Just to be a bit more specific some of the bug fixes Seifer is talking about (rwr issue , AI - missiles avoidance in MP) were already fixed in the dev versions for a long time.

We decided to backport some of them in order to improve user experience .

It’s good you like this communication , therefore that is very positive.

However I read here and there that this sort of communiction shows for the first time that BMS dev team is taking care of users feedbacks

I would like therefore to make a statement here

After all those years I am a bit surprised to read that some people believe we didn’t take into account users feedback before. As a matter of fact we spend countless hours to read your feedback guys, on bms forum , on several discord channel , on Reddit . We even visit squadrons forums regularly to read feedback. We even watch countless hours of videos to track bugs. We support in the background TvT.

Two reasons we didn’t communicate much in the past :

1. don’t forget some day in the past we were forced to work underground because of legal actions : so that leaves red marks

2. we are very careful to not provoke hype as we don’t want to disappoint you later on

So whatever the communication we make or made , even if we don’t communicate , just be sure of one thing : we care about you guys , your feedbacks and bug reports are very much valued as we can’t stand bugs or bad gameplay either !!!

Thanks for your support

@airtex2019

Star map and moon are accurate with latitude and date for the next 100 years

BMS does not predict supernovae explosions though , maybe in 3 to 4 weeks

That is a 4.35 feature

If you expect BMS to become a Simulator based on GFX up to modern standard then you will be disappointed

Things will improve , yes

But when I read that « the sims that will die will be the sims that don’t have a photorealistic global terrain » my only answer would be: yes sir , but only if those other sims have a high level of fidelity for a COMBAT sim in a global war .

And the only simulator for now that matches this definition is BMS.

Îm not saying it is bad or not I’m just stating facts

@xeno said in Some suggestions for improvements for the next versions -4.5 ?:

@mav-jp Hi mav-jp can you tell if interconnection between weather and terrain was considered?
I mean for example hot sunny day causes come parts of the terrain like rocks, cities or airbases (or any places which warms faster) to heat up and thus being more likely generate thermals and such phenomenas, up/down drifts or wind direction changes related to landscape shape, clouds forming along the sea coasts etc…
I know BMS in a weather simulation and dong it on at even basic level might be quite costly in terms of CPU power needed, but with new terrain engine and overall code restructure it could open some possibilities.
Also iirc such thing was attempted by FlightGear guys and it kinda works for them with some nice results.

P.S.
+1 on clouds but take your time guys

i am a real glider pilot and what you describe here, while totally relevant for glider simulator like Condo is totally irrelevant for a military combat sim. So we wont take time to code this as it would be a total waste of time. We take weather from GFS forecast and apply clouds where the file says there are clouds

Convective turbulence is however modeled depending on terrain type and sun elevation and sun power of course. So in BMS your convective turbulence force is dependant on those parameters, that’s the only interaction with ground and it’s already overkill actually

Amazing I hope I will be able to use your tool properly

It would open a new era for comms and means I would have to work a lot on ATC frags again !!

@gadfly said in Some suggestions for improvements for the next versions -4.5 ?:

If possible (and I understand that’s a big ‘if’ given the modeling involved), it would be great to have some “default” ground/landing-gear handling for the planes that don’t have AFMs. I don’t mind that they’re not full fidelity, but every once in a while I have the desire to fly, e.g., a Tornado in the sim, and it’s a bit of a bummer when it sticks to the runway on takeoff and landing.

Let me stress that this is a very minor complaint/suggestion, as I love BMS (4.35 U3 is incredible) and I understand that it focuses primarily on the F-16, but thought I would bring it up.

it’s already done little patience needed

@gusva said in Some suggestions for improvements for the next versions -4.5 ?:

@mav-jp

I can see that you are part of the high level team at the BMS. A suggestion that I had put a while ago is in the lower topic, is there a way to improve the ecm panel without bumping into the classifield and not getting so arcade?

ECM TOPIC

It’s actually happening

@seifer

This flag is mandatory , without it all airbases could be stucked in campaign.

sorry for the inconvenience

@trueno said in Some suggestions for improvements for the next versions -4.5 ?:

Hello everyone, continuing with the ideas for future versions of the simulator, something that I would like you to add is the possibility of communicating and using ground troops such as the JTAC and the like.

We thought about it as well

@pegasus82 said in 4.35 U3 Rants, feedback, comments:

I don’t recall seeing anything to suggest this in the changelog? I realise that a lot of work goes into each update, but perhaps a comprehensive changelog could be included? That might generate a bit more excitement.

One thing is definitively true we are absolutely shit in marketing

I will give you an example of our changelog

• « rework AHR seeker acquisition »

Changelog DCS style

-« New DCS Amraam
[2:11 AM]
The AIM-120 AMRAAM has received a separate INS (Inertial Navigation System) unit with datalink support. The INS will steer the missile to the predicted target intercept point using targeting data received from the weapon control system at launch. This will dramatically increase missile effectiveness against non-maneuvering targets when the missile has no guidance prior to its seeker taking over the intercept. The aircraft weapon control system will also send INS messages via data link that updates target position and velocity to account for target maneuvers.

The missile seeker model has been completely revised. The radar dish now uses a realistic gyro stabilised gimbal that is controlled by the INS before target lock. An active missile seeker, like in the AIM-120, will have its detection and tracking lock range based on physical calculations of noise and target signal ratio (which in turn depends on target RCS or ECM power and range). Target search and tracking is based on doppler velocity filtering (introduced realistic velocity gate), and the radar will search for target near the target reference velocity provided by the INS.

The guidance law was also updated. Missile seekers have received Kalman filters that estimate target motion parameters. The new guidance law accounts for target normal to LOS accelerations, possible  target G-load growth rate, compensated missile x-axis acceleration, and missile control system latency »

I agree that does not look the same , they can say Uber shutting things but it looks nice ROFLMAO

On the other side . If we document our changelogs like this , that would be a whole novel at each release

@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 ?

1. 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.

2. Just get the AI separated from ownship and have them rejoin.
   In 4.33 wingman did not use afterburner for rejoin.

Please read my explanations above

@bowser said in 2021 A Falcon BMS Year to remember!:

@mav-jp said in 2021 A Falcon BMS Year to remember!:

@bowser said in 2021 A Falcon BMS Year to remember!:

• AIM-120 behaviour is unrealistic. RCS setting in cockpit determines exactly at what distance from the target the missile goes pitbull and that distance does not depend on actual RCS at all. The RCS selection in the pit should only provide an indication to the pilot about when the computer in the jet thinks the missile is going pitbull depending on the expected size of the target.

sorry but we do not understand what you mean ,

According to our information the way we modeled the RCS setting in SMS is realistic

the RCS option in the SMS determines at what range the Seeker will go HPRF / MPRF, independantly of course of the real RCS of the opponent

it also determines the size of the signals that the missiles radar will be looking for

we double check and the implementation in BMS is correctly done

Cannot find the documentation where I’ve read this. Thought it was in one of the MLU tapes, but there it’s actually not explained in detail. However, it might indeed determine the distance when the seeker goes active but this does not necessarily mean that it immediately acquires the target. For example a missile shot with RCS set to LARGE against a target with a very small cross section. I would expect that the missile would not acquire the target immediately when going pitbull, however in BMS the target ís always acquired directly when going pitbull (independant of actual target RCS and selected RCS for the missile).

The acquisition process is an entire other subject

4.36 is the answer

@jayb said in Tanker question:

@mav-jp As a lead of a 4-ship with 3 AIs, it would be realistic to be able to tell the element (#3+4) to go and refuel, before #1 and #2 refuels later on. With 4 humans, this works flawlessly as long as #1 and #2 stays more than 10 nm from the tanker when the element calls into the tanker.

Has that been considered as an element command ?

yes, this is implemented in 4.36

@alfred said in Tanker question:

@coral36 Yes absolutely, it worked fine with “back to pre-contact position”. It wasn’t like you have to refuel on your way to target, just tested that. I destroyed target partially went for refuel then went again to attack then went for refuel. It worked fine. It’s good we have the pre contact option. I’ll be testing flying with four ships (three AI’s) and see if I can have the elements refuel before wingman.

it is very likely that you didnt release the tanker properly the first time , and yes there are bugs in this area that have been adressed since/

@bowser said in 2021 A Falcon BMS Year to remember!:

• AIM-120 behaviour is unrealistic. RCS setting in cockpit determines exactly at what distance from the target the missile goes pitbull and that distance does not depend on actual RCS at all. The RCS selection in the pit should only provide an indication to the pilot about when the computer in the jet thinks the missile is going pitbull depending on the expected size of the target.

sorry but we do not understand what you mean ,

According to our information the way we modeled the RCS setting in SMS is realistic

the RCS option in the SMS determines at what range the Seeker will go HPRF / MPRF, independantly of course of the real RCS of the opponent

it also determines the size of the signals that the missiles radar will be looking for

we double check and the implementation in BMS is correctly done

And the explanation is more simple than what i thought :

the Player and AI are calculating EXACTLY the same fuel flow, independantly of OFM or AFM

But at the end of the calculation there are those lines :

// For simplified model, burn less fuel
if (IsSet(Simplified))
{
currentEngine->fuelFlowSS *= 0.75F;
}

“Simplified” in the code does not mean a simplified FM, it means a simplifed handling mode , for instance when flying formation or going to waypoint this mode is activated.

When in combat mode, this is no more “simplified”

So…i think this line has been added long time ago to compensate from the fact the AI was not as smart as player to manage Throttle when rejoining and so on…

i dont think we should touch it actually

@bowser said in 2021 A Falcon BMS Year to remember!:

• AI fuel consumption is way off compared to human, especially low- and high level.

AI fuel consuption is off indeed (i wouldnt say WAY off ) , but actually the AI burns less fuel than the player , didyou think it was the opposite ?

Youtube Video

@asw200 said in KNEEBOARDS:

Is there a way to be able to see the full kneeboard when you use 2d pit view ? also when using 3 d view how do you bring kneeboard closer so you can read the data .

2D pit view does not exist anymore

@airtex2019 said in Roll trimming:

@airtex2019 said in Roll trimming:

There is a little switch that says “ATT HOLD”.

Does “ATT HOLD” attempt to achieve “zero roll-rate” or does it attempt to achieve a desired bank angle?

The feedback loop is on Roll Rate

If you expect BMS to become a Simulator based on GFX up to modern standard then you will be disappointed

Things will improve , yes

But when I read that « the sims that will die will be the sims that don’t have a photorealistic global terrain » my only answer would be: yes sir , but only if those other sims have a high level of fidelity for a COMBAT sim in a global war .

And the only simulator for now that matches this definition is BMS.

Îm not saying it is bad or not I’m just stating facts