tombeckett2285

Correct ;) lots of numbers and figures, little in the way of eye candy. We're still here though, beavering away in between real world commitments! Some really good developments so far though that are remarkable given the short time we've been working on the project. Trust me, when we've got something to show you, you guys will be the first to see it :) Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'd just like to point out that the comparison to the FC3 F-15 and Su-27 is pretty much invalid as the specific system simulation level on those aircraft probably stretches to systems where the information is virtually public domain. The realism level demanded of most 3rd party addons would render many military aircraft off limits, not just from a legal point of view but a cost one as well. Of course, if there was a big enough market for an F-4 with a reasonably accurate flight model and FC3 level systems I don't see why somebody wouldn't go for it at some point. However, you'll always get the obsessive types who demand very switch, circuit breaker and rivet is modelled precisely or there is no point. Different strokes for different folks of course, but you get the picture. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Looking splendid guys, can really appreciate all the hard work going in! Can't wait to get behind the stick of this bad boy :) Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

PM sent. Perhaps I should have said a more cautionary 'if' rather than 'when', but custom aircraft systems are still very much within our plans for the Buccaneer.

Well, using the Su-25T avionics we can drop TV guided bombs which function effectively the same way as laser guided - with a little bit of simple coding we've incorporated we can change that to a GBU-16 so it looks more accurate and to the user functions in much the same way as a Pavespike guided LGB drop. We also have a few more weapon surprises up our sleeve that we hope you will enjoy ;)

It had a Strike Sight - a very simple type of HUD. In case of radar guided attacks, the Blue Parrot radar provided heading information to a Targeting Circle. There was an Aiming Mark aligned with the aircraft nose, and indicators for roll angle and a simple TAS indicator below the Aiming Mark. In Depressed Sightline attacks, the Aiming Mark could be depressed for dive attacks, or in Laydown mode it was used to designate the aim point for the Control and Release Computer to calculate the release point. When we get to the point of advanced system modelling we will hopefully produce an accurate interpretation of the Strike Sight, but until then, to provide usable weapons functionality we've got to use the Su-25T avionics. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Still working away here! The flight model is under constant development, we are tweaking and adapting it for the most 'realistic' feel we can (within the current confines of the SFM). It already feels pretty good, but there is still some way to go before we are happy to let you guys have fun with it. Work continues also on 3D model tweaks and advancements, animation tweaking etc. Of course, we do this only around (usually very busy!) real working lives so some weeks mean more progress than others. But we are steady ;) Of course, we can always do with more hands to make light work! Coders, modellers, texture guys - feel free to drop me a PM if you can make any contributions. Hopefully, we'll get a video or at the very least some in depth screenshots soon. Two weeks, be sure ;) Tom Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I haven't got them confused. What LN, RB or any other developer chooses to include or not include is up to them. Let's take an example; Any aircraft can carry a laser guided bomb, it doesn't require any special hardware if the laser code is set beforehand and the bomb is dropped within the range of an externally designated cone. Why isn't every aircraft within DCS therefore equipped with LGB's? Just my $0.02, take it or leave it. No offence should be taken from a different point of view. That's what makes this hobby interesting.

I think you've really taken my opinion out of context chap. It wasn't a pointed offensive comment towards yourself, France, the Air Force or Dassault. It was a humorous observation on gamers (not just within the DCS environment, but flight sim in general) who are on an ever more aggressive quest for 'realism' and 'accurate simulation' - my point was where does one draw a line? If you want the ultimate in realism and to mirror real life consequences then if you get shot down then you can't play the game again, or at least for a few days/weeks/months. Is this too much in the realism stakes? I really don't know why so many gamers get their pants all twisted up over 'realism'. Like I already said, a simulation is just lots of numbers and functions fed into the processor to produce a desired result. The engine isn't 'simulating hydraulic pressure in controls', it's just producing some numbers what the programmer has asked it to in a particular situation. At the end of the day, as a business, if adding ARMAT, Exocet and AS30 to the M2000 to produce a hybrid C/D version but using the RDI radar would guarantee RAZBAM another 10,000 customers they'd be foolish not to do it (I'm not saying it actually would guarantee that, it's a hypothetical point), regardless of what the most vocal and dedicated to realism consumers think.

Perhaps Zeus ;) but then again, purists sometimes have to 'relax' their expectations - it's all just functions, calls and values pretending to be an M2000/A10/F18 etc really isn't it? There aren't real electrons, gallons of hydraulic fluid or laser designation beams in DCS (or any other simulation). If they want to be really anal about 'realism', then if they get shot down their PC should self destruct and they shouldn't be allowed to launch the simulation ever again! :D My opinion - if it can be integrated smoothly and in a way that would genuinely enhance the module for a majority (not just a vocal majority, but the silent one too), and there is even circumstantial evidence that usage of a weapon is/was possible in a real life war scenario then it should be included. At the end of the day buddy, that's your call though ;) Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

MARTEL AS37 (as used on Jag, F1 and Bucc) wasn't used on M2000. ARMAT has been; but it uses an improved version of the AS37 passive homing guidance system which is pre programmed with expected target radar or jamming frequencies on the ground. Midcourse guidance updates are provided after launch, so I would assume that the missile is provided with an INS position update from the launch platform before launch (much like Sea Eagle). It is a very heavy weapon though, weighing 50% more than a HARM and twice as much as an ALARM so it's definitely not a defensive/suppressive weapon - it's exclusively for dedicated, planned DEAD missions only. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks for all the support and enthusiasm guys! Of course, it is still very early days but things are going in the right direction... When we have more to show you we will ;) Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ladies and Gentlemen, on behalf of the BANA Project, I am extremely pleased to publicly announce our first development module for DCS World: the Blackburn Buccaneer Mk2. What started out not very long ago as a conversion project from another sim has quickly gathered pace, fuelled by the passion and commitment of our development team who have formulated a long term goal of an accurately modelled interpretation of this truly magnificent cold-war era British strike aircraft. This module will be available to the whole DCS community for no cost. The aircraft is currently in an early state of development, but the 3D external modelling, animation and texturing work is almost completed. The Simple Flight Model is undergoing development and testing at this time. We plan a staged release to make sure that as many users as possible can enjoy this project; once development of the SFM is completed we will release the aircraft to the community utilising an existing DCS avionics and cockpit solution to allow it to be flown within the DCS environment and to allow all users to provide testing and feedback. Development will continue in the background on an accurately modelled 3D cockpit, customised systems and accurate weapon loads - of course, all within the confines of a simulated environment. Eventually, we hope to be able to provide an External Flight Model, Advanced Systems Modelling and Custom Weapons. We would like to openly invite members of the DCS community to participate in the BANA Project, we have a variety of roles available to assist in the development of this Buccaneer. We can't offer a generous salary, free healthcare or even a company pension - but what we can offer is a group of like minded enthusiasts to share ideas with and have some fun developing modules for DCS: World. Please contact me by PM if you would like to offer your services to us. Feel free to post any questions, queries, advice, criticism or ideas you may have for this module. We welcome them all with a big smile and an open ear!"

And now I've gone and watched 'Flight of the Intruder' because of this thread which has made me 'quite interested' in an A-6 Module! A mighty fine aircraft - still not a patch on the Bucc, but definitely a mighty fine aircraft ;) Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The thing is, with the advent of ultra precision targeting pods and weapons, even something as simple as a Hawk could be suitably modified to provide more accurate ground attacks than the original A-6 did at a much lower cost of both acquisition and operations. That's why ALL fighters now being produced (Typhoon, Rafale, F35, Su-30, Super Hornet) are multirole. Remember the four dimensions of any military aircraft: Length, Wingspan, Height and Politics. The only criteria that matters in the real world is the last one ;) Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We noticed, it's just the Bucc is, well......better in every way ;) *post may contain overtly biased opinions* Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

:O No words......... Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So it's Harrier-Tucano-F15E-A6-??? Hopefully the ??? Is something else mega interesting. And British :D Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Cheers dude, it's easy when you know how eh? ;)

I have started dabbling with 3DS and have had some success in animating parts (flight controls, landing gear, speedbrake) of a model I exported from FSX for learning purposes. I have managed to animate a sliding canopy in accordance with the draw argument document, and I have checked in the ED model viewer and it operates perfectly - up until I get to frame 91 where it should disappear (no draw). I have got it to do so in Max by using a visibility track, and it works exactly as desired but this isn't following through after export. Could anybody advise me of the best way to achieve this?

I'll be honest, I think Razbam should do an A-7 or A-6, but not both. I realise they have slightly different roles, but ultimately they are both US Naval Ground Attack aircraft of similar vintage. If I had to choose, I'd go with the A6 because it's a more capable machine (and the A7 looks like a flying breeze block). I also think that once Razbam have got the F-15E up to a usable point then modifying the code for a plethora of other twin seat attack aircraft should be much, much easier (I'm thinking Buccaneer, Tornado, F-111, Su-24, A-6, F-4 etc). Total guessing here on my part, but I would imagine that the Mirage, Harrier and F-15 will use common code for most of the systems (hydraulics, electrics, flight controls etc) that is simply interchanged between aircraft and modified to produce the individual characteristics required. That could be how they are planning two modules per year in future? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The Bucc and the A6 are very evenly matched aircraft. The Buccaneer is superior in terms of manoeuvrability and performance, as well as it's self defence ability which the A6 lacks; it is probably fair to say it is a better airframe, but the A6 benefitted enormously with superior avionics from day one. If the Buccaneer had been upgraded throughout it's life in a similar way to the A6 then there would have been no doubt of the Bucc's superiority. As it is, the strengths and weakness of both airframes even themselves out in comparative terms. The F16 is not a strike/attack aircraft - it is a lightweight multirole fighter. Considering it is twenty years newer as well, I still don't think an F-16A would make a better bomb truck. If you put a LITENING pod and the Tornado Ground Mapping/Terrain Following radars on a Buccaneer there wouldn't be much to touch it for ground pounding, even today. Well of course, looks are all subjective - but I won't even justify the A-10 comparison with a comment.....:lol:

Well the moment you start planning it, let me know mate. I'll do as much as I can to help out in any way possible. Such a project would truly be a labour of love! I've been reading the manuals from front to back, back to front - I think I'll soon know as much as about the Banana Jet as the great men and women at Blackburn in Brough did all those years ago. Plus it's given me some really good ideas as to how to implement the functionality of a twin seater while remaining easy enough for one person to fly and operate effectively in a sim environment. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As you say Mattebubben, it's all about opinions ;) Not a Viggen fan, the canards ruin it for me, they make it look big-eared! The A-7 is a truly ghastly machine; it is basically just an enormous flying speedbrake . Given, it can carry lots of bombs for a long way - but so can the Bucc! The Jaguar is a lovely looking machine as well, and can carry lots of weapons as long as you don't try to take off while they are still hanging on the pylons. It also has a woeful fuel capacity, especially as you need afterburners on pretty much all the time to get it moving :) I think the biggest problem in producing a lot of the Soviet aircraft is access to sufficient documentation to model them fairly accurately. This seems somewhat less of a problem for western types, especially those retired quite a few years ago.

Dammit, I thought I was being subtle. You've got to admit, she's a beauty though ain't she? :thumbup: Some lovely videos on YouTube to whet one's appetite too; gave the US boys a bit of a shock during the 1977 Red Flag exercises too - once cut through some telegraph wires while climbing! Screaming along at Mach 0.9 20ft above ground level sounds like the sort of flying we need more of in DCS!