Suggestion for database, data supply
-
Hi Molni,
Wrong? 120/60 is a possible RL qty.
I did not say the 120/60 value is wrong!!!
Just the approach you suggested not to set the values to 120/24 because AI cannot handle is not perfect.
If AI cannot handle chaff/flare output code for this should be improved instead of adding bad data.What DB adjustment do you need exactly? All that I put into Korea '80s? For stuff what I presented here almost 0 - some flag settings - were required as I can remember. So far I posted about dispenser tweaks, and FM+thrust tweaks for some missiles. In Korea '80s I have used OSD’s data for calculating thrust with estimated burn times and corrected total weight. (The burnout / launch waight ration is estimated I set close to blue missiles.)
DB changes for bigger engagement rage, smaller warhed arming delay and slightly bigger blast radius.
All adjustments like these above…
Cheers
Biker -
Not the AI was the only reason, but you cannot deny that if an F-15 attacked with even the most weakest SAM because of idiotic behavior all of flares are used shortly….
With stock DB values, jammer + chaff is so lethal combo, that you do not need 120 chaff. 24 flare - after you have seen the demo video about flares effect - is enogh for what purpose? IMHO the possible 60/90 maybe would be more better and balanced but in first step 120/60 also much better then 120/24.
If you check fly qty. even the aspect is wrong. The A-10 have hundreds of flares. If you count the biggest flare size as for F-15 modeling the A-10 should not have so many. It is obvious that if anyone set the flares of A-10, the smaller flare was taken into consideration.
(If the exe will be fixed and ground troops can use MANPAD/SHORAD during movement you will need lost of flares.)
I can export from Korea '80s these DB entries.
-
Not the AI was the only reason, but you cannot deny that if an F-15 attacked with even the most weakest SAM because of idiotic behavior all of flares are used shortly….
So what is your proposal for AI dealing with chaff/flares?
With stock DB values, jammer + chaff is so lethal combo, that you do not need 120 chaff. 24 flare - after you have seen the demo video about flares effect - is enogh for what purpose? IMHO the possible 60/90 maybe would be more better and balanced but in first step 120/60 also much better then 120/24.
As I said above if 120/60 is the RL value it should be use in sim also.
If you check fly qty. even the aspect is wrong. The A-10 have hundreds of flares. If you count the biggest flare size as for F-15 modeling the A-10 should not have so many. It is obvious that if anyone set the flares of A-10, the smaller flare was taken into consideration.
Should be possible to adjust EXE to handle diff flare sizes (e.g. small, medium, large), just I think this is no prio 1 task.
(If the exe will be fixed and ground troops can be used MANPAD/SHORAD you will need lost of flares.)
Why do you think ground troops cannot use MANPADS?
They can, just here also data and code is not perfect but can be improved…I can export from Korea '80s these DB entries.
Would be nice to see what all you’ve done to get the results shown.
Cheers
Biker -
Why do you think ground troops cannot use MANPADS?
One word is missing. During moving. Test in TE. Place the same HQ battalion as a standing and moving unit either. The difference is clearly visible.
Would be nice to see what all you’ve done to get the results shown.
In Korea '80s I applied so many changes the posting a changelog and exporting everything takes weeks. Currently I do not have time, but about ~2 months from now I will have.
I removed weapons from tanks, and other vehicles, I changed many gun damage values, I played with IR seekers and battalion rosters, and there are new vehicles in DB.
-
One word is missing. During moving. Test in TE. Place the same HQ battalion as a standing and moving unit either. The difference is clearly visible.
OK I see (same goes for ships)…
But shouldn’t be a big problem in general to fix this.
Only problem could be to define which unit/vehicle is allowed to launch SAMs during move.In Korea '80s I applied so many changes the posting a changelog and exporting everything takes weeks. Currently I do not have time, but about ~2 months from now I will have.
I removed weapons from tanks, and other vehicles, I changed many gun damage values, I played with IR seekers and battalion rosters, and there are new vehicles in DB.
If you can provide me the FALCON4.* files I can do a comparison independently via scripts…
Cheers
Biker -
OK I see (same goes for ships)…
But shouldn’t be a big problem in general to fix this.
Only problem could be to define which unit/vehicle is allowed to launch SAMs during move.Here comes the problem. Currently there is no flag in DB for this. If this exe controlled it will be the biggest problem if you wish to expand or change the DB for 3rd party theater. Is my biggest dream for a long time, if the relocation of mobile SAMs can be modeled this way. (Other issues that radar emission also should be blocked during the realocation and AI have to be able to hande when should be relocated the SAMs and where.)
If you can provide me the FALCON4.* files I can do a comparison independently via scripts…
Does this mean the changed DB related files in \terrdata directory? You can downlaod the Korea '80s MOD and make a comparsion.
https://www.benchmarksims.org/forum/showthread.php?9766-Korea-80s-theater-MOD-released
BTW, welcome on BMS4 forum, I haven’t seen you in the latest years. :woohoo:
-
People can’t handle walking and talking, without bumping into things, but you want them to walk and shoot IR shoulder launched SAMs? Should they reload them, too, while they’re walking?
Ditto for driving, aiming, and shooting SAMs. Standard doctrine is to stop, before shooting. That’s why their ability to shoot while moving was stopped in the first place.
-
In this case AI have to be forced with exe to stop and shoot back. Because it is insane that even with latest radar guided SHORADs - which are capable to engage targets during movement if they are move on road - are just sitting and doing nothing. The advancing ground troops are defenless and they are never stop….
BTW who said that from a moving vehicle it is not possible to use MANPAD or SHORAD? Even the +40 years old ZSU-23-4 is able to engage targets up to 25 km/h speed if terrain allows it. In Slovakian army practiced launch from a moving platform with MANPAD, this is not just a theory… This means likely other ex. WP countries did the same way. This is only MANPAD. SHORAD unit can launch missile if Shilka is able to aim. Aiming with an IR seeker is much much easier as with AAA, because seeker have much bigger FOV as the tolarance for aiming of a AAA.
Other issue that for battalion too big movement speed is set. I can see the benifits for campaign, maybe GUs can move faster as enemy kills them in 2D world by air force. Somtimes 50 or 60 value is set. This is very hight even the value means km/h. This is very bad for AI controlled AC. With dumb bombs have to be lucky - to use a good aspect - to be able to hit targets. AI can use only CCRP mode. This means if they are using bombs from ~13-15k alt GU simply move to far from calculated impact point even AI use CBU.
-
Not exactly a data supply, just because interesting.
I do not know what resulted this - maybe the increased flare qty. - but AI sometimes use quite well dispensers without any interaction.
AI sometimes can use unguided rockets sometimes not. This was captured in a campaign, I was not in the flight.
-
I think it’s a damn shame so many folks want to crap on Molni’s work.
Focus on making the sim better, not on who it is that does the work to make it so.
These folks should just shut up and play the tough/wise-guy somewhere else because nobody will stop Molni no matter how hard they try => and they try it since years I think? If they want to argue with someone to death just because of ego-reasons or -proof something to the world do it somewhere else. This a modern disease which came with the internet.
Molni you have my respect for your work and my support.
-
These folks should just shut up and play the tough/wise-guy somewhere else because nobody will stop Molni no matter how hard they try => and they try it since years I think? If they want to argue with someone to death just because of ego-reasons or -proof something to the world do it somewhere else. This a modern disease which came with the internet.
Molni you have my respect for your work and my support.
Molni is doing good job but has proved in the past that he can’t work in a TEAM substructure like BMS is.
I have nothing against him and do consider his work. He has (IMO) quite good sources and empiric knowledges and I like to talk with him.However, his statements are not always true, but nobody can say that he is always true. Depends on so many things… and sometimes point of view. But that is not the problem. Important is not to be 100% true or false, it is to be coherent with the TEAM direction and priorities.
But obviously, he did irritated some guys from the other side and (for good or bad reasons, thats is not the questions) and they do not want to deal with him.
(Sometimes, you have to choose a camp … he did that choice some time ago… I did also.)Some of us are also anxious about what could happens inside if he is reacting the same than he does in the past…
It has been noticed that very good effort has been made from his side but that will be certainly not enough for team integration.
But … It does not mean that what he is doing and all its remarks are not taken seriously in account and are not considered by the team. And be sure that he is not doing all that stuff for nothing at all. We will give credits to his work if we choose to implement it, entirely or, in some aspects. And he knows that.
Deep reasons are internal, and I see no reason to talk about that further longer. (that would change nothing anyway) …
But who knows … someday maybe … time goes by …
@Monli: If you are still conformable with that, do not hesitate to continue suggestions (not too fast, it is very hard to follow you sometimes ;)) … no one will promise you anything about integration, but be sure that we are reading it and discuss it internal. Sometimes a big yes, sometimes a big no. But do not think it is different for team members proposing and suggesting stuff … it is the same story for all of us.
@ALL: I gave you small info and quick explanations.
So please, do not start into a big (flamed) discussion… Keep that thread as good as it is … let Monlibalage using wisely this area for his suggestions.Some will not agree with him, it is their right (and that is good also) … let Monli express himself and give more explanations if necessary. It is a hard and long work … yes … this is how it does work also internal.
Thank you everybody!
-
I did not stopped post them forever I just have another project that have a deadline, therefore all tweaking activity is stopped for a while. I’m working on a huge article for HTKA.hu about F-15. At end of July will be the 40th anniverysary of its first flight. I wish to finish - better term end writing and release - a coherent stuff. Current status is 250k characters, 110 pages, ~100 attachments (docs, videos) and the end is quite far. If everything will be as good as I planned, I will refly some of Streak Eagle rerocds with BMS4 appropriate skin.
(IMHO the stuff is so unique, that even in English you cannot find similar stuff. I’m using dozens of books, RL maunals and hundreds of other sources to put the “most dense” content that I can. You can find smaller parts in many sources but in a single soruce - with deeper explanaiton you cannot.)
After that I back to slowly to BMS4 but I need a bit rest… Since the lates year I just tweaked BMS4 and wrote article for HKTA.hu…
Before posting more tweaks, first I will “finish” Korea '80s. This mean two campaigns, minor fixes and upgrades and who loves the AMRAAM era, will be made Korea '90s theater either. They will be based on '80s campaign with minor differencies. One campaigns for each theater will be Eurowar, to see how it works BMS4 if I used modified role scores and OPFOR have almost equal stuff in cetain situations. (This means a Cold War situation in '80s).
-
Has any of the chaff flare mods for the .dat been implemented in the latest BSM updates?
If not, I’m going to add them to my DB. Great work Molinibalage and thanks for the intensive thread, Awesome.
Cheers,
Coco
-
Some will be.
-
How does one edit the simulation data? I’ve been editing the the data files using the BMS editor and some of the items, particularly the air-air weapons categories don’t make sense. Then, what about the simdata folder? The data for the weapons specifically the sensor type and version numbers don’t match with the sensor numbers in the BMS editor. One of the “heaters” in the data list refers to a sensor that doesn’t even correspond to those listed in the BMS editor file. ie, IR sensor 62. BMS Editor only lists 60 IR sensors.
-
Some of (maybe many) entries in DB and/or .dat files are no longer used by the code. Some other works significantly different from older versions of falcon4.
-
Are you speaking about my edits or stock files? I have spoken about this with Mav-Jp. some of my forwarded or uploaded files came from Korea '80s where I set new sensor number in dat file because in DB I created new IR data entires.
With inbuilt editor you cannot edit dat files in \data\sim, you have to do it manually. BTW I do not use editor, I’m still using F4Browse. That stuff is good engouh, at least for me.
-
It doesn’t matter whether it is your data or the stock data, I noticed in both that if the sensor is not found, the engine will use the default sensor which has a 180 degree aspect angle? Though I have no verified this with 100% certainty. Though that might explain why some missiles maintain track while flying parallel to the target when they should not. I have not used F4Browse.
-
Please name exact missiles. During my tweaks I did not found any bug for generally used missiles.
-
MICA IR: DAT file has Seeker version 58 with FOV and Aspect in reasonable limits but in BMS editor, IR #58 has seeker range=80nm, FOV=180deg, Aspect=180deg, flare chance 15%. Super seeker head that’s easily fooled?