This is HARD AS HELL!!! (DON’T LOOK AT THE BASKET!!!)

Backfire intercept over north sea - 1987

@SoBad It’s not an issue, it’s how the radar works. You need to tilt down/up the antenna, so the radar can scan the proper area of terrain. It’s a new feature implemented in 4.36

@white_fang 2-3 weeks for that…
Maybe the BMSOFM guys give us some hope

A full dinamic campaign on EUROPE Theater 128x128!

@qawa I would love to see the F-16A cockpit someday

Only 2-3 weeks to release

@qawa Can’t wait to put “One Vision” on my ear plugs and start to destroing and airbase all by myself… with mavericks and mk82!

@molnibalage said in Military Equipments Usage by Countries and Dates:

Type into google, NATO oob 1989.

That is a very usefull info! Thanks for sharing!

@MaxWaldorf said in New maps?:

CET for a while before other theaters can come up…

Do you think CET are going to be released before .38?

@MaxWaldorf said in [BMS Roadmap 4.37 U3] News from the BMS Team:

U4 would be possible but only as a bug fixing solution to issues breaking the sim that would not be detected by testers…

No new stuff before 4.38…

That’s the story so far, but things could always change.

Thanks!

Great work of you guys!!! Can’t wait to see the new stuffs!

Thanks again

@VIPER-0 i need you to read whats was writen, and not what was NOT writen.

What i say was:

“We could have an U4 or U5 for possible bugs and corrections with the new features in U3?”

There is NO demand on that sentence, there is NO criticized on that sentence…

The point of my sentence you can find on your on words:

“… a version or an update comes out, as is normal it has its bugs (even paid things have bugs), we who exploit the software communicate the bugs to the creators and they correct.”

With such foward step with U3 and some new types of files (what is totally cool and amazing!) is totally understandable that we MAY have some bugs and issues (and i say again… MAY HAVE)

The question is:
a) Could we be expect an U4 or U5 to solve eventual issues
b) The solution of these POSSIBLE issues that we MAY HAVE will be only solved in 4.38

That’s it, and NOTHING MORE!

@vAiCon i know this is an off-topic but…

Did you see that issue with Su-22 ?

We could have an U4 or U5 for possible bugs and corrections with the new features in U3?

@vAiCon F-16 in KTO. I have an block 40 that i removed the AMRAAMs and JSOW (to simulate a late 80’s style) but i got plenty of GBU-12/10, Maverick, Sidewinder, CBUs…

Self explanatory image

The squadron has AG weapons in stores (check with MC)
Sometimes i have this message, sometimes not

Any ideia what’s making this weird behaviour?

@SoBad the loadout of an aircraft are extensively studied in wind tunnels, and through test with inert models as well.

Sometimes, if the weapon doesn’t enter in some safety parameters of homologation they don’t use it.

Exemple… AIM-7 Sparrow on wingtip. You can find photos of F-16 with AIM-7 in wingtip, BUT… are for test only and the safety standards are not met for this loadout, so… it will not use it (even if the F-16 can “structurally” carry the AIM-7 in wingtip)

Is a bit complex, not sure if i have been clear

@SoBad said in How to adjust rack rules.:

I know I’m sounding argumentative, but I’m trying to understand, not argue. Thanks.

Not argumentative at all, you made a fair question.

Just because the pylon has the capabilitie, i doesn’t mean you have to put it there… i know this sound “strange”, but there are some structural limitations (in RL) that may put the weapon release in a dangerous situation. So… they limit to only 2 per pylon (in RL off course).