flights engaging or hitting SAM sites, strikes reporting in, bombs away, and off) don’t seem to be called. Is there a way to change that? If there isn’t is that realistic for flights in a package to not make any informative calls?

3 - 4 weeks.

I vote “keep it as it is”.

It adds readability and help certainly young users no accustomed to them.
Besides, IRL, you do not mistaking “Request departure clearance” with “Inbound for radar vector” … if so, it is time to see an neuronal specialist.

Specifically good/representative for those who likes to know what a pilot hears in a cockpit …

(Jump 16:45)

@sheref said in WIP sounds mod:

@Dee-Jay If I understand you correctly, the pilot can hear the engines inside the cockpit, even with the helmet

Roughly like it already is in game.

I’ve used my own real jet experiences on french jets to tune the balance/equilibrium of volumes levels and sounds themselves has been developed by Jester in very close relation with one of our F-16 driver for the details (pitch/volume/RPM … etc …)

Without earplugs the pilot can a little hear the “engine” (actually what is the most audible is not the engine itself but the ECS air conditioning blowing air in cockpit, and the outside air flow on canopy) … More or less the same way you can hear your car engine if you drive with a motorcycle helmet on.

If you look for realism , there is not much to do on current cockpit sounds. All you can do is a matter of minor cosmetics, with 100% risk of breaking response curves originally defined by us which took months to properly set.

Speaking about sounds it is the code that would deserve modifications/overhaul to better handle the way sounds are filtered thought canopy, the way how loops are managed, maybe a spacial rendering allowing different samples whether you hear the front or rear section on left/right ears. … etc …

But to my pilot experience, if you are looking for hardcore realism, there is no need to change what is already existing.

Check out the articles we had on former BMS forum (which is missing on the new website) : https://www.benchmarksims.org/forum/content.php?145-Pump-Up-the-Volume

You can also find a lot of other discussions on the old forum about it. I’ve already spent “hours” explaining all of this.

To sum up, original sound has been developed by ppl who have real flight experiences, aiming a hardcore experience in BMS (considering some compromises to brings necessary physiological feedbacks such as vibrations/accelerations, but avoid making them to be overdone) … and they are not “fancy”.

…

Here is another very good video giving a good idea if what you can actually hear (and in some ways, feel) with helmet on and earplugs. On some high G maneuvers, the mask lets the cockpit sounds going through the mask microphone (source of the recording) because of its tightness :

@Atze-0 said in Suggestion: Putting BMS on Steam as a Mod to improve its longevity and public visibility:

@Atlas
You are right, BMS will be discussed more by the existence of the F-16 module.

I did a short side step to DCS this afternoon, building an OCA package mission and flying it. I almost forgot what a pain in the a** it is. The HAD is a bit funny (at best). Then trying to get the other planes to drop bombs is a problem that was never really solved. Me beeing lead of the SEAD flight having taken out the SA-10 and Tunguska I placed was not enough. The AI flew so stupid that the remaining 2 Shilkas and a SA-13 got the F-18 runway bombing flight (although all the waypoints were set at Angels 20).

So, I’m cured now, buying some roses and coming back

Creating a (good) COMAO on DCS is a nightmare and an unsolvable dilemma.
AIs are unable to depart correctly, unable to manage timings … unable to manage formation changes and be back track/trimming, unable to deliver weapons properly, unable to manage fuel, unable to recovery correctly.
It is literally impossible to sync several flights without spending few days adjusting each tests after tests …

It is just something (I don’t have the words).

If they want to have a dyn camp, they have A LOT of work fixing and enhancing this first, otherwise, they dyn camp will never work.

This is what AIs does after one week of fine tuning and syncing three flights at push (without success) …

@Ragnar-1 said in 4.37 killed the AMRAAM:

@WPNS24

DCS doesn’t seem to have the same problem…

It has some other problems

@ericfa2a

Consider it as a feature.

All those new gen radar shares quite the same Fre/Fr/Prf ranges … so they can hardly be discriminated.
So (to make it simple) a F22, J20, Rafale, … etc … radar will probably be sensed by RWR as the same “family”. It would be too long to explain what would be the results on displays … but long story short, they will all be assimilated to one of them.

RWR don’t display the reality … only a interpretation of what library allows to believes what the reality is from a radio reciter perspective.

For more info: https://falcon.blu3wolf.com/Docs/Electronic-Warfare-Fundamentals.pdf

EDIT;
Nothing real here (in terms of param and values), just a kind of illustration of what a library is and were “ambiguities” comes from …

Where param intersects, RWR can’t discriminate …

@Jackal said in Santa's wishlist for BMS:

So, more seriously now.

Would it be more complex, for the devs., adding or allowing in the Mission Editor the faculty of adding/changing a name to any waypoint each?
That only “TGT” one, assigned to its own waypoint, is really disappointing since 20 years of development.
This apart from the consideration that having a 2D map still nowadays is… terrible! And making our “competitors” (who? when? where?) making great larfs at us

But I am almost sure that we will get all of these above in Falcon 4.3(…).
So, Merry Christmas in advance to all of us, Gentlemen!

With best regards.

Very seriously, we arestill using real charts/maps nowadays that are 2D (not practical to draw a 3d paper map with a pencil). What is nice with that method is that it doesn’t require electric power.

About WTP name, it is rather a matter of UI, and as you should know as an old Falcon guy, UI need total rework. Any modification is true nightmare and have large impacts.

DCS user can laugh no prob (laughing is good for health).
As long as DCS AIs are not able to properly recover and land on an airbase without stupidly orbiting on runway axis and colliding … etc … , I prefer by far BMS UI than DCS AIs.

@FreqiMANN
It will sound weird to you … but 25% is not a bad ratio.
FYI: IRL, a missile is not necessarily launched to kill a target, but to force enemy to abort or to waste his fuel. Don’t expect AIs to look for a kill anytime.

@jcook said in Trim question:

For the nose up, down, left, right trim hat-switch on the joystick, is there a way to adjust the amount of trim being applied when the button is moved?

Nope.

@sheref Sound table is not the only factor. Each sound index must also be managed by the code itself. So it also require code support.

@regev said in [4.37.3] [KTO] PPT tadius - can it be changed ?:

I now don’t need to change PPT radius, i leave it as it is

You can change it. It depends on the risk level you want to assume and your task. You can even have/use several PPTs for the same threat if you think it is valuable.

@regev said in [4.37.3] [KTO] PPT tadius - can it be changed ?:

I have tested the SA-2 ppt circle ,its radius is 27nm.

SA-2 unit only fire at 15-16nm and below.

I guess there is a logic to why its 27nm, i just do not know what is it . . . so if enyone can explain why 27nm and not 15-16nm ?

Because missile max range is about 24-27Nm … means that once in flight, it can theoretically reach a target distant up to 27Nm when launch occurs (depending on target type, intercept geometry, aspect, altitude, closing speed, reaction … etc …) Acquisition/tracking is also about that range (could be less, could be a bit more).

Operator (AIs) is not that stupid, he will not launch at that distance (unless he just want to force the target to turn around and abort its mission). So … if goal it a target destruction, he will certainly wait the target to be more inside the kill envelope (evasive/non evasive dilemma). The more he wait, the more the risks … Depends also on its doctrines, target geometry, its nerves, moral, skills … etc …

All in all … if you stay out of this 27Nm ring, you should be safe in all circumstances. Once you are inside … you are no longer safe. So, this is the logic of SAM Rings => As long as you stay out, you should be 100% safe. Once you are inside, you’ll have to pay attention to it as it can be a potential lethal threat.

@repvez said in Santa's wishlist for BMS:

The uploader was @Dee-Jay so maybe he knows something about it . If I remember well, The source file was downloadable sometime .

Download link : https://www.dropbox.com/s/985udyst4nsupcm/EjectionSim.rar?dl=0

@b0bl00i said in Santa's wishlist for BMS:

That makes me wonder, what is a realistic distance for lights to show up based on our eye sight?

Depends A LOT on lights intensity, weather conditions, approach geometry … I would say about 8Nm.

@Sniper-0 said in DeeJay's Voice Activaded Commands (VAC) Profiles:

@Dee-Jay Am aware of Foxvox, currently using it, I used VAC some months ago, before the trial elapsed, it recognizes my voice very well, that’s why am still searching for it. Want to purchase but the site is down. Thank you

I have one activation left, then after, VAC is dead. As far as I know, there is no more support.

@Sniper-0 said in DeeJay's Voice Activaded Commands (VAC) Profiles:

Please is there anyway I can purchase VAC, their site is down… Thank you

VAC is dead bread.

May I suggest FoxVox : https://forum.falcon-bms.com/topic/21078/foxvox-free-voice-control-software-for-bms

@rubbra You won’t get anything better as long as radar PRF are sensible/classified.
You currently have the best possible considering this fact and well educated guess.

@SyntaxErol
My screen resolution is 1920*1080. Used the “2” view snap down.
Just try the files and check is results are really different or not.
Maybe nVidia settings can worth a check (?)