Jammer penalty
-
I do not know the exact radar equation of BMS but in RL RCS is not linerally porportional to detection range so I guess in BMS/Falcon maybe also is not.
I suspect that that is not the case, since if the opponent is not jamming, he is in an su27(1.3 rcs modifier) and i am in an f-16cm b50 (radar type 1-detection range vs rcs of 1 at 35nm) i always detect him at 45 miles. That stays true for many matchups. The HAF f-16 has a named detection range of 50.5 vs rcs of 1 (radar type 144) and i always pickup su27’s at 65nm.
-
https://www.benchmarksims.org/forum/showthread.php?12402-Radars-in-F4&p=168848&viewfull=1#post168848
Take a look in this old post and you will understand how everything works. “Tiag” was my old user. If you have any questions afterwards, ask me, please.
If the file does not work for you, send me a PM with your email and I will send you the complete excell table. -
@Master:
All the tests where done in both RWS and TWS, i even tested in spot scan. Very small differences.
With regards to scan volume, i stated that i suspect the sweep rate to be the factor for the slight delay between burnthrough and the target showing up on b-scope.Just spec’ing TWS or RWS isn’t enough…what scan width (20, 30, 60), how many bars, etc.?
It really depends on what both radars are doing…so if the bogey is mixing up tactics/geometry on you - which he should be - then your results are going to vary.
-
Just spec’ing TWS or RWS isn’t enough…what scan width (20, 30, 60), how many bars, etc.?
.
on all possible azimuths and bar scans.
-
@Master:
on all possible azimuths and bar scans.
You should get something different for each…in reality.
-
i do, like i said above with regards to sweep rate, 2-3 miles earlier or later detection depending on azimuth (and bar scan)
-
Isnt there an aspect modifier to RCS though? Head on might be decreasing the listed RCS below what it shows, which would cause the disparity in detection range.
-
Isnt there an aspect modifier to RCS though? Head on might be decreasing the listed RCS below what it shows, which would cause the disparity in detection range.
Dont know if this is simulated in BMS, but all my tests are strictly head on to maintain jammer gimbal limits.
-
I had thought the RP5 manual reckoned it was simulated; seeing as it also reckons an IADS is simulated though, perhaps a more reliable source would be a team dev weighing in.
-
I am starting to suspect something here:
In all my tests vs the su27 he always burnsthrough at 22-23nm’s. This respects the burnthrough calculation provided by tbuc’s excel (the values within the excel are outdated, i use the bms editor ones). What happens when he locks up, is that he shoots vertically to about 36kft. We both start at 23kft and we remain that way until he locks me up. This happens literally ALL the time (ace ai).In order to anticipate this move, i set my antenna to cover the altitude that he climbs to. Now, based on burnthrough calculation i should see him at around 16nm’s, but i dont. Here is the interesting thing. Since i detect him at 13,5 i suspected that perhaps i suffer from the look down penalty although i am lower than him. I run the look down and jamming calculation and behold, i end up with 13,5nm’s. I try it again. same result. Try again and again. Same. The su-27 doesnt suffer from the lookdown penalty because he locked me when we where at the same altitude. But i am lower. I shouldnt suffer from it either. And yet, the value produced seem to indicate that i do. So i try a new thing, when we reach 22nm and i know that he locks and goes up i go up with him. Guess what? I burnthrough at JUST the calculated burnthrough range!! In conclusion: is it possible that the game has a “look up” penalty??? -
@Master:
i do, like i said above with regards to sweep rate, 2-3 miles earlier or later detection depending on azimuth (and bar scan)
It’s not so much rate, but time to complete bar from end to end and closing velocity that is the factor - how much absolute time is involved (and the geometry) as the two jets are closing. Longer the time, closer they get.
-
Someone else was talking about having a lookup penalty recently too. Possible bug maybe?
-
@Master:
I am starting to suspect something here:
In all my tests vs the su27 he always burnsthrough at 22-23nm’s. This respects the burnthrough calculation provided by tbuc’s excel (the values within the excel are outdated, i use the bms editor ones). What happens when he locks up, is that he shoots vertically to about 36kft. We both start at 23kft and we remain that way until he locks me up. This happens literally ALL the time (ace ai).In order to anticipate this move, i set my antenna to cover the altitude that he climbs to. Now, based on burnthrough calculation i should see him at around 16nm’s, but i dont. Here is the interesting thing. Since i detect him at 13,5 i suspected that perhaps i suffer from the look down penalty although i am lower than him. I run the look down and jamming calculation and behold, i end up with 13,5nm’s. I try it again. same result. Try again and again. Same. The su-27 doesnt suffer from the lookdown penalty because he locked me when we where at the same altitude. But i am lower. I shouldnt suffer from it either. And yet, the value produced seem to indicate that i do. So i try a new thing, when we reach 22nm and i know that he locks and goes up i go up with him. Guess what? I burnthrough at JUST the calculated burnthrough range!! In conclusion: is it possible that the game has a “look up” penalty???You may have hit on something - this sounds totally backwards in application…like it’s actually being applied as a “look up” penalty. But at least it’s on the sim’s numbers and could be an “easy” fix…in 3-4 weeks…
-
It’s not so much rate, but time to complete bar from end to end and closing velocity that is the factor - how much absolute time is involved (and the geometry) as the two jets are closing. Longer the time, closer they get.
semantics asides, it was amongst the first things i suspected.
-
Using minimum az/bar settings and using freeze to freeze the geometry would make the sanest tests.
-
Using minimum az/bar settings and using freeze to freeze the geometry would make the sanest tests.
freeze! now why didnt i think of that! Starting tests now…
-
Ok i think the picture is clear now: i tried having the enemy airplane unarmed and this prevented him from climbing or descending at all (ace ai). This time we burnthrough and detect each other precisely at the calculated ranges. (su27 locks at 22, i see him on scope in RWS with 10 azimuth and 1 bar scan at 22). All calculations done according to tbuc’s equation. I cross cheked this 5-6 times. I also tried flying the su-27 and the opponent the f-16cm b50. In acmi he lock at 22nm’s. Its clear to me that there is some sort of “look up” bug.
-
@Master:
Ok i think the picture is clear now: i tried having the enemy airplane unarmed and this prevented him from climbing or descending at all (ace ai). This time we burnthrough and detect each other precisely at the calculated ranges. (su27 locks at 22, i see him on scope in RWS with 10 azimuth and 1 bar scan at 22). All calculations done according to tbuc’s equation. I cross cheked this 5-6 times. I also tried flying the su-27 and the opponent the f-16cm b50. In acmi he lock at 22nm’s. Its clear to me that there is some sort of “look up” bug.
Nope. The jammer strength is still not omnidirectional as well as RCS…
-
According to rp5 manual the only RCS change based on aspect is a decrease by 0.75 of the nominal value but only in a head to tail situation.In head to head the rcs remains the same as stated in the database entry. Please elaborate on “The jammer strength is still not omnidirectional”. As i said before, we both keep each other within jammer gimbal limits.
-
@Master:
According to rp5 manual the only RCS change based on aspect is a decrease by 0.75 of the nominal value but only in a head to tail situation.In head to head the rcs remains the same as stated in the database entry. Please elaborate on “The jammer strength is still not omnidirectional”. As i said before, we both keep each other within jammer gimbal limits.
The ECM modifier according to RP5 is not the same accordingt to aspect. Yes, the total modifier of RCS is 0.75. But for God sake you are speaking about some percent “inaccuracy” as I can judge. I simply do not undertand what is your porblem. Believe me, I started to play and test DB in 2009. I have tested many things and such error never happened. In fact the radar modeling what seems to me literally just almost the same as was in SP3.