2021 A Falcon BMS Year to remember!
-
What is meant by “new terrain”? Will it be higher resolution (less blocky mountains, more defined smaller variations) or will it be higher in ground detail (more objects, eye candy, no more flat textures for buildings etc.) or something completely different?
-
I have a maybe OFF question.
Why is the 4.3x version designation used?I can understand that 4 is likely the legacy of Falcon 4.0.
But what about the “3”? -
@molnibalage said in 2021 A Falcon BMS Year to remember!:
I have a maybe OFF question.
Why is the 4.3x version designation used?I can understand that 4 is likely the legacy of Falcon 4.0.
But what about the “3”?Internal BMS versioning. And no the “4” is also not about Falcon 4.0, if you remember back in the days BMS started with 1.03 (That was the first version I remember), then after a while it became BMS 2.0. I wasn’t there when it came to “4.0” but probably it was a similar decision to “Jump” the version up.
Maybe it means we should move to 5.0 at some point?
-
@i-hawk A friend of mine asked exactly which would not call the 4.37 simply 5.0 because if the terrain engine will be a totally new not matter the large legacy of the F4.0 mostly (?) only the spiritual essence of the F4.0 is the legacy, not the “product” itself.
As I know nobody owns the right of Falcon 5.0 so nobody every would sue the team. I guess.
-
-
-
@molnibalage said in 2021 A Falcon BMS Year to remember!:
@i-hawk A friend of mine asked exactly which would not call the 4.37 simply 5.0 because if the terrain engine will be a totally new not matter the large legacy of the F4.0 mostly (?) only the spiritual essence of the F4.0 is the legacy, not the “product” itself.
As I know nobody owns the right of Falcon 5.0 so nobody every would sue the team. I guess.
Sorry I don’t know yet and anyway I don’t think it’ll be Falcon 5.0, maybe BMS 5.0 but that also doesn’t really matter. What will matter is the content
-
@i-hawk My bad, of course I wanted to say BMS 5.0
In fact I never said Falcon 5.0.
I just thought if ANYBODY ever try to release Falcon 5.0 maybe BMS 5.0 for some jerk lawyer could provide a “target”.
But as I know nobody has such plan so a BMS 5.0 it would be fine. -
@pumpyhead: â é
Look at the big font set on Pumpy…!!
@pumpyhead: Did you squint …?
Only when you undid your fly.
-
@aragorn Get a room guys
-
I hope that before any new features are introduced, all current bugs will be solved, namely the following:
- All impact timers of GBU’s are messed up, they either speed up or slow down and even give feedback if a weapon is guiding properly.
- IAM’s weapons time of flight is way too long and contains very weird slowing down phenomena. Just compare for example a release of a CBU-87 with that of a CBU-103 at the same time and look at the flight profile and especially the velocity of the weapon. For DEAD operations this is very crucial.
- Released weapons having a large horizontal shift upon release in cross wind.
- Release point of AI aircraft for GBU’s is way off compared to human pilots and bomb TOF is also very different.
- AGM-88 estimated impact time and countdown timers for PET shots are way off and even give feedback if the weapon is guiding on something. And often a HARM will not guide onto an active emitter if it has not been detected by ownship before.
- AI fuel consumption is way off compared to human, especially low- and high level.
- AI should not use afterburner when rejoining in flight.
- AIM-120 behaviour is unrealistic. RCS setting in cockpit determines exactly at what distance from the target the missile goes pitbull and that distance does not depend on actual RCS at all. The RCS selection in the pit should only provide an indication to the pilot about when the computer in the jet thinks the missile is going pitbull depending on the expected size of the target.
-
@bowser
1 > - AI fuel consumption is way off compared to human, especially low- and high level.
2 > - AI should not use afterburner when rejoining in flight.1 - Please elaborate.
How did you evaluated this?
Have you considered AI (robot) behavior and leader abilities to be a good leader considering the nature it his wingmen?2 - Please provide factual examples.
Also, consider that is could not be possible to make a difference between rejoin and other flight phases … so … if we prevent IA from using afterburner, it may be all also prevent them from using is in combat …
See the problem ? -
I was told all the mentioned bugs were fixed already for 4.36, only the RCS thing needs to be checked/verified.
-
@bowser said in 2021 A Falcon BMS Year to remember!:
- AI fuel consumption is way off compared to human, especially low- and high level.
AI fuel consuption is off indeed (i wouldnt say WAY off ) , but actually the AI burns less fuel than the player , didyou think it was the opposite ?
-
And the explanation is more simple than what i thought :
the Player and AI are calculating EXACTLY the same fuel flow, independantly of OFM or AFM
But at the end of the calculation there are those lines :
// For simplified model, burn less fuel
if (IsSet(Simplified))
{
currentEngine->fuelFlowSS *= 0.75F;
}“Simplified” in the code does not mean a simplified FM, it means a simplifed handling mode , for instance when flying formation or going to waypoint this mode is activated.
When in combat mode, this is no more “simplified”
So…i think this line has been added long time ago to compensate from the fact the AI was not as smart as player to manage Throttle when rejoining and so on…
i dont think we should touch it actually
-
@bowser said in 2021 A Falcon BMS Year to remember!:
- AIM-120 behaviour is unrealistic. RCS setting in cockpit determines exactly at what distance from the target the missile goes pitbull and that distance does not depend on actual RCS at all. The RCS selection in the pit should only provide an indication to the pilot about when the computer in the jet thinks the missile is going pitbull depending on the expected size of the target.
sorry but we do not understand what you mean ,
According to our information the way we modeled the RCS setting in SMS is realistic
the RCS option in the SMS determines at what range the Seeker will go HPRF / MPRF, independantly of course of the real RCS of the opponent
it also determines the size of the signals that the missiles radar will be looking for
we double check and the implementation in BMS is correctly done
-
Best wishes for 2022 everyone. Glad to see you here Max and to see what you became now, many congrats.
Thanks a lot to all the team that still works intensively every year to release better and stable versions of BMS that we love to fly on and that we grew with.
We owe you, the team, a lot, thanks again !
Fly safe -
@maxwaldorf Thanks for the update, if someone told me when F4 came out that I would still be running it over 20 years later (especially after the 1.08 release) I would never have believed it. Whilst i don’t get much gaming time anymore it still great to get the chance to occassionally have a quick mission. It has come a very long way over the years (and drove most of my PC upgrades and helped empty my bank account accordingly when I played games regularly ) I look forward to whats coming next!
Happy New Year to all.
Opener
-
@maxwaldorf
Thank you ! You are real people - a legend.
We believe in you. -
@dee-jay said in 2021 A Falcon BMS Year to remember!:
@bowser
1 > - AI fuel consumption is way off compared to human, especially low- and high level.
2 > - AI should not use afterburner when rejoining in flight.1 - Please elaborate.
How did you evaluated this?
Have you considered AI (robot) behavior and leader abilities to be a good leader considering the nature it his wingmen?2 - Please provide factual examples.
Also, consider that is could not be possible to make a difference between rejoin and other flight phases … so … if we prevent IA from using afterburner, it may be all also prevent them from using is in combat …
See the problem ?-
Straight and level flight with AI wingmen in formation, throttle constant just below mil power. Try at 1000 ft and at 35k feet. Evaluate fuel diference between ownship and AI.
-
Just get the AI separated from ownship and have them rejoin.
In 4.33 wingman did not use afterburner for rejoin.
-
-
@mav-jp said in 2021 A Falcon BMS Year to remember!:
@bowser said in 2021 A Falcon BMS Year to remember!:
- AIM-120 behaviour is unrealistic. RCS setting in cockpit determines exactly at what distance from the target the missile goes pitbull and that distance does not depend on actual RCS at all. The RCS selection in the pit should only provide an indication to the pilot about when the computer in the jet thinks the missile is going pitbull depending on the expected size of the target.
sorry but we do not understand what you mean ,
According to our information the way we modeled the RCS setting in SMS is realistic
the RCS option in the SMS determines at what range the Seeker will go HPRF / MPRF, independantly of course of the real RCS of the opponent
it also determines the size of the signals that the missiles radar will be looking for
we double check and the implementation in BMS is correctly done
Cannot find the documentation where I’ve read this. Thought it was in one of the MLU tapes, but there it’s actually not explained in detail. However, it might indeed determine the distance when the seeker goes active but this does not necessarily mean that it immediately acquires the target. For example a missile shot with RCS set to LARGE against a target with a very small cross section. I would expect that the missile would not acquire the target immediately when going pitbull, however in BMS the target ís always acquired directly when going pitbull (independant of actual target RCS and selected RCS for the missile).
-
@bowser said in 2021 A Falcon BMS Year to remember!:
@mav-jp said in 2021 A Falcon BMS Year to remember!:
@bowser said in 2021 A Falcon BMS Year to remember!:
- AIM-120 behaviour is unrealistic. RCS setting in cockpit determines exactly at what distance from the target the missile goes pitbull and that distance does not depend on actual RCS at all. The RCS selection in the pit should only provide an indication to the pilot about when the computer in the jet thinks the missile is going pitbull depending on the expected size of the target.
sorry but we do not understand what you mean ,
According to our information the way we modeled the RCS setting in SMS is realistic
the RCS option in the SMS determines at what range the Seeker will go HPRF / MPRF, independantly of course of the real RCS of the opponent
it also determines the size of the signals that the missiles radar will be looking for
we double check and the implementation in BMS is correctly done
Cannot find the documentation where I’ve read this. Thought it was in one of the MLU tapes, but there it’s actually not explained in detail. However, it might indeed determine the distance when the seeker goes active but this does not necessarily mean that it immediately acquires the target. For example a missile shot with RCS set to LARGE against a target with a very small cross section. I would expect that the missile would not acquire the target immediately when going pitbull, however in BMS the target ís always acquired directly when going pitbull (independant of actual target RCS and selected RCS for the missile).
The acquisition process is an entire other subject
4.36 is the answer