BMS 4.34 IR MODELING
-
To elaborate more, beyond the obvious change in the way acquiring and shooting is modeled, this is awesome for mission planning. Fair used to be defined as acceptable for a laser strike (you can check or set cloud density to make it sure). There is now a level of uncertainty that is, or rather is not, for more challenge, to be checked on the fmap, if you want to plan all possible situations without knowing what to expect exactly. I totally love that.
-
To elaborate more, beyond the obvious change in the way acquiring and shooting is modeled, this is awesome for mission planning. Fair used to be defined as acceptable for a laser strike (you can check or set cloud density to make it sure). There is now a level of uncertainty that is, or rather is not, for more challenge, to be checked on the fmap, if you want to plan all possible situations without knowing what to expect exactly. I totally love that.
mhhhh we might need to add visibility in the briefing page for TO / Target/ Land
-
Noooo :P. I don’t wanna know. Though I can see how cryptic it can become for someone who is not used to weapons, weather and tactics. I like how it’s not easily checked just from the UI, but that’s just me.
-
mhhhh we might need to add visibility in the briefing page for TO / Target/ Land
We may need a separate, more extensive weather tab, actually. E.g. the current briefing only gives you cloud base altitude, but no information on cloud type, oktas, whether or not there are multiple layers, …
-
I’m hijacking this thread… Let’s say these questions will influence if we’ll expose NOE o to IR SAMs or not depending on the weather.
From the realistic point of view, is having such accurate data ok? Today? In the 90’s? In my dreams, there is a line in the cfg. (called enable “fog of peace” maybe
-
“FLARE MODELING - INFORMATION RESTRICTED TO BMS DEVELOPPERS”
I hate you!!!
-
Hi mavjp, thanks for sharing, again such detail in the modelling. One item that I don’t fully understand in your explanation: IR signature between IDLE and MIL is dependent on spooling time whereas the PLUME is nearly immediate. By plume you mean A/B on?
-
Probably, yes.
I’ve tried to go more in-depth about IR SAMs.
- 100 ft, in terrible weather and fog, SAM-14 manage to hit quite reliably.
- 6,000 Ft, less terrible, but totally blind at this altitude, SAM-14 didn’t even shoot. SA-16 shot and hit. I think this family has a different set of captors including UV (since a couple years…), I’m wondering if this is a factor.
Obviously I made a few tests (few only), enough yet to totally discourage me from using weather as a cover for very low level penetration.
-
Probably, yes.
I’ve tried to go more in-depth about IR SAMs.
- 100 ft, in terrible weather and fog, SAM-14 manage to hit quite reliably.
- 6,000 Ft, less terrible, but totally blind at this altitude, SAM-14 didn’t even shoot. SA-16 shot and hit. I think this family has a different set of captors including UV (since a couple years…), I’m wondering if this is a factor.
Obviously I made a few tests (few only), enough yet to totally discourage me from using weather as a cover for very low level penetration.
Or different engagement envelope because the range of the SA-16 is bit higher than SA-14 in RL. 2700 meter / 3700 meter. At 6k feet the slant range + reaction time + seeker range can mean you are edge of the eng. envelope of SA-14 while way inside of the SA-18.
SA-14 and SA-18 are different generations in MANPAD history. (SA-14 was skipped in WPACT except USSR.)
http://www.mediafire.com/file/nq6i1ja0ds9gqi4/Histoy_of_the_Electro-Optical_Guided_Missiles.pdf -
Or different engagement envelope because the range of the SA-16 is bit higher than SA-14 in RL. 2700 meter / 3700 meter. At 6k feet the slant range + reaction time + seeker range can mean you are edge of the eng. envelope of SA-14 while way inside of the SA-18.
SA-14 and SA-18 are different generations in MANPAD history. (SA-14 was skipped in WPACT except USSR.)
http://www.mediafire.com/file/nq6i1ja0ds9gqi4/Histoy_of_the_Electro-Optical_Guided_Missiles.pdfIt would be new with 4.34 then, concerning the 14 family. I used to be shot above 10,000 without any problem in 4.33.
EDIT: unless you actually mean the weather reduced the envelope. I’m only talking about BMS here, in case of any doubt, speaking of UV because it could have been a factor in modeling it differently.
-
Now I can understand why my France rl drivers were smiling some times…
Nice read, any change to also add 2 more pages in the document including IRIS-T and Python tables please?
-
Why MICA IR has so good seeker range?
And does anybody knows if any F-16s in BMS can carry it?
What about IRIS-T? Has it working flight model (in 4.33 it was not working well, it had range much shorter than AIM-9M)? -
Why MICA IR has so good seeker range?
And does anybody knows if any F-16s in BMS can carry it?
What about IRIS-T? Has it working flight model (in 4.33 it was not working well, it had range much shorter than AIM-9M)?Not only the MICA IR but comparing to that the stone age R-40T has also incredibly large range.
-
Why MICA IR has so good seeker range?
And does anybody knows if any F-16s in BMS can carry it?It might have such a good seeker range to keep it a BVR missile in spite of Falcon guidance modelling limitations. The real missile can be used both as a dogfight missile (like an AIM-9X) and as a Fox 3 missile fitted with an IR seeker instead of a radar one (like an IR AIM-120, sort of, but with less range because of the obvious compromise). I’m not sure Falcon code knows how to deal with an IR Fox 3.
And no F-16 carries it in real life or in Falcon. It is only carried by Mirage 2000-5/-9s and Rafales.
-
Probably, yes.
I’ve tried to go more in-depth about IR SAMs.
- 100 ft, in terrible weather and fog, SAM-14 manage to hit quite reliably.
- 6,000 Ft, less terrible, but totally blind at this altitude, SAM-14 didn’t even shoot. SA-16 shot and hit. I think this family has a different set of captors including UV (since a couple years…), I’m wondering if this is a factor.
Obviously I made a few tests (few only), enough yet to totally discourage me from using weather as a cover for very low level penetration.
what is your speed?
-
Tried MIL at 0,9 and 450 knots (at 100 ft). Otherwise, 0,9.
-
not enough fast for low level ( >500kts)
-
Read again.