@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.
For god sake, please use those screenshots for Website Gallery https://www.falcon-bms.com/gallery/ instead of the monsters screenshots we currently have (they are utterly flat, no perspective, they have nothing! it is a shame to present the software like that.)
Guys … please post here your best screen in high resolution (1080p 1920*1080) so that Max can use them for the Gallery.
@vfp said in Quick update from the BMS Frontlines - November 2021:
@mav-jp
then show something i can see the diference
Ok … only for your eyes …
@1508ad said in Intra-Package Comms:
@dee-jay You seem defensive unnecessarily.
I always assumed the package channel was accurate to what was happening in sim.
It was accurate to what was happening in sim. … but it wasn’t “package” only , it was “world” … and without knowing who are speaking and where they are, it is completely pointless comms.
Just try to think about it.
If now you hear:
“2, engaging Mig-29 BRAA 220 20 10 thousands.”
You don’t know who is 2 (is it Cowboy 2-2, Cowboy 2 leader, Snake 4-2, Serpent 6-2 … ?) and you don’t know his position (20NM north West position? … 200Nm deep inside DPRK? … 50Nm south over ROK ?) … what can you do with a BRAA call ? … etc …
meantime, this message cuts a comm’s from your wingman telling you that you have a bandit in your 6 …
Does it helps the SA? …
No. It ruins it.
It is not a defensive attitude. It is only about saying facts.
Those “world” comms was not much useful than a fake AWACS chatter broadcasted on a YouTube video.
In DB we also need (among many other) :
Humvee
HMMWV
HMMWV AMB
HMMWV MG
HMMWV S
HMMWV TOW
In any cases I suggest not to removes “lines” or “menu pages” depending on flight phases.
If we do so, it will break any Voice Activation software.
See what I mean?
@gillers67 said in Hoggit quote on BMS: "In fact, the "game" is free...scam flag if you ask me":
Well it is Hoggit …
A discussion about the old classic Falcon 4 manual/binder. And then these comments on BMS…
Anyone care to help them out?https://www.reddit.com/r/hoggit/comments/r1y9nz/truth_be_told_id_repurchase_some_of_my_favorite/
Good one!!!
I like it! 
Hi Dema!!!
Any chance to have a full package to go in KTO? … (if you are okay, we will maybe be able to add some more liveries in stock install … but w’ll discuss it together later on if you will ;))
Meanwhile, we’ve took proper informations from IRBA (Institute for Biomedical Research of Armies https://www.defense.gouv.fr/english/sante/notre-expertise/recherche-biomedicale/recherche-biomedicale) … I think that our model as a variant of the Stoll model and had also feedbacks from RL (F-16 and other) jet pilots.
@maxwaldorf said in SOUNDS:
I
2nd re-install and you are correct sound is still jacked up.
Try a repare/troubleshooting on your soundcard, right clic on volume icon then troubleshoot …
Check spatial sound option unactivated.
Certainly a matter of taste.
If you post screenshots it will be easier to compare.
@seifer said in IVC stereo separation possible?:
Unrelated to this, but I wonder if any jet implementation does 3d sound for RWR spikes. Does anyone know? That would be pretty cool!
Only on F-16 MLU. Not available on US Blk 10/20/3040/50. Possibly on Blk60/70 (not implemented as you know).
Is fixed on future version (IIRC was the lack of aero model a high negative AOA.)
Better let Jp answering.
- Just to be sure, I mean rejoin during any flight phase (for example after air combat, especially with the new AI tactics, wingmen like to get separated and use plenty of burner to catch up again). But I assume that what you mention about take-off is also valid during mid-flight. For pure AI flights is it not possible to have the leader maintain a relative slow speed until its wingmen have rejoined after completion of the task that caused the separation? And for after take-off, currently the flight plans have a 6 min holding, doesn’t that solve the rejoin after take-off?
It is never trivial … Relative low speed, over hostile territory it is never smart. In that case, better get rhem recoverd isolated.
Normally (IIRC) wingmen should only use AB if/when separated by xxNm (I do not remember how much).
As a human leader, you should be be too far from your wingmen, and when they want to rejoin, you can help them a lot by having a trajectory perpendicular to him or even take a heading towards him. Or making turns … etc … whatever …
For AIs it is obviously more complex since they are robots. I.e. Leader taking 90° from its wing and then go directly into a SA6 WEZ … how to prioritize in IA brain? What if running already low fuel on recovery? … etc …
It is highly highly complex and can leads into some other issues making IA smarter in one aspect, but dumber in another …
Hi!
@bowser said in 2021 A Falcon BMS Year to remember!:
@dee-jay said in 2021 A Falcon BMS Year to remember!:
@bowser
1 > - AI fuel consumption is way off compared to human, especially low- and high level.
2 > - AI should not use afterburner when rejoining in flight.1 - Please elaborate.
How did you evaluated this?
Have you considered AI (robot) behavior and leader abilities to be a good leader considering the nature it his wingmen?2 - Please provide factual examples.
Also, consider that is could not be possible to make a difference between rejoin and other flight phases … so … if we prevent IA from using afterburner, it may be all also prevent them from using is in combat …
See the problem ?
Straight and level flight with AI wingmen in formation, throttle constant just below mil power. Try at 1000 ft and at 35k feet. Evaluate fuel diference between ownship and AI.
Just get the AI separated from ownship and have them rejoin.
In 4.33 wingman did not use afterburner for rejoin.
1 - What do you consider as “lots of fuel / big difference” on an entire flight? 1000lbs, 2000lbs, 3000lbs ? … We may not have the same definition of “big difference”.
I will try to check is (again) but I didn’t had big difference since low time ago (of course, on a standard navigation without defensive/offensive actions).
The best would be to join an ACMI if you can and the TE so I can fly it also on my side in the exact same conditions.
2 - The issue was that the AIs were in some case NEVER able to rejoin the flight after a takeoff (I.E. runway 36 departing northbound on a straight track).
So we made some leader actions to maintain 6000kts outbound and slower speed (not sure about the speed) until #4 rejoin (that will be allowed to use a bit AB for this and should not take long time) … then, once rejoined, leader is allowed to start climb again and once cruise FL reached, accelerate to match the TOS.
In case of human leader, the rejoin plan can even be smarter (making a triangle to help the wingmen to rejoin) that ca can’t do for AIs. Also other things about flight planning but none ensure 100% efficiency. The only way to fix this was to re-allow IA to use AB for rejoin for a shorter period of time (if human leader is not dumb and take care of his wingmen).
Ideally, the AI leader would be amble to perform a pre-planed trajectory routine of few turns (one or two) to help the rejoin,
… examples:
… but it is not possible at that point to hardcode it. It is always a matter of difficult compromises.
@luke777 said in Help wanted:
Fair enough.
Let me tell you one thing though, you are funny, hard to believe. You want models to be compliant to a certain standard, legit request, then you should provide a complete and detailed documentation for that. A little shard of wisdom here and there is not going to cut it. Until then don’t expect any better than the crap I am doing.
Hi Luke!
You are doing what you can, same on our side.
Giving info and tips is precisely what I am doing (or trying to do) and this is more or less new because the fact that DOFs and Switches are more demanding than polycount is rather “new”.
Quite often, ppl was arguing about the fact that we (BMS team) do not share information.
So was simply giving you an information.
You can do what you like with it, considering it or not … it is your choice …
If you don’t want more info, jut tell me. It will save me time and I will use it to do something different.
Dema (who has been integrated to the team) is maybe about to contact you and maybe plan to propose you some collaboration for texturing … please let him know if/if not it worth the efforts.
Sincere regards.
Hi again!
Another tip for you 
…
For the TR-1, the comparing to the LOD0, the lower LODs looks less performant than the 0! Of course they should not.
Whatever the polycount, what really matter are the draw+calls. I know that you have no way yet to measure the craw-calls, I can tell you that:
LOD0 : 29
LOD1 : 31
LOD2 : 30
LOD3 : 29
LOD4 : 15
Ideally, last LOD should be around 1 - 5 …
What cost in draw call the most are the DOF and the Switches. Also the polycount but less.
So, if you can in a smart way, reduce the amount of DOF and/or Switches used in models with the distance increasing (LOD1 / 2 / … etc … ) you should be able to have efficient lower LODs.
Regards.
It is not dramatically audible … even without headset and earplugs.
This can give a little idea …
In mil
Youtube Video
With AB
Youtube Video
