@BlueEyes
I am using YAME to pull the cockpit lights (caution/warning etc) and Helios to pull att the MFDs RWR moving map and dial guages. Works pretty well, but you can do it all with Helios. Learning curve was a little steep (for part timers like me, anyway) but I figured it out finally.
Posts made by Yetiwso
-
RE: YAME64?
-
RE: 4.37 killed the AMRAAM
@Mav-jp
Data link should prevent this. The missile’s inherent trajectory shaping and DL will put it in a close to “optimal” position to see the target when the seeker goes active and it should continue to use DL as an input until pitbull.You’re correct about outrunning the missile in a full drag manuever, however, my beef with BMS AMRAAM is the overall pessimistic ranges for Rmax and Rne. They are short, it seems.
-
RE: Israel Theater of Operations for BMS 4.36
Hello!
I am enjoying the ITO very much. Great Work to you all!When I am flying in the “Peace for Galilee” from the 109th FS (Kfirs) from Ramat David, the inter-flight comm frequency (VHF) is unusable and shows up in WDP as well as BMS as something like 558.62, which is obviously not a valid VHF frequency. In the cockpit, I had one as 58.1, which, of course meant I could not talk to my wingmen. I tried switching the flight to UHF (channel 6) and they responded, but when I tried to get them to commit, attack a target, change formation, or check in (rejoin whatever) there was no response and they didn’t execute the order.
Is there a way to update the assigned frequencies the wingmen will be on or change how they are assigned?
-
RE: Hornet Avionics???
Just a couple of thoughts on the Hornet avionics discussion:
It would be cool but what F/A-18 systems would you have to, or want to model that couldn’t be reskins (more or less) of existing sim components? You could easily (being relative, I’m not a programmer or coder, but have quite a bit of experience in that area) make the APG-68 look like an APG-73, and maybe even account for some of the performance differences to get a passable A++,C or D. You can reskin ALR-56 to look like ALR-67 and remake the HUD. Those are cosmetic that would add some immersion into Hornet like world. From there, it probably gets much more difficult.
E/F and maybe G would be more realistic for the modern fight, since legacy Hornets are beginning to lose relevance in the modern air to air fight. Newer E/F/G software releases look very different than the older versions, and actually kind of have a video game feel (to me anyway).
As for your list, that is impressive and not easy to do. Link-16 is complex, but you can do moving map HSD with YAME (I even reconfigured the compass overlay to be Hornet-like). Any EW (jamming and its effects especially) and dynamic RCS continue to kick the butts of real simulators, so anything that approximates that stuff here by this crew is impressive.
In any event, Hornet revamp would be neat and I think you could make an initial cosmetic attempt without having to actually build it from scratch. Of course, then there is the flight model……
-
RE: Beginnger's Guide: How to Add or Replace a Weapon to BMS
I am also very interested in updating the AIM-120 ranges to C and D performance. The 120s in the game now are VERY pessimistic and range updates would make them much more realistic, especially with D now in the US inventory.
-
RE: Question about F-18 future in bms
Hello, just curiosity, the hornet will be some day fully system implemented some day? I mean, map in colors on mfd, etc.
My workaround for this is to export the graphics using YAME to a second monitor and use the Block 60 pedestal moving map. I changed the range rings to be more of a compass rose. Its still a work in progress, but its a little better than just the default HSI. Even A models had a microfiche moving map.
I’d like to see a skin upgrade to the avionics to make it APG-73 or even APG-79 like. If you know anyone who has those skills I am willing to help craft the visuals, if required/desired. I’ve often wondered how hard it is to re-skin the avionics. Any idea?
Thanks
-
RE: F18 cockpit gauges
Rather than start a new thread, I thought I’d post this here:
Is there a callback for the Hornet Flap switch? The one I’m using for the Viper flap switch isn’t working on the -18. I can click it in 3D, but would like an option to HOTAS it.
Thanks!
Yeti -
RE: F-18 Hud
I thought it was “Continuously Computed Impact Point” Constantly sounds like a lot of work, but continuously just sounds like something being done for fun!
Use the reflected cue or get a lot of smack on the jet……maybe?
-
RE: Hornet C flight data question
Corner airspeed in a legacy A++/C/D is around 300-330 config dependant. HOWEVER, bleed rate at corner with anything other than 2/2/G load is eyewatering as well, so you got that going for you(50+ kts/sec), so I wouldn’t hit the merge with less than 380 and more like 420 if your fighting MiG-29 or Su-27 series. Remember even in full grunt those little 404s are not putting out anything near what the Ruskie motors are so NRG management is key to fighting a Hornet effectively. That and the slow under corner NRG addition is less than stellar, but you get great high alpha manueverability. Better tp gp for a quick kill than stay in a protracted turning fight because dumping the nose will mean giving exclusive use turning room to your dance partner.
-
RE: Bugs on super hornet
Giving this thread a bump because the E/F flight model is kinda gooned but the C/D is much better representation.
The almost unrecoverable deep stall (falling leaf in the Hornet) was almost removed with FCC updates in the real aircraft.
To recover in 4.33 I’ve had to (in an E or F):
1. Throttle - Idle
2. Spin recovery switch - RCVY
3. EMER JETT Stores
4. Control Stick - full forward
When recovery was indicated by an increase in air speed and a break in AOA:
5. Throttles MAX AB
Passing 250 KIAS:
6. Smooth pulloput not to exceed AOA tone.Seems kinda buggy and it usually (!) works……needs to be fixed, but I’m not a code slinger.
-
RE: Dereliction of duty
I agree that in the tactical campaign that you are driving, your semi-global SA is not reflected in the determinations of the digital JAG.
However a real pilot destroying a high value target, especially an infrastructure target, in combat on his own initiative is going to be answering to someone (probably not dereliction of duty, probably failure to obey a lawful order based on the ATO and ACO about not destroying friendly infrastructure. Probably would fall into the real world category of “Good initiative, Bad judgment!”
I am also chuckling at your wingman’s obviously “superior” moral awareness.
Let that be a lesson to you: “Don’t try to win the war making tactically relevant decisions. Rather, win the war by surviving the hair raising missions the AI plans for you. Guaranteed to run you through at least 3 SAM and 4 AAA rings within the commit range of at least one hostile fighter group!”
Good on you though!
-
RE: Avionics modeling
My $0.02:
The avionics modeling update required to make this a truly multiplatform sim might be much more easily (and possibly effectively) done by developing, or retooling, the existing sensor models, then tweaking the performance and displays based on the T/M/S they are supposed to represent.
For example, APG-73 in F/A-18 has similar performance to APG-68, but the displays are different. APG-70 has better performance, and different displays entirely.
If you could reskin the display graphics, but have a core radar model, that might be an easier way to get a more realistic “feel” to the radars than individual, unverifiable models.
A scalable solution could also apply to effects of EW on radars. Modern radars do lots of processing to figure out if they really know what they think they know. Sometimes the result is a jam cue of some kind. Sometimes, the radar is just spoofed. The problem in a sim like this is it likes to use “digital” solutions, when in the real world, the “yes/no I can hack it” with jamming changes many times per dwell.
It would be nice to see some updated radar graphics for other aircraft as a first step, though, even if the same model is used……
-
RE: Configuring Saitek X52 pro mini stick (mouse) for radar cursor
MorteSil Thanks for the response. I figured it out finally. The key file editor was outputting the wrong mapping due to X-52 Pro being selected on one of the tabs and not the regular X-52.
Once I fixed that and completely cleared out my SST profile (i.e. a profile with nothing mapped) it is working as desired.
Paying attention to the little details saves you time, effort and frustration. Lesson learned, AGAIN!
Thanks again!
UPDATE: As a reference after struggling with this, my preferred solution is below (inputs welcome, just wanted to capture for people like me):
1. Perform complete uninstall / reinstall of the X52 and Mad Catz software (obviously with the latest Win10 drivers from their site)
2. Perform the registry edit to enable mini-stick as an axis. Your choice on what you give up (rudder or slider, I chose slider). Information on this is readily available in this forum. My reinstall did not show ANY axes in the registry so I did the following:
a. Copy and paste registry code from this site with correct device ID into notepad. This is “key” pardon the pun.
b. Define axis 8 as the one you do not want to use
c. save the text file with a .reg file name to a location of choice.
d. Run saved .reg file, system will warn you of doom, accept risk.
e. Open BMS to ensure axes show up3. Create a single axis, un-programmed profile in X-52 Profiler. Use this profile when starting BMS.
a. you can, theoretically, map the non axis as buttons with bands in the profiler to regain that functionality, but I haven’t had need to, yet4. Use Key editor to define DX bindings. Ensure the correct controller is selected on all appropriate screens (DX Settings, Key Editor tabs). Export.
5. In BMS, choose mini-stick axes to run cursor via setup. Load keyfile you exported. Click Apply.
6. Kill Bad Guys!
Hope this helps someone.
-
RE: YAME64 suite
I don’t think it’s somewhat related to Windows10CU (my development pc has this same window version). More likely it’s a little bug in the network code that should be fixed (is under massive testing) in the next update.
Maybe Windows10 CU exposes more this issue, sorry for this inconvenience.After some testing, I think I have fixed the lag problem by deselecting Antialiasing in YAME. Although I wouldn’t think that would cause that much lag, I guess it is possible.
Thanks again for the response and for a great product!
-
RE: Configuring Saitek X52 pro mini stick (mouse) for radar cursor
Alright, I my ineptitude is showing. My registry showed both PIDs, but the one with the Axes keys did not ID as X52, and X52 had no Axes keys at all.
So I added the keys to the X52 entry and it still is not showing up in game as an axis. I had previously modded the no-X52 PID axes as well, but that didn’t work either.Any thoughts?
Update 1: After removing software and drivers and reinstalling, I now show the PID 075C with no axes, but it does ID as an X52.
Update 2: Made teh registry change and it worked, I now have the mini stick axes available in the sim.
Next issue: DX controls on the stick don’t seem to persist after a couple of missions. I lose all shift functionality., but that may be another thread.
-
RE: YAME64 suite
Gents,
I have been experiencing lagging in the UI and in game using YAME. This only started after I recently updated to Windows 10 CU from Windows 7. After updating required drivers to get my X52 working (I/m old and cheap) it worked fine for about a week.
Then today, I was flying in the ITO and saw that the extracted displays began to lag the in game displays, first by a little and then they became completely unusable. I restarted both the game and YAME, downloaded and reinstalled YAME, adjusted update rates and checked this forum for similar issues. After reading these posts, I noticed it was lagging in the UI as well, with up to a couple of seconds between click and tab change.
I assume that the lag is related, but don’t know how I would prove that. The Win10 update also may have had an impact. YAME was being run in Win7 compatability mode, but changing this didn’t seem to effect anything.
Is there a setting somewhere that could be causing this that isn’t YAME related? Like I said, it just started happening today and is very frustrating, as the main window MFDs work fine.
Thanks for any help you can give me, I’ve been using YAME for about 6 months no problem. It’s a great product, I sure it must be operator error on this side.
-
RE: F16 & buddy lasing : what is the point of buddy lasing?
Absolutely correct. Often, CAS players may have LGB or Laser Mav but no pod. Especially with limited range and station platforms like AV8B. Buddy lazing from lead or FAC(A) may be the employment mode of choice. If given the option, most crews would prefer self pass, but sometimes you need a friend.
-
RE: Approach into Grottalgia airbase
I appreciate the outstanding work everyone here has done with this product. It is truly amazing that a community can produce such a great product. A couple of observations:
While someone is talking about approaches, the ILS into Lamezia Terme had my AI wing men crashing into the far side of a mountain at about 10 miles from the runway. I think either the glide slope is too shallow or perhaps the runway is not at the proper orientation. According to Google Earth, that bastion of unclassified imagery, the airfield is a 28/10 runway oriented parallel to the mountains. While the squadron WAS USMC, not even Jarheads follow ILS (they don’t have it) into the terrain!
On another note, the F/A-18 A+/C/D loadouts are pretty good, but could be improved by allowing for carriage of dual 500lb class unguided bombs (Mk82, Mk20/CBU99) on the center line (station 5) or a single 1000lb class (Mk77, Mk 83)
Does anyone have the ability/knowledge to modify how the radar displays? I was thinking there might be an opportunity to create a APG-73 “skin” over the existing radar engine to bring a little better realism to the Hornet.
Thanks for a great product.
-
RE: F/A 18C HORNET FULL EDITION (Photoreal Cockpit & Photoreal Skin)
Vipers love the thrust and ability to sustain turn, etc. Hornets like tight and slow fights. Very difficult for either to get a real advantage over the other in a dogfight. It comes down to knowing your craft, its strengths and weaknesses and knowing your opponent.
Many an F16 gets shot by a Hornet trying to out rate him in a radius fight. Many a Hornet gets shot by a Viper when he hasn’t thought about what the move AFTER this one will be with his higher Alpha capability.
The Blue Angels loop and roll with their gear out because they can……