FCR Manual DRAFT
-
Well I checked the -34 and indeed it does have Target Aspect Angle. I would wager more money on BMS being a faith rendition of the FCR than me being right. Looks like another update needs to come out! Thanks Tulkas.
-
Wow just found this today, thank you!
-
Wow just found this today, thank you!
I hope it is useful. There are some things that need a little update: the major one is the target aspect angle noted by Tulkas. I want to do an update but will be in a Falcon BMS 3 - 4 weeks.
Of course more than happy for people to distribute for free on their VFW websites and what not. I would be disappointed if someone tried to sell the manual like an idiot did a while back with the BMS manual. It is free so that it can help people and for no other reason.
-
Selling a free user made manual….that would be funny if it wasn’t so pathetic. I have see the same thing done with game assets. I have actually had that happen to me when I worked on mods for Operation Flashpoint, and like you people where free to distribute or add it in a mod pack and all I wanted was my name in the credits for it. Anyways, I found your supplement/manual very helpful with filling in some gaps I feel where left out of other manuals or not clear enough. It is well organised, easy to read (for me at least) and the illustration look professional. I have now added it to my reference list of documents on my tablet for quick access in game. Wish I could help with fact checking or something but the reason I like this manual is because I suck at using the radar right now best I might be able to do is spell check…and their is already programs for that…so…moral support it is Again cheers for the hard work.
-
Selling a free user made manual….that would be funny if it wasn’t so pathetic. I have see the same thing done with game assets. I have actually had that happen to me when I worked on mods for Operation Flashpoint, and like you people where free to distribute or add it in a mod pack and all I wanted was my name in the credits for it. Anyways, I found your supplement/manual very helpful with filling in some gaps I feel where left out of other manuals or not clear enough. It is well organised, easy to read (for me at least) and the illustration look professional. I have now added it to my reference list of documents on my tablet for quick access in game. Wish I could help with fact checking or something but the reason I like this manual is because I suck at using the radar right now best I might be able to do is spell check…and their is already programs for that…so…moral support it is Again cheers for the hard work.
Thanks - spell check and corrections to terminology, grammar etc readily accepted! I am writing another manual at the moment (among other projects). Help is always wanted!
-
Thanks for the supplementary doc
Very interesting ! -
Hello Rmax
please can you explain the difference between “Sensor Point of Interest” and “System Point of Interest” ?
-
One’s a typo
-
Nitpick away! there is no-one I know that I could get to proof read!
I am thinking about your other questions…
Not to “nit pick” but rather what i think is missing from my own experience in trying to master the FCR in BMS. I see that the radar acquisition cursor is pointed out in a few places, but only the bugged up target’s altitude was mentioned. What i was hoping to see were references to:
- the azimuth upper and lower scan values as a function of range and how best to set it in application
- bullseye modes and relationship to the cursor
- target aspect and bearing
These were the aspects that escaped me for a while during my rampup learning curve, and made a huge difference in target acquisition, battlefield SA and communications, and survival and success.
Good work and thank you.
AV
-
Not to “nit pick” but rather what i think is missing from my own experience in trying to master the FCR in BMS. I see that the radar acquisition cursor is pointed out in a few places, but only the bugged up target’s altitude was mentioned. What i was hoping to see were references to:
- the azimuth upper and lower scan values as a function of range and how best to set it in application
- bullseye modes and relationship to the cursor
- target aspect and bearing
These were the aspects that escaped me for a while during my rampup learning curve, and made a huge difference in target acquisition, battlefield SA and communications, and survival and success.
Good work and thank you.
AV
Thanks AV
Those would be interesting to me too -
Hello Rmax
please can you explain the difference between “Sensor Point of Interest” and “System Point of Interest” ?
Fredf is semi correct. There is a Sensor of Interest, which is the highlighted boarder around the MFD that shoes this is where you FCC is taking input. The Sensor Point of Interest or System Point of Interest is where the sensor is pointing. It generates a delta to your steer point.
-
…sort of. Sensor POI is where the sensor under control is pointed/looking/designated, “system” POI is where the weapon under trigger is targeted.
-
I was borrowing from the A-10 vernacular which is SOI for the sensor and SPI (sensor point of interest) for the location. A-10s and F-16s differ on which word they mean by the S in SPI. The term “SPI” in F-16-speak is system point of interest.
I cracked open some manuals and found no reference to SPI anywhere in the -1 or -34. The concept is described but never given such a nickname. However the MLU M1/M2/M3 tape documents do mention SPI (and they have S stand for system). Pretty interesting that in the whole -34 they never define SPI as term.
But I maintain that SPI (S-system) and SPI (S-sensor) do not exist at the same time in the F-16 world. For F-16s the correct term is SPI (S-system) and the other one is incorrect. If you want to talk about the location associated with a sensor distinct from SPI then there is no handy shortcut term for such a thing that I’m aware of. Nothing could be more confusing than to use the term “SPI” meaning S-sensor as it is too easily confused with “SPI” S-system.
I had plenty of occasion to talk about the A-10’s sensors’ locations-associated-with-that-sensor-but-distinct-from-SPI (and you do since unlike the F-16 they are not always auto-slaved to the same place) I settled on POI for point of interest (e.g. TGP-POI, DTC-POI, MAV-POI). But this was my own invention and in no way the official term for it. Since the F-16 is forced that all sensors always share POI (counter examples?) the need for such a term is minimized.
-
Newer -34s do talk about the SPI and define it. It talks about it being a line of sight concept where all sensors are slaved to a common aimpoint, with the exception of NAV and A-A mastermodes. For example in A-A, the FCR can track something while the TGP is tracking something different simultaneously. There is much more of course…
-
I have just taken a brief look at the -34 manual for 4.34. There is now a section (1.4) that has a much fuller breakdown of the operation of the FCR. The manual on this thread is probably now much more supplementary interest with this new addition to the documentation.