F-35 status (in BMS) request
-
what is the formula the game uses to detect targets?
be as specific as possible. -
what is the formula the game uses to detect targets?
be as specific as possible.The closest what you can get is RP5 manual.
-
This post is deleted! -
Perhaps you should read the thread again, because I’m not the one who’s been calling people ignorant or incompetent.
He’s operated like this for years, you aren’t going to change him!!!
He knows all, he’s like the Falcon AI!!!
C9
-
Perhaps you should read the thread again, because I’m not the one who’s been calling people ignorant or incompetent. That would be you. So before you get too defensive, maybe you could clarify what it is we’re actually trying to prove? It started as whether or not you could simulate the effects of an ESA radar, given the major defining characteristics of an ESA radar are
1. Greater resistance to jamming - Check
2. Ability to track multiple targets across the entire FOV of the radar, including high and low altitudes simultaneously - Check
3. Greater resistance to Look Down Clutter - Check
4. Decreased time between track updates - CheckThen it moved on to whether or not I’m an idiot, or as you put it something about knowing anything at all about any of the code or database. Still open to debate, but as of yet nothing I’ve said has been incorrect, and I provided the proof of what I claimed.
Then it moved on to I’m a bigger idiot because I thought any of the values in the RCD file had any effect on the 3d pit at all. See answer above.
Then it moved on to only being one of the values having any effect, I think…maybe? Is that where we are now? I’m really not sure how to refute your arguments because you keep changing your tune so I’m not sure what we’re actually discussing anymore. So let’s start with what the actual question is you’re trying to answer, and go from there.
question what are the specific limits to the player pit visualization with regards to slew rate, and FOV?
I personally would like any sort of documentation on what individual values so we don’t have this he said she said bull. its anti-productive.
-
This post is deleted! -
1. Greater resistance to jamming - Check
2. Ability to track multiple targets across the entire FOV of the radar, including high and low altitudes simultaneously - Check
3. Greater resistance to Look Down Clutter - Check
4. Decreased time between track updates - CheckBut not because of sweep time. Range and jam values of course has effect but sweep does not have. I will make a video about is. The larger zone is because of the different lobe parameters which I never wanted to do your way because is unreal. ESA is fast but is not as so fast that you cover the whole possible scan zone…
Do you think I did not tried everyting during 8 years…? Hm…? I tested and tried lots of things from radars to tweak FM of missile to have rail and drop launch methoud and also hacking battalions to model better SAMs, different ship groups, etc. When I say someting I say based on my tests not “just because”…
-
This post is deleted! -
hmm… IMHO original falcon 4.0 has this feature already - simple avionics!
-
It is that fast. Actively scanned arrays (The only kind which can do simultaneous AA/AG) form multiple beams independent of each other. Where one looks has no bearing whatsoever on any of the other beams. Meaning it can simultaneously view the entire FOV of the dish. While several beams are tracking, several other elements continue to scan as fast as the dedicated radar processor can shift the phases to steer the beams. The fact that it takes 2 seconds for the FCR display to update simulates the effect of the beam steering process in a “scanning” mode, which takes far less than 2 seconds. If it were not more effective and more efficient than a typical Passive array, it would not be worth the extremely high cost to upgrade nearly every aircraft in the world to an AESA. Which implies the dish can perform the full gambit scan in less than 2 seconds. It takes microseconds to form a beam, and having multiple elements means you can transmit with one and immediately move on to the next beam phase, while concurrently tuning a different element to listen for the return. Granted, there are some dishes more effective than others, due to an increased number of elements. But the fact remains, you can simulate the effects of the technology under the current system, which was the original question.
it does so in range “layers” as individual transmitters alone can project little power, but together can project much more.
at the long ranges, all of the transmitters would be used to project all of the power of the radar, but at shorter ranges the transmitters can divide up the FOV to track and aquire targets.
it still does take time though.the biggest advantages are for ground mapping, where the transmitters can scan the ground concurrently.
-
It is that fast. Actively scanned arrays (The only kind which can do simultaneous AA/AG) form multiple beams independent of each other. Where one looks has no bearing whatsoever on any of the other beams. Meaning it can simultaneously view the entire FOV of the dish. While several beams are tracking, several other elements continue to scan as fast as the dedicated radar processor can shift the phases to steer the beams. The fact that it takes 2 seconds for the FCR display to update simulates the effect of the beam steering process in a “scanning” mode, which takes far less than 2 seconds. If it were not more effective and more efficient than a typical Passive array, it would not be worth the extremely high cost to upgrade nearly every aircraft in the world to an AESA. Which implies the dish can perform the full gambit scan in less than 2 seconds. It takes microseconds to form a beam, and having multiple elements means you can transmit with one and immediately move on to the next beam phase, while concurrently tuning a different element to listen for the return. Granted, there are some dishes more effective than others, due to an increased number of elements. But the fact remains, you can simulate the effects of the technology under the current system, which was the original question.
I know how work ESA radars and their scane rate is partially known for early S-300 and even for F-35.
You can be sure the scan zone was not +/-60 deg in azimuth elevation and +/- 60 deg in elevation an it took about 4 seconds to start track every target and create track not only a contact. (For creating a usable track you need at least 3 measurements.)
Therefore your changes which cover the whole pattern with a single lobe is a very strong overmodeling.
From my POV I rather do not push towards F4 which cannot model well. This is why I said many times what era is the best for the engine which is not post 2000 era… -
…but there are modern era scenerios/theaters as well… so I like if someone is trying to find a way, howto simulate modern systems (even if it is a mix of new datas + labels ON).
BTW I am aware of mentioned bubble issue (thread beggining IIRC)…on the other hand bubble spherical architecture is quite progressive, compared to original Falcon3.0 killbox architecture (you were able to spawn units few miles away, boxes were static volumes IIRC)
-
…but there are modern era scenerios/theaters as well… so I like if someone is trying to find a way, howto simulate modern systems (even if it is a mix of new datas + labels ON).
BTW I am aware of mentioned bubble issue (thread beggining IIRC)…on the other hand bubble spherical architecture is quite progressive, compared to original Falcon3.0 killbox architecture (you were able to spawn units few miles away, boxes were static volumes IIRC)
Dynamic bubble can be a way but a hard way.
-
-
i’ve also read in non english sources that they offered to pay for the MLU and an additional 100+ raptors with new avionics they would also pay for if the DOD would release raptor for raptorJ variant. thats super old though, obama and bush era.
-
God this is depressing, they got rid of F-16’s at Hill AFB by where I live and swapped over to the 35 (except maintenence on ejection seats etc will still come here). Makes me sick and sad… such a POS waste of money. Lord help any pilot in one unlucky enough to be seen. Like clubbing seals. The idea of replacing the Viper with something that does nothing that great is retarded, advances in radar could easily neutralize the only plus this plane has, if it hasn’t happened already. This is the Military Industrial Complex milking us like a cow.
-
LOL - seriously wouldnt worry about them……they will be far better off in an F-35, even when seen… why dont you pop along and ask them whether they miss the previous mounts.
-
God this is depressing, they got rid of F-16’s at Hill AFB by where I live and swapped over to the 35 (except maintenence on ejection seats etc will still come here). Makes me sick and sad… such a POS waste of money. Lord help any pilot in one unlucky enough to be seen. Like clubbing seals. The idea of replacing the Viper with something that does nothing that great is retarded, advances in radar could easily neutralize the only plus this plane has, if it hasn’t happened already. This is the Military Industrial Complex milking us like a cow.
they were saying the same thing when the F16 came out (that matters)
the f35 does EVERYTHING better than the f16.
more ords,more range,more upgrade-able etc. etc. -
God this is depressing, they got rid of F-16’s at Hill AFB by where I live and swapped over to the 35 (except maintenence on ejection seats etc will still come here). Makes me sick and sad… such a POS waste of money. Lord help any pilot in one unlucky enough to be seen. Like clubbing seals. The idea of replacing the Viper with something that does nothing that great is retarded, advances in radar could easily neutralize the only plus this plane has, if it hasn’t happened already. This is the Military Industrial Complex milking us like a cow.
you’re simply uninformed, and the media weapons have worked perfectly on your mind.
one f-35 can change a battlefield, and the 2050 initiatives, like push button automated drone tankers that respond to a position, missile and drone trucks, and the ability of aesa is basically beyond public knowledge. You’re talking nonsense, most of the jocks are itching to get that, meanwhile there are surplus vipers and bugs. They did the same with the tomcat.
as far as what you just said about the MIC, well, we export stealth technology to partner states bro, what do you think that means in the dark? don’t be a simpleton.
-
:munch: