wait until you hear, “just like beggars canyon, back home”
Posts made by FreqiMANN
-
RE: Every once in a while you learn something new ... "I'm a dot!"
-
RE: 4.37 killed the AMRAAM
at the risk of continuing to piss everyone off:
i havent had much issue with MY missiles hitting the targets. i always aim to launch at R-tr if i can. there is little a target can do if you launch within R-tr.
i do have a problem with the AI i fly with. they are wasting slammers at long range. their kill ratio is around 25%. multiple occasions where an F-16 will shoot all of its slammers at a target, miss, then get killed in an ensuing close range engagement.
i do believe the AI needs to be tweaked to reflect whatever change has been made in 4.37. they need to be much more conservative with missile employment.
-
seeing DPRK REDFOR A-4 in ACMI. what is it?
always low and slow. (currently staring at one: M .3 angels 5) usually seen south of pyongyang. i’m assuming tacview is just using it as a placeholder, but i’d like to know what it actually is. AN-2? some kind of helicopter?
-
RE: New ECM model
thanks for the thread. was wondering about this, myself. IMO the manual could stand to go into more detail. XMIT 1 is stated that it turns off the forward antenna. however, i think it should explain in more detail the ramifications of this. using previous knowledge, i inferred the jamming is weak/nonexistent(?) in the forward arc. i think this information needs to be plainly stated. it would help to also quantify jamming strength between XMIT 1 and 2.
-
RE: FOV patch in configurator no longer working in 4.37.
@MaxWaldorf thank you. after inspection, it was pointed at my 4.36 install.
-
FOV patch in configurator no longer working in 4.37.
i had to modify the BMS cfg manually. that solution works fine, but i bet it’ll cause confusion with others that didn’t know you could do that.
-
RE: Timing discrepancy with flight plans involving both "refuel" and "holdpoint" actions.
@Jackal said in Timing discrepancy with flight plans involving both "refuel" and "holdpoint" actions.:
This premitted, what you saw doesn’t seem happening by chance to me, but could be due to some relation existing between those two kind of tasks
are you implying this is intentional as a piece of a future, yet-to-be-implemented, feature?
-
Timing discrepancy with flight plans involving both "refuel" and "holdpoint" actions.
When planning a flight that has a refuel steerpoint and a holdpoint afterward, the flightplan mirrors the hold time for both points and the time-on-station completely ignores the hold.
placing a 10 minute hold on the refuel point changes the hold point to 10 minutes. when changing the hold point, the same thing happens to the refuel point. the values are mirrored. flight plan time-on-station times reflect the hold time at the refuel point but NOT the hold point. in addition: If AI fly the flight plan, they hold at the refuel point and completely ignore the hold point.
More information:
https://forum.falcon-bms.com/topic/23175/questions-about-planning-inbound-aar-for-ai-package-in-a-campaign -
RE: Questions about planning inbound AAR for AI package in a campaign.
Further testing, today:
switched to KTO. flight plan shows same behavior. noted that there is a hold accounted for in time-on-station after the refuel point, but not after the hold point. created TE and tested flight plan in 2D with all AI. AI flight flies to refuel point, holds there. after station time ends, flight continues on. at the hold point, the AI flies on regardless of station time on the flight plan as if it was a regular nav point. this corresponds to the time-on-station observations i saw on the flight plan, itself. I’ve observed that target waypoint station time seems unaffected, like TARCAP.
while i’m glad BMS isn’t doubling the amount of time my AI spends flying in circles, that still isn’t optimal for what i wish to accomplish. i would like to frag and fly large package missions with AI. i would like them to hold away from the tanker for deconfliction, then continue on at a predetermined time/order. that seems impossible, currently.
to anyone in the know:
why is the station hold time mirrored on refuel/holding points?
why do the AI ignore the hold point?
is this a limitation of BMS? if so, can it be changed?
any workarounds people can think of? -
RE: Questions about planning inbound AAR for AI package in a campaign.
@MaxWaldorf sorry, but this doesn’t address anything i’ve asked.
“when planning a refuel steerpoint and a holdpoint in the same flight plan…”
i already know how to do that.
-
RE: Aircraft campaign role
this shows AI generated package preferences in the campaign. general does everything. AA, AG, SEAD, try to stick to those roles in those squadrons when packages are generated by the campaign engine. Note: if you’re flying an aircraft capable of a different role, you can still plan missions yourself without any restriction.
-
Questions about planning inbound AAR for AI package in a campaign.
FYI: all occurring in Mideast campaign.
primary issue:
when planning a refuel steerpoint and a holdpoint in the same flight plan, the hold duration for both are linked and repeat the same value. if one is set for 10 minutes, the other is set for 10. if i modify it for 20, the other is 20.i’m trying to get multiple AI flights refueled at the same time, then have them hold and push from separate steerpoints. given the above, it appears that’ll never happen. is this intended? if so, how do the AI handle flying this? will they hold double duration at each point, or just hold once?
Side issue:
how long of a hold should i put in for each plane? i’ve been putting in 5 minutes per aircraft, so 10 minues for a 2-flight, 20 for a 4-flight. 10 for 2 seems justified, but 20 for 4 seems a little long. how do you guys calculate this?WDP issue:
when planning a mission using WDP, the flight plan seems to take into account the advisory “tanker” steer as part of the plan, as if i would fly to my landing point, then continue from there to a tanker. this grossly overestimates required fuel on the datacard. i can solve this by deleting the advisory steerpoint, but i would rather not, if given a choice. any workaround to get it to stop doing this? -
RE: Mouse too slow
use radeon. there is something called “anti-lag”. just turned that on. will see if it has any impact.
–update: no effect.
-
RE: Mouse too slow
thread rez.
noticed mouse slowdown after updating to 4.35. noticed improvement by turning off V-sync. mouse speed seems linked to framerate.
-
RE: Open letter to the BMS Devs and anyone reading this.
as someone who feels like they have been made unwelcome in the past, i hope this is true. i hope people are getting better. keep your egos in check. i’ve introduced people to the sim, while specifically steering them away from asking questions here because of past interactions. i’ve had falcon since it came out, started in multiplayer in the late 00’s. if i get treated like crap for asking questions about a new version, how the hell will you react to complete new guys? not worth finding out.
-
RE: Dcs World Viper and Falcon BMS
so long as ED were advertising in good faith
this.
i payed $60 for the ****ing hornet. that was two years ago. i want it ****ing finished before you move out with your next even crappier product.
-
RE: Dcs World Viper and Falcon BMS
If bms is is more realistic , so tell me things or systems in bms that match F_16 in real life
as far as avionics are concerned, there is too much to mention. i can give a rough estimate based on percentage:
DCS F-16: ~20% complete. based on what i’ve seen. don’t own it. what few systems are implimented, most don’t work correctly. waypoints move permanently with targeting pod? pathetic. many system switches are placebo and dont actually do anything. (try going inverted with the fuel pumps off in BMS)
DCS F/A-18: ~50% complete. …and that’s after two years. I own this. seeing it convinced me to never buy from them, again. uninstalled DCS shortly after buying. flight model was good, but it was like flying a vietnam era fighter with a modern coat of paint and flashy lights. too much stuff was missing.
DCS A-10: ~90% complete. cant comment on flight model, but avionics are solid. had a lot of fun with it.
BMS F-16: ~90% complete. there are very few things that are not implemented. many important systems that are not are still classified. ECM being a prime example. the modern Link-16 datalink is absent, unsure if that is because of security or sheer difficulty to implement. there is an older iteration of radio datalink in BMS that still functions very well. They added IFF not that long ago, and that was one of the last remaining absent combat systems. BMS now does that far better than DCS ever did.
the official modules made by eagle dynamics have taken a sharp drop in quality. i’m not buying anything from them again until they are on par with earlier products. F-14 module looked decent from a layman’s eyes… but i just don’t like the turkey, and i still feel like i’ve been scammed by the hornet. personal gripes: BMS/Falcon has had a working AA radar with very accurate modeling of the majority of features for literal decades. neither DCS 16 or 18 have that, yet. skeletonized RWS and TWS, no VS no RAID/EXP. BMS falcon has had a working AG radar, again, for decades. no aircraft in DCS has a working modern AG radar, yet. i think the viggen is the only one, and that barely counts. its a lot harder to find targets in DCS than it should be.
/endrant
-
RE: Assign ground target to AI Wingman
i’ve had similar issues. AI need to be micromanaged or kept on a leash.
from my understanding:
Attack Targets: this tells the AI to attack any target linked to the objective type; any building at a certain facility, any vehicle in a battalion.
Attack My Target: tells your wingman to attack your current target and no other targets.my strategy: if i can do multiple passes, i attack the targets i want, then let the AI have at it while i provide cover. if i only have one pass, i find individual targets and order each wingman to “attack my target” before attacking my own.
-
RE: Campaign: how am i going? I'm feeling lost, help!
everything seems to be going okay. ground forces are at a huge disparity in your favor. mission rating is excellent.
the campaign is won or lost based on certain towns being captured by the end. i don’t know what cities those are for tiger spirit, unfortunately. as long as bridges are available for your ground forces to reach their objectives, you should win.