Suggestion for database, data supply
-
I can only recommend changes. If you change your DB it can cause MP compatibliy issues, it is up to you what is your choice.
In FF since FF5 release SA-10 produced RWR launch. Modeling better the different S-300 variant is also a very important thing for BMS4. Some S-300 variant have SARH or radio command guidance, some has TVM. TVM does not produce STT lock you can see only an emitting source. In RL maybe onboard radar can help, because SAMs are so big that likey are visible on radars. You can see the most accuracte modeling in MolnyFalcon.
- SA-10 (S-300P) is radio command / SARH guided. It has 4 launchers, each with 4 missiles. It is static SAM.
- SA-12 (S-300V) is SARH. It has 4 TELARs, each has 2 missiles. It is mobile.
- SA-20 (S-300PMU) uses TMV guidance. It does not produce SST lock. It has 4 launchers, each with 4 missiles. It is mobile.
IMHO this should be modeled. Frist its the earliest version. Second still produces STT lock but TELARS provides much better survuveability. If you are not lucky you have to destroy all or more than one TELAR to eliminate the threat. The last one has only one FCR, but there is no RWR. The engagement range is different for these systems as well as min. target alt.
-
I can only recommend changes. If you change your DB it can cause MP compatibliy issues, it is up to you what is your choice.
In FF since FF5 release SA-10 produced RWR launch. Modeling better the different S-300 variant is also a very important thing for BMS4. Some S-300 variant have SARH or radio command guidance, some has TVM. TVM does not produce STT lock you can see only an emitting source. In RL maybe onboard radar can help, because SAMs are so big that likey are visible on radars. You can see the most accuracte modeling in MolnyFalcon.
- SA-10 (S-300P) is radio command / SARH guided. It has 4 launchers, each with 4 missiles. It is static SAM.
- SA-12 (S-300V) is SARH. It has 4 TELARs, each has 2 missiles. It is mobile.
- SA-20 (S-300PMU) uses TMV guidance. It does not produce SST lock. It has 4 launchers, each with 4 missiles. It is mobile.
IMHO this should be modeled. Frist its the earliest version. Second still produces STT lock but TELARS provides much better survuveability. If you are not lucky you have to destroy all or more than one TELAR to eliminate the threat. The last one has only one FCR, but there is no RWR. The engagement range is different for these systems as well as min. target alt.
I installed your SA-5 fix and i will install SA-3 fix when its ready, i always host multiplayer game’s in our squad. I never be client so those sam fixes wont be broblem? right? clients use server database or not?
Thanks for help.
-haukka81
-
I can only recommend changes. If you change your DB it can cause MP compatibliy issues, it is up to you what is your choice.
In FF since FF5 release SA-10 produced RWR launch. Modeling better the different S-300 variant is also a very important thing for BMS4. Some S-300 variant have SARH or radio command guidance, some has TVM. TVM does not produce STT lock you can see only an emitting source. In RL maybe onboard radar can help, because SAMs are so big that likey are visible on radars. You can see the most accuracte modeling in MolnyFalcon.
- SA-10 (S-300P) is radio command / SARH guided. It has 4 launchers, each with 4 missiles. It is static SAM.
- SA-12 (S-300V) is SARH. It has 4 TELARs, each has 2 missiles. It is mobile.
- SA-20 (S-300PMU) uses TMV guidance. It does not produce SST lock. It has 4 launchers, each with 4 missiles. It is mobile.
IMHO this should be modeled. Frist its the earliest version. Second still produces STT lock but TELARS provides much better survuveability. If you are not lucky you have to destroy all or more than one TELAR to eliminate the threat. The last one has only one FCR, but there is no RWR. The engagement range is different for these systems as well as min. target alt.
It’s not so easy in real life
In the RWR you can see only what the radar illuminates the plane, and the system may incorrectly identify the type of radar. Illustrative case in Operation Desert Storm, when the F-16 mistakenly attacked the Patriot SAM.
For the RWR is very difficult to distinguish between two different situations
lock on the aircraft
lock on the aircraft and missile launch, and no matter what type of radar is installed, it is the main problem of BMS and other simulators.
If the radar phased array or aesa radar,
if the MiG-31 launched missile against the enemy, RWS opponent will be the same if the MiG-31 just turned radar in RWS submode. The same is the case with the S-300 and a patriot SAM.Maybe this is not so bad because it means AI never will be engage targets outside kinematic range.
This is not always so.
@molnibalage:I was able to set as axial force coeffs, to get more real speed profile. For SA-2 and maybe other SAMs the problem the very poor modeling values. ECM is so effective against SA-2 that you approach to 9-10 nm without burning through the ECM. (ECM distance modififer is 0.15.) So, regardless of biggery eng. and kinematic range you can’t feel any difference. 9-10nm eng. rage is so small that 2nd missile launch is close to min. eng. range or 2nd missiles maybe never will be launched. In RL ECM is effective but not so much.
The effectiveness of jamming in the simulator is too high
-
if the MiG-31 launched missile against the enemy, RWS opponent will be the same if the MiG-31 just turned radar in RWS submode. The same is the case with the S-300 and a patriot SAM.
Not exactly. R-33 is an SARH missile. This means that MiG-31’s radar paint / illuminates the target with radar, but the “brain”, the control is installed on missile. TVM guidance is a distant relative of radio command guidance. Sensor is on the missile but brain it is on the ground.
This is not always so.
Why?
-
Not exactly. R-33 is an SARH missile. This means that MiG-31’s radar paint / illuminates the target with radar, but the “brain”, the control is installed on missile. TVM guidance is a distant relative of radio command guidance. Sensor is on the missile but brain it is on the ground.
Earlier I wrote about how to react RWS
Why?
If we write the thrust engine aim-120 same as the aim-9
AI will still be fire missiles from too great a distance
I’m also faced with the fact that the AI did not use missiles with a maximum distance because the value of Range Data and terminalguiderange were too small
later be testing the the SA-3 to say for sureWell I get the same results
Sa-2 opened fire from a distance of not more than 20 nautical miles
Sa-3 is not more than 20
changed everything
data in the database, thrust engines, etc. -
First observations about SA-5.
-
The current guidance model is useless. Missile is not able to hit even a straight flying target, regardless it speed, and altitude.
It is sad to say but how were tested the BMS4? From the basic radar guided SAMs (SA-2/3/4/5/6) I have tested only three but two are useless in this release. They are 99,9% ineffective…
My conclusion. As long as engagement distance is so undermodeled SA-3 is useless. It is not a real threat.
SA-5 non-manouevering fighter-size target - scores a kill
http://members.shaw.ca/robert.muscoby/public/SA5.wmvSA-3 non-manouevering fighter-size target - scores a kill
http://members.shaw.ca/robert.muscoby/public/SA3.wmvEach was done with a single test, at 20,000 ft, MIL power, F-16. The video has been accelerated, (not time compression in the game).
Molni, it is impossible to take you seriously, if you’re going to keep making stuff up. Have you considered the possibility that your own butchered database, and prejudice against anything that isn’t your own, might be the cause of your symptoms?
It’s pretty easy to improve missile performance by doubling the thrust, but it doesn’t change the fact that the SA-5 was never designed to defend against high speed manouevering fighter-sized aircraft. It is old, out-dated, and practically useless. Occasionally, the SA-5 shoots down passenger airliners, but wouldn’t have much luck against fighters in the real world.
There are some who suggest that pretty much everything on the “red” side is already over-modeled.
At any rate, every time you make a claim that “such and such is completely useless” I hear a boy crying wolf.
-
-
Each was done with a single test, at 20,000 ft, MIL power, F-16. The video has been accelerated, (not time compression in the game).
For SA-3 you selected the only speed and alt that means first kill using closing aspec. Yes, I can show situation where I can place target such situation where it can kill a non-manouevering target. For ex all slowly escaping target. I haven’t touched SA-3…
For SA-5 I conducted many, many, many test fro 5k to 40k alt, from M0.5 to M2.0. I jus show two frommany tests… I got 0 hit against non-manouevering targets. Do you feel clever that you can show one case when they achive kill? What about rest of the cases…? Or tagets in even a non-manouevering diving? Have you tested other very simple situation…?
Should I upload just for you dozens of ACMI…? If you wish…edit: I says just for you - because you simply to lazy to examine deepy the issues - the hit was happened with SA-5 because you flew exacty to SAM…
Have you checked the guidance values of SAMs? Hm…?
Except some SAMs literally almost have these.2 # boost guide lead
1 # sustain guide lead
1 # terminal guide leadSA-11, SA-15 and SA-17 have these.
1 # boost guide lead
1 # sustain guide lead
1 # terminal guide leadSA-5 have this.
5 # boost guide lead
5 # sustain guide lead
5 # terminal guide leadThis is why not able to hit none of the target that is not exacly fly to the SAM direction in closing aspect and have chance to hit anything that started to fly towards from SAM.
Just for you.
http://www.mediafire.com/?c2mhm2cc593y9mv
http://www.mediafire.com/?7d362gez7bbe93rWhat about the fact that profiles of missiles are light years away from RL data? Hm…?
It’s pretty easy to improve missile performance by doubling the thrust, but it doesn’t change the fact that the SA-5 was never designed to defend against high speed manouevering fighter-sized aircraft.
I did shown any test against manouevering target for a reson.
No offense, but you are very, very annoying…
So, in short.Go to hell.
Sorry, but I lost my patience. You to blind to see even the basic problems. How many test have you done…?
-
SA-5 non-manouevering fighter-size target - scores a kill
http://members.shaw.ca/robert.muscoby/public/SA5.wmvAnd it is absolutely useless maneuver against the SAM
with this maneuver 4g does not play a special role -
Sorry, but I lost my patience. You to blind to see even the basic problems. How many test have you done…?
I only had to do a single test to prove you’re exagerating, and that your claims were obviously false.
I believe you when you say that you feel annoyed when someone points out when you’re wrong. That being said, there’s no cause for being so rude. Better to admit that what you said was false, than engage in personal attacks. I don’t much care if you’ve lost your patience, nor do I much care about what you feel are “basic problems”.
The most evident “basic problem” is your belief that the 19 years of work put into this sim is utterly flawed, because it doesn’t live up to your expectation of how it should behave. Shameful attitude.
-
You still do not understand. You showed the**ONLY CASE** when SA-5 can destroy a target. RL the usage is not restriced this way. _This is a fact._Can you guess how frequent case in RL or sime that a target fly directly to the SAM…? Hm…? Close to 0.
Are you aware that as long as original values are used you do not have to do anything just keep +/- 10 deg or bigger director off from the battery. Because this is the most common case this means you do not have to do anything as long as SAM do not reach +/- 90 deg bearing.
ANYTHING.
Did you understand the meaning of this word…?Whey you reached the minimal engeagement zone of SA-5 - in RL this is 17 km -you can simply turn to the battery and it is defenless. You can kill even with gun or bombs the better but if you have stand off weapons yiu just keep the profile that I mentioned, lock and kill the target.
This equal with useless. SA-5 is not a threat.What about total unreal thrust char. and weight data? Is is still to hard to admit that you are completely worng…? It is still hard to admit that current modeling values are far from real?
Shameful attitude that you showed here. I provided exact data, result of test, charts for comparison. You did two video and said “you are wrong”. What a nice attitude and deeply made out examination…
I do not care how many years put into sim. Some parts of the DB and modeling values kills the campaigns. AI fly weapons or red side, that cannot be used AI. Red side have SAMs that chance to kill is 0 even against a totally undefeneded sitting duck target. Some parts are not touched since release of Falcon 4.0 or just srcewed by anybody in the past. I respect all of devs who can admit and see what should be fixed or upgraded. If you are a dev. you are not in thus grop. I’m 100% sure.
-
http://www.mediafire.com/?hwby78iq7t0qbma
Just for you, an exreme test. I set the program 105, I set much bigger bubble and other paramteres as I suggested. Even the very big distance and 45 degrees bearing the missile hit me because I set the guidance value that most of functional SAMs use. The extreme range came from thrust and weight data.
1. The original model does not provide the long range that is exist in RL.
2. The original guidance does not proivde to hit even “sitting duck” tagets is the aspect is not restriced to 0-5 degrees.If you use my recommendation, the model provides them.
-
Molnib, don’t care about what scoob says. Looks like he is just trolling or simply is stupid… :uham:
I like to get your SA-5 and SA-3 mods soon as they are ready. So PM or give me link then
-
sa5.dat have been uploaded. Other test just showed teoratical application. For the result that you can see on Youtube demo video only the sa5.dat file is enough.
I was able to configure a bit better the SA-5 by using a bit strange aero data. -
I’ll explain, for a third time, and then maybe you will understand.
You claimed that the SA3 could not hit a level flying target. It could. Your statment is wrong.
You claimed that the SA5 could not hit a non-manouevering target. It could. Your statement is wrong.I don’t care what you edit, or why you edit. The point is that as long as you continue to make false statements, and exagerate things you believe are issues, then even things you do that are right are treated as suspect.
I’m not making any claims about what is right, or wrong about any of the SAMs. I’m pointing out where YOU are wrong, and I take issue with your continual complaints about the nearly 20 years of hard work that has gone into this sim by hundreds of people before you. The campaigns are not “killed” because something doesn’t work the way you think it should, they are “killed for you”.
BMS has chosen to work on aspects of the sim it deems important, in the order it chooses to. If, in the past 20 years, someone has made improvements that don’t meet your level of satisfaction, I hardly think it’s fair of you to characterize their work as “screwed”, “useless”, and “flawed”. I don’t much care what you mod, or why you mod, but I do care about some level of respect given to the hundreds of people that have given of their free time for you to have, what you have.
You still do not understand.
-
Just for you, here is my only comment highlighted about SA-3 before skipped to SA-5.
- Engagement range is very small comparing with RL value. RL value is 25 km.
- Because of small engagement range and default guidance values even a non maneuvering and slow target is impossible in some situation. Three missiles required to shoot down an An-2 (!).
- Aganist the F-16 the result is slightly different, 2nd missile hit the non maneuvering target. 2nd missile worked because the different relative position of launch position and target.
- In a simple dive any fighter is impossible target.
About SA-5.
The current guidance model is useless. Missile is not able to hit even a straight flying target, regardless it speed, and altitude.
Then I showed the comparison video, you can see what situatin does not work. You showed the only one in approaching aspect.
Pls. compare with your statements. [Edited by Retro for lack of civility]
-
Keep it easy guys! … We are all Flacon4.0 lovers here…
Instead of talking like that, try to convince you each other with kind explanations and demonstrations etc … (It’s a hard work I know I know ) … but it is not by arguing you will be able to understand each other.
All we are reading here are very interesting … Scoob also … let’s try to be smarter and let’s deeply analyze what is really said
What is good here, is that figures and diagrams, videos, demonstration and explanations are provided … just need time to look at it and test it seriously etc…
IMO, ALL opinions are good to be consider …:)
Long lif BMS!
-
I gave molnibalage a timeout… there’s no use for this kind of language on these boards.
-
I wish Scoob_SBM the best of luck with his (our) holy DB for the next 20 years. I did hope for a better one. The outcome off this should be some dev working side by side with molni.
I guess no better red data source exists. -
in the falcon database just a huge number of errors and distortions
without respect to sides
but it looks like here is the same sandbox
as well as on forumae ED -
I wish Scoob_SBM the best of luck with his (our) holy DB for the next 20 years. I did hope for a better one. The outcome off this should be some dev working side by side with molni.
I guess no better red data source exists.You might find it interesting to know that internally there has been a profound amount of time consumed looking into Molni and his edits. I think it’s interesting that BMS is comprised of folks from Openfalcon, RPG, original Falcon 4 team, BMS, and Superpak and Freefalcon. All of whom have univerally panned both his attitude and information. The fact that he continually chooses to put down the work of others is why he would never be asked to join the team. The fact that his data, while interesting, is also very suspect along many different lines is another reason he would not be on our team. It’s not “just” that some of his data might be spot on while other data is not… we can’t be bothered with deciphering between which is which when there truly are other more important priorities. Quite honestly, the only reason he’s not permanently banned is because we genuinely hope he’ll change his attitude and stop insulting the work done by the afformentioned groups. If he personally attacks another member of this forum by calling them names or teling them to “Go to Hell”, he will be banned permanently. What really bothers me is that if his disdain is so great for BMS, then why bother posting, or otherwise flying it? That seems like a stress he could really do without.