Jump to content


Photo

Went back to BMS today... Nope.


  • Please log in to reply
59 replies to this topic

#41 [CPT]CptJackSparrow

[CPT]CptJackSparrow
  • Tester
  • Posts: 232
  • Location:Ft Worth, Texas

Posted 13 November 2017 - 21:08

Yep Israel theater uses Python4 which is just a long range WVR all aspect heater with LOAL capabilities. Granted it can be slaved to the HMCS "helmet sight" for those epic 60 degree off bore sight shots.

And no AGM88 so SEAD is done with the Delilah, a man in the loop weapon.

A great theater and great fun.

Hatzor!
  • 0
Posted Image

#42 Gambit21

Gambit21
  • Tester
  • Posts: 3904
  • Location:Pacific Northwest

Posted 13 November 2017 - 23:57

One interesting timeline for modern combat is during the transition from 'traditional' fighter tactics (find, merge, kill, like busdriver said) and the pure BVR engagements. This is before the advent of fire and forget missiles, of course.

 

Give me F-86 vs MiG-15's. Not only is that the sweet spot, but anything later and I just don't have the time to invest in learning it like I used to.


  • 1

                                                                                                                  

                                                                                                              


#43 Field-Ops

Field-Ops
  • Member
  • Posts: 248

Posted 14 November 2017 - 00:05

Give me F-86 vs MiG-15's. Not only is that the sweet spot, but anything later and I just don't have the time to invest in learning it like I used to.

If I saw constantly populated servers on DCS for just that planeset I'd be into DCS a lot more. 


  • 0

#44 Jade_Monkey

Jade_Monkey
  • Founder
  • Posts: 3432

Posted 14 November 2017 - 15:10

Give me F-86 vs MiG-15's. Not only is that the sweet spot, but anything later and I just don't have the time to invest in learning it like I used to.


I feel the same way. Can't get myself to dedicate enough time to learn all those systems and weapon types. The first jets are ok, but the newer ones are too much.

That's why i like the Huey too, it's still old school.
  • 0

i7 7700k  | GTX 1080 Ti |   16GB Corsair Dominator DDR4  |  LG 34UM95 3440x1440 | HTC Vive | TrackIR 5  |  Saitek X-55 HOTAS  |  MFG Crosswind graphite pedals


#45 =TBAS=Tripwire

=TBAS=Tripwire
  • Founder
  • Posts: 726
  • Location:Perth, Australia

Posted 14 November 2017 - 16:28

Loved BMS, and really enjoyed getting to learn the many systems and try employ them in battle. Haven't given it a run for a while now though.


  • 0

i7-7700k @ 4.8 | 16GB RAM | GTX1080ti | M2 SSD | TrackIR4 | HTC Vive | MSFFB2 + Joytokey | MFG Crosswind Pedals


#46 Gambit21

Gambit21
  • Tester
  • Posts: 3904
  • Location:Pacific Northwest

Posted 14 November 2017 - 16:35

I feel the same way. Can't get myself to dedicate enough time to learn all those systems and weapon types. The first jets are ok, but the newer ones are too much.
That's why i like the Huey too, it's still old school.


I talked with a current helicopter pilot at an air show recently as he was standing next to his static display (can't remember which type, Blackhawk or similar) and he said the newest ones have an all glass electronic console.
He said "I could barely steal one"

 

Meaning they're that different from the 'old school' one that he was flying.


Edited by Gambit21, 14 November 2017 - 21:08.

  • 0

                                                                                                                  

                                                                                                              


#47 Mmaruda

Mmaruda
  • Founder
  • Posts: 203

Posted 14 November 2017 - 19:53

Just to sum it up from my part on the technological advancements in air warfare...

 

You'd sort of expect that as technology progresses it's get easier, at least from a 90's kid's point of view. In computer tech we went from DOS commands to interfaces that are actually more intuitive for total laymen than power users. Translate that to military tech. The car. The Ford T was probably the earlies common man's vehicle on the planet, yet operating this thing is something that would cause a headache to modern driver, Chrysler was (I think) the first to introduce the 3-pedal standard and a key ignition. Meanwhile, planes went from moderately complicated, to less complicated, to rocket-science complicated. Starting up and operating a Spitfire is sort of tedious, then you get into something like a P-47 and suddenly the amount of levers in Soviet planes seems easy peasy. Fast forward to modern times, it's the F-16s and the A-10 and ramp starts take up to 10 minutes of switch flipping. And that gets you nowhere in terms of operating the jet in combat conditions (something that BMS is king of, perhaps a Dark Souls of Flight Sims title is in order here).

 

Backtracking to cars again, you look at something like a modern S-Class Merc and it's all convenience and luxury with ease of use and intuitive interface through complicated functionality. Yet with combat jests, the more modern the platform the more training is required. Hell, I could never bear myself to learn to fly the Mig-21 in DCS and a buddy was able to explain everything and make a competent pilot out of me through Teamspeak in like 15 minutes. But the A-10 and F-16 are a whole new ball game, you need to put in the study time and practice time to fly missions in them beasts, yet the emotional feedback is actually quite meh. And same goes for racing sims for me - that McLaren P1 is stupidly easy to drive fast, yet not really the engaging challenge I get from something like a Shelby Cobra. The general operating experience feels somewhat in line between racing and air combat sims when you pit modern versus classic machines, but at the same time, modern is hardly easier.

 

Probably why at the end of the day, my love for BMS will get trumped by my love for a more hands on flying experience that is more analogue, manual and personal.

 

Question is: with all them glass cockpits and probably the option to hook your iPhone up and browse FB while in flight, does it get more user friendly? Or does it just add another layer of complication to mastering the advanced systems of the jet?

 

PS It's not a rant, or critique, maybe just slight personal bias, but I am just curious, does the Airforce bother at all to save money and time on training, or is all that new tech just another PhD-level requirement put on the pilot?


  • 0

#48 blitze

blitze
  • Member
  • Posts: 99

Posted 14 November 2017 - 22:11

I found modern jet sims to be a bit tedious compared to props.  In the modern combat context, attack helos were my fun with Apache/Hokum.  Flying over Yemen ground hugging, being wary of terrain as there might be a 23mm a with your name on it.  But, WW2 props are my thing now and BoX is my food for that itch. 

 

Watching Soviet Storm at the moment from YT and it is scary the expanse of the Eastern Front and the devastation there.  Another reason I like BoX series as it pays homage to the poor souls caught up in that awful time.  Lest we forget, which given today's shenanigans, seems likely. ( 


  • 0

#49 mazex

mazex
  • Founder
  • Posts: 93
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 14 November 2017 - 22:42

I think I still have my Falcon 4 ring binder manual somewhere.

 

Younglings :)

 

n539qu.jpg

 

And yes - someone will dig out their Falcon AT manual and call me youngling :) And then I have to dig for my original tape of "Fighter Pilot" for the Spectrum :)


  • 3

i7 4790k @ 4.5 | GTX970 (latest drivers) | Asus Z97-A MB | 16GB DDR3 1600 Mhz | ROG Xonar Phoebus | Windows 10 x64 | TrackIR 4 | HTC Vive | G940 Hotas


#50 StickMan

StickMan
  • Founder
  • Posts: 132

Posted 15 November 2017 - 00:25

If you want some BFM in BMS just set up a 1 vs 1 dogfight. Use only guns or if you want some missile action just use 2 rear aspect heaters for you and the bandit. If you're in the mood to be challenged fly against the Ace AI F-22. Sure it's not the same as a WW2 dogfighting but I've had some fun doing that in BMS. Also the AI is not that bad.

Edited by StickMan, 15 November 2017 - 00:29.

  • 0

#51 CanadaOne

CanadaOne
  • Member
  • Posts: 736
  • Location:Canada

Posted 15 November 2017 - 00:47

Younglings :)

 

n539qu.jpg

 

And yes - someone will dig out their Falcon AT manual and call me youngling :) And then I have to dig for my original tape of "Fighter Pilot" for the Spectrum :)

 

Excellent! :cool:

 

I stated flying Falcon 3.0 on a 486 with a B&W screen and no sound. I kid you not.

 

The "Operation Fighting Tiger" add on was a lot of fun.

 

 

Edit: I think it was a 386, not a 486.


Edited by CanadaOne, 15 November 2017 - 00:50.

  • 0

bos_gold_en_zpstc2bz64s.pngbom_gold_en_zpsrkhiedcv.png


#52 Gambit21

Gambit21
  • Tester
  • Posts: 3904
  • Location:Pacific Northwest

Posted 15 November 2017 - 00:52

Bah!

 

Jetfighter - 1988.

That's where I cut my teeth on the Viper.  :ph34r:


  • 0

                                                                                                                  

                                                                                                              


#53 CanadaOne

CanadaOne
  • Member
  • Posts: 736
  • Location:Canada

Posted 15 November 2017 - 01:48

Bah!

 

Jetfighter - 1988.

That's where I cut my teeth on the Viper.  :ph34r:

 

Oh, you're going to be like that, are you?

 

I remember my dad bringing this home: Pong - 800BCE

 

3c39018b2720fe2f227420c1c7721a56.jpg


  • 0

bos_gold_en_zpstc2bz64s.pngbom_gold_en_zpsrkhiedcv.png


#54 Gambit21

Gambit21
  • Tester
  • Posts: 3904
  • Location:Pacific Northwest

Posted 15 November 2017 - 01:50

That's an AIM 9 being fired there from the F16 on the right isn't it?


  • 0

                                                                                                                  

                                                                                                              


#55 CanadaOne

CanadaOne
  • Member
  • Posts: 736
  • Location:Canada

Posted 15 November 2017 - 01:53

For God's sake, man. It's an Exocet being fired from a  Super Etendard. :rolleyes:


  • 0

bos_gold_en_zpstc2bz64s.pngbom_gold_en_zpsrkhiedcv.png


#56 blitze

blitze
  • Member
  • Posts: 99

Posted 15 November 2017 - 04:44

They just don't make computer games like they used to.

Aaaah, the good ol days. ))


  • 0

#57 theOden

theOden
  • Founder
  • Posts: 134
  • Location:Stockholm

Posted 15 November 2017 - 17:22

..

I guess what I am trying to say here, is that with BOS you get to fight in the machine, whereas in Falcon, you're just sort of there, doing a job. Sure it's an awesome job, but at the end of the day, doing 9Gs at 330 knots with full burner doesn't really feel impressive, nothing close to having your piston engine roar and cough fire while you crank up those RPMs to the full with closed shutters and full-rich mixture knowing there is just a small window of time to pull of what you intended, while praying to the gods of air combat, that your engine lives just these few more seconds until you can squeeze of a burst of them guns...

 

I'm pretty sure you've missed the basic idea of Falcon4.

 

Checked current known status of red air assets in OOB?

Did you check the current ATO?

Did that make you frag new flights with A-10's to dominate part of the frontline?

Did you frag a deep-strike F-15E package to destroy that powerplant far north?

Did you see an empty time slot in AWACS cover so you fragged another E-3 with it's well needed F-15C HAVCAP?

Did you recognize some flights you fragged calling action over radio while you were doing your job in your package?

Did you manage to counter that sudden Su-30 threat on your RWR while heading for target area?

Could you defeat the SAM threat pre-flight intel didn't show or did you realize early enough it was there and could adopt accordingly?

Did you check target damage and update you pre-planned targets on the map after your successful mission?

Did you add some of the new units found on the map, thanks to your F-16 sensors, to your pre-planned targets?

 

While the Viper is capable of 9G at full burner, that is not what Falcon4 is about.


  • 0

#58 216th_Lucas_From_Hell

216th_Lucas_From_Hell
  • Member
  • Posts: 3540
  • Location:3-я улица Строителей, дом 25, квартира 12

Posted 15 November 2017 - 18:54

I distinctively remember a funny discussion where a few active duty pilots, some with over 3.000 hours on fighters, were complaining that Falcon 4 is just too hard to be enjoyable :biggrin:


  • 1

#59 Yankee_

Yankee_
  • Founder
  • Posts: 287

Posted 15 November 2017 - 19:05

Excellent! :cool:

 

I stated flying Falcon 3.0 on a 486 with a B&W screen and no sound. I kid you not.

 

The "Operation Fighting Tiger" add on was a lot of fun.

 

 

Edit: I think it was a 386, not a 486.

 

My first ever computer upgrade was for 3.0. Bought 1 meg of additional ram. Turns out one DID need more than 640k. :)


Edited by Yankee_, 15 November 2017 - 19:05.

  • 1

#60 Mmaruda

Mmaruda
  • Founder
  • Posts: 203

Posted 16 November 2017 - 16:33

Turns out one DID need more than 640k.

 

I am tired, so I only saw the word "DID" and my first thought was TFX for some reason. ;)


  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users