AN/ALE-50
-
Exactly. For a 100% arcade result with a “just have something approach” to me is pointless.
OK… And what do you think about the current HAD?
Following your logic with this display we are already in the ‚arcade league‘, simply because it‘s fictionary.So why not judge the demand for a -50 as a feature request which might be sometime integrated as an educated guess? Concernig priority, the dev team will decide „if“ and „when“. Surely there are other more important things to be done, but why damn that thingie at all?
-
You see in my mind it shouldn’t be that hard. Its a friggin decoy, its a towed piece of chaff that emits a radar signal. So it is classified and you don’t know how it works I get that. I know its towed behind the jet at around 300 feet, I know it emits a radar signal to spoof missiles. So why is it so impossible? IS it impossible to create a model of the ALE-50? that emits a radar signal the same way the f16 does in the sim? From my point of view all of the pieces of the puzzle are already there in the sim they just need to be assembled. There is more than one way to skin a cat. I dare to say it is probably doable but it wont happen because he is picking his battles and this one he isn’t going to change his opinion on. So therefore all of this is an exercise in futility.
I want to reiterate this is not any kind of attack on anyone. Without guys like Molni I understand the sim would not be where it is today. Nothing but respect for you guys.
-
…I think I’d rather have laser MAV. Drooool…
-
OK… And what do you think about the current HAD?
Following your logic with this display we are already in the ‚arcade league‘, simply because it‘s fictionary.So why not judge the demand for a -50 as a feature request which might be sometime integrated as an educated guess? Concernig priority, the dev team will decide „if“ and „when“. Surely there are other more important things to be done, but why damn that thingie at all?
Electronic page 99.
https://www.scribd.com/document/2326271/F-16-MLU-Manual-Part-2My advices.
Next time try to use sources before comment anything in the topic.
Or simply ask the developers about what is “fictionary” and what is not. -
Electronic page 99.
https://www.scribd.com/document/2326271/F-16-MLU-Manual-Part-2My advices.
Next time try to use sources before comment anything in the topic.
Or simply ask the developers about what is “fictionary” and what is not.OK. So a Lockheed Martin document released in 2000 through the freedom of information act is your example that the HAS in BMS works exactly like real life? None of the programming in BMS HAS targeting system is fictional or improvised? It is the same programming used in real life? According to this example one can deduce that according to you the HAS system functions in BMS exactly the same as in an actual F-16 MLU aircraft. Its hard not to interpret what your saying is if you took the programming for the HAS out of BMS and downloaded this program into an F-16 MLU it will function exactly the same as an actual HAS targeting system. Now that is a hard pill to swallow……Do you have better proof for your point in the conversation? The BMS manuals and Lockheed Martins manuals are not the same thing, and if they happen to be the same and I am wrong then please point us in the direction of proof. So far I just don’t see your point. Again I cant help but think that you have missed the point of the conversation. Maybe you are confusing HAS and HAD?
So I second what RightStuff posted : “Following your logic with this display we are already in the ‚arcade league‘, simply because it‘s fictionary.” and if you improvise some creative programming to make the HAS work in the sim why cant you improvise some creative programming in order to implement the ALE-50?
-
-
Electronic page 99.
https://www.scribd.com/document/2326271/F-16-MLU-Manual-Part-2My advices.
Next time try to use sources before comment anything in the topic.
Or simply ask the developers about what is “fictionary” and what is not.That’s the page you are reffering too:
Obviously you mixed up HAS and HAD - I meant HAD.
So I’m overlooking your rudeness and hope you’re coming back to an adult discussion style.
-
You see in my mind it shouldn’t be that hard. Its a friggin decoy, its a towed piece of chaff that emits a radar signal. So it is classified and you don’t know how it works I get that. I know its towed behind the jet at around 300 feet, I know it emits a radar signal to spoof missiles.
The distance between the aircraft and decoy is classified. I asked about it many F-16 pilot and B-1 crew all replied instantly with “classified”. I can guess why. Because it is strongly dependent on the additional jamming type inside the ALE-50 and as well as target distance and aspect as well as FCR lobe parameters which are n
So why is it so impossible?
As long as you just wish to get something similar to RL you do not have any usable input maybe a very skilled engineer can make good (?) guesses but nothing else.
IS it impossible to create a model of the ALE-50?
3D model? Nope. You can make any 3D model what you want. Only problem in BMS4 currently is not such code part which can model the cable and towed decoy physics not mentioning the cable length and cutting the decoy.
that emits a radar signal the same way the f16 does in the sim?
The decoy is totally different from a radar.
From my point of view all of the pieces of the puzzle are already there in the sim they just need to be assembled.
Your POV is simply wrong.
- We do not have lobe modelling as I know. The code simply does not model the main or sidelobes or any parameter of the lobes.
- Is not distinguished the difference between different scan time and the difference between PESA and mechanical scan.
- The 3D models are not able to handle such item as towed decoy which is on a variable cable length and and the trajectory of decoy is also not modelled which is crucial because the relative position of the decoy is one of the main factor between the radar and the towing aircraft.
- Loosing an object, cutting the decoy is also missing part.
- Towed decoy is not a towed chaff because it also applies a specific jamming type.
I do not list further issues these are just the main issues and all are missing. These are just code and DB concerning of modelling and 3D models but every lobe of every radar also has to have exact modelling values. If you just left any of them the result will be arcade because lobe, relative position and operational features all have to be modelled. If the cut is not modelled it would be like and aircraft without landing gear…
I want to reiterate this is not any kind of attack on anyone.
Of course + roger but current state of BMS4.33 is very, very far from the “all of the pieces of the puzzle are already there” state. In fact none of them are in the game. As long as more basic issues in EW are not modelled for stone age systems such as SA-2/3/4/6/8 (all mechanical scanned radar) as well as all EW radar maybe other general issues should be on the top of the list which are needed to have a real decoy modelling module…
Currently the totally different radar scan and tracking features and different leading is not modelled because is so abstracted everything… Falcon uses quantity and not quality modelling. If you turn on the ECM only modifiers are used.
(Maybe I should stop talking about the modelling because are lots of things which should not be aware the players because of the immersion.)
Without guys like Molni I understand the sim would not be where it is today. Nothing but respect for you guys.
Rgr
-
Thank you Molni, now I understand your point of view much better.
-
Great post Wray79… but I really want to know if there are any plans to try to implement the little buddy into the sim. It would definitely be a big hit!! LOL!!!
Greeting from Utah, and PB in Canada… Hope things are going well good Sir.
PS… Log on TS once in a while to let us know you haven’t been eaten by a bear…
-
Great post Wray79… but I really want to know if there are any plans to try to implement the little buddy into the sim. It would definitely be a big hit!! LOL!!!
Greeting from Utah, and PB in Canada… Hope things are going well good Sir.
PS… Log on TS once in a while to let us know you haven’t been eaten by a bear…
Funny you seem to be the only one to catch that!! Dont worry about me and the bears….im not stuck out here with the bears, the bears are stuck out here with me !! Its me the bears should worry about grrrrrrrrr