BMS 4.34 IR MODELING
-
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.