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).
-
@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
-
@bowser said in 2021 A Falcon BMS Year to remember!:
@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.
Please read my explanations above
-
-
@mav-jp said in 2021 A Falcon BMS Year to remember!:
@bowser said in 2021 A Falcon BMS Year to remember!:
@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.
Please read my explanations above
-
I don’t look at the fuel flow rate, I ask what the AI’s fuel state is before starting the run, and after. Fly for a few hundred miles and compare. Perhaps it’s also drag related, but did not test that.
-
So first wingmen were able to use AB for going defensive and not for rejoining but not anymore? Too bad if it cannot be fixed. In that case I would prefer the 4.33 behaviour.
-
-
@mav-jp said in 2021 A Falcon BMS Year to remember!:
@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 ?
Mav , I think you’re right and it’s not a bug. I believe the AI just thinks more about completing it’s task then saving fuel. For example, on the carrier when in tension on the Cat, the AI is in burner literally for minutes before launch. Also, I’ve called my wingie go spread and there goes the 'burner. If I do a fast climb from launch AI is in burner even when I’m not.
The good news is you can compensate quite a bit with procedure(ie:being a good Lead). I’m doing some testing with launch procedure( such as taxiing close to launch time). Also, I’ve taken to doing a slower climb out, at the optimum climb speed for your jet. Things like that. -
-
2021 was a Falcon BMS year to remember for sure. I have the impression though that 2022 will be also an unforgetable year!
Thank you all! -
A great time to always remember
-
Hi!
@bowser said in 2021 A Falcon BMS Year to remember!:
@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.
1 - What do you consider as “lots of fuel / big difference” on an entire flight? 1000lbs, 2000lbs, 3000lbs ? … We may not have the same definition of “big difference”.
I will try to check is (again) but I didn’t had big difference since low time ago (of course, on a standard navigation without defensive/offensive actions).
The best would be to join an ACMI if you can and the TE so I can fly it also on my side in the exact same conditions.
2 - The issue was that the AIs were in some case NEVER able to rejoin the flight after a takeoff (I.E. runway 36 departing northbound on a straight track).
So we made some leader actions to maintain 6000kts outbound and slower speed (not sure about the speed) until #4 rejoin (that will be allowed to use a bit AB for this and should not take long time) … then, once rejoined, leader is allowed to start climb again and once cruise FL reached, accelerate to match the TOS.In case of human leader, the rejoin plan can even be smarter (making a triangle to help the wingmen to rejoin) that ca can’t do for AIs. Also other things about flight planning but none ensure 100% efficiency. The only way to fix this was to re-allow IA to use AB for rejoin for a shorter period of time (if human leader is not dumb and take care of his wingmen).
Ideally, the AI leader would be amble to perform a pre-planed trajectory routine of few turns (one or two) to help the rejoin,
… examples:
… but it is not possible at that point to hardcode it. It is always a matter of difficult compromises.
-
-
-
Tested it again, seems OK now with AI burning a little less indeed. Think my latest test stems from 4.34.
-
Just to be sure, I mean rejoin during any flight phase (for example after air combat, especially with the new AI tactics, wingmen like to get separated and use plenty of burner to catch up again). But I assume that what you mention about take-off is also valid during mid-flight. For pure AI flights is it not possible to have the leader maintain a relative slow speed until its wingmen have rejoined after completion of the task that caused the separation? And for after take-off, currently the flight plans have a 6 min holding, doesn’t that solve the rejoin after take-off?
-
-
- Just to be sure, I mean rejoin during any flight phase (for example after air combat, especially with the new AI tactics, wingmen like to get separated and use plenty of burner to catch up again). But I assume that what you mention about take-off is also valid during mid-flight. For pure AI flights is it not possible to have the leader maintain a relative slow speed until its wingmen have rejoined after completion of the task that caused the separation? And for after take-off, currently the flight plans have a 6 min holding, doesn’t that solve the rejoin after take-off?
It is never trivial … Relative low speed, over hostile territory it is never smart. In that case, better get rhem recoverd isolated.
Normally (IIRC) wingmen should only use AB if/when separated by xxNm (I do not remember how much).
As a human leader, you should be be too far from your wingmen, and when they want to rejoin, you can help them a lot by having a trajectory perpendicular to him or even take a heading towards him. Or making turns … etc … whatever …
For AIs it is obviously more complex since they are robots. I.e. Leader taking 90° from its wing and then go directly into a SA6 WEZ … how to prioritize in IA brain? What if running already low fuel on recovery? … etc …
It is highly highly complex and can leads into some other issues making IA smarter in one aspect, but dumber in another … -
I am DEEPLY happy for reading this post, I can’t wait to see 4.37 finally there will be a definite improvement for the eyes as well. I am really looking forward to it, thank you you are fantastic
-
Hell, i am a bit late to the party.
Well all ican say is that i wish everyone a wonderful 2022 Falcon year under the sign of the Viper. Joining the BMS team was a dream come true for me and it also brought me into a worlsd i am still learning to discover and understand. Great people, great minds and a lot of passion. You all take care and let’s hope for a smoother year.
-
Some other items that need some love IMO:
- The colours look much better since the last update but objects and smoke burning through the fog has significantly worsened
- Objects, namely units, almost invisible on desert terrain when using IR seeker from TGP/weapon (used to be a line that you could add to the config file but that doesn’t seem to work anymore)
- Weird rotating FCR display that happens sometimes when switching from RWS to TWS
- Sometimes no mode 4 IFF replay from (healty) flights in the same package
- AI shooting AMRAAMs into furballs
- Realistic speeds and altitudes for MiG-25/31 for example
- Better default loadouts (e.g. OCA strike with AGM-65’s and BAI with pentrator JDAMs doesn’t make sense)
- AI getting killed because they are not aware of HOJ capability of SAMs
- Runway section should be destroyed when hit by any Mk-84 type bomb with penetrator head, not only damaged
- Have AI hit different targets when ordered ‘attack targets’ (w8/e8) , sometimes they drop four 2000 pound JDAMs on the same small building that would only require a Mk-82 to be destroyed.
- Have AI drop only one JDAM when ordered ‘attack target’ (w1/e1)
- Make bombers able to drop all of their smart bombs on different targets
- Better default generated altitudes in flight plan. Most altitudes are way too low, resulting in lots of flights getting nailed by SHORADs
- In the flight planning menu, TAS should be locked, not CAS
- Altitude plot has a bug sometimes that it suddenly changes to logaritmic view when changing the height of one waypoint. Unable to change back, unless exiting and entering the plot again
- If all sections of all runways have been destroyed, the airbase should be 0% operational. In Bear trap campaign both runways of Kimhae airport were completely destroyed, yet the airbase was 53% operational
- Attrition rate of aircraft seems way too high. Does a certain number of aircraft get subtracted for every threat circle that is passed? Even when there’s no enemy aircraft anymore and almost no active SAMs, attrition rate is still quite high
- Vapor trails shooting out in front of jet sometimes when condensation starts
- It seems that a lot of unused weapons/tanks/TGP’s etc are still subtracted from the total
- Sometimes the F-16 has a large jink to the left at the onset of strafing. Most of the times only a fraction, sometimes a very large one. Have not been able to figure out what causes this. Always using a standard 15 degree dive around 450 kts for strafing.
- GBU-15 sometimes shows very erratic behaviour in trans/term modes. Even when slewing the aiming cross very very slowly, or even barely at all, the seeker suddenly jumps in horizontal direction to a different spot and in the ACMI it’s visible that the entire bomb instantly rotates from left to right or the other way around. At times this makes it impossible to find and hit the target with the aiming cross.
- The bullseye readouts on the FCR and HSD would be much better readable when the zero would not have a dash in the middle (else it looks very much like an eight). It seems that multiple fonts are being used in the real jet. Here a video that shows a font with a zero without dash around 1.50:
I have seen others with a dash inside the zero as well but this one is much better readable.
And for wishes:
- Real pop-up behaviour of SAMs
- Not every SAM having a search radar that gives away its location
- More realistic ECM implementation
- Options to control HAD display like being able to turn on/off pre-planned threat circles (I mean have them dissapear all at once like on HSD), being able to filter displayed emitters
- Use the same HAD symbology for a destroyed emitter as for an undestroyed one. It seems a little arcade that the HTS knows the difference between a non-radiating emitter that’s still alive and one that has been destroyed.
- Have the option to remove emitters that are not relevant anymore, like destroyed ones. Or double ones that have stopped radiating at one point and then re-appear a second time on the HAD at a slightly different location.
- More buildings, cities, so collateral damage becomes a real player
- Fusing options (e.g. Mk-82 low/high drag, Joint Programmable Fuze)
- Spin setting for CBU’s
-
So the way to celebrate the new year is to send us your shopping list?
-
@bowser said in 2021 A Falcon BMS Year to remember!:
- Realistic speeds and altitudes for MiG-25/31 for example
In this form alone this has no meaning. Because of bubble issues and tactic if you expect 60k ft+ alt and M2.0+ dashes from any of these I disappoint you. In such environment what the game represents the 25s and especially 31s rarely would perform such things.
- AI getting killed because they are not aware of HOJ capability of SAMs
If you ask me as a general HOJ capabilities as games represents or try it - I never was able to identify such behavior - does not exist.
- Runway section should be destroyed when hit by any Mk-84 type bomb with penetrator head, not only damaged
A simple Mk-84 HE cause very little damage in RL on hardened concrete.
- Have AI hit different targets when ordered ‘attack targets’ (w8/e8) , sometimes they drop four 2000 pound JDAMs on the same small building that would only require a Mk-82 to be destroyed.
- Have AI drop only one JDAM when ordered ‘attack target’ (w1/e1)
- Make bombers able to drop all of their smart bombs on different targets
Making the AI such smart is maybe hard and giving more direct control maybe would be better somehow. As I can recall in FF4 era AI used the salvo settings of the player.
- If all sections of all runways have been destroyed, the airbase should be 0% operational. In Bear trap campaign both runways of Kimhae airport were completely destroyed, yet the airbase was 53% operational
This should be a bug report in proper way…
- Attrition rate of aircraft seems way too high. Does a certain number of aircraft get subtracted for every threat circle that is passed? Even when there’s no enemy aircraft anymore and almost no active SAMs, attrition rate is still quite high
Are we speaking about 2D world? Which SAM? Which AC?
And for wishes:
- Real pop-up behaviour of SAMs
In fact even in TE some SAMs in some cases surprisingly silen than goes active in quite random way. BTW do you think that every SAM in RL can do that every time well?
- Not every SAM having a search radar that gives away its location
Pls be more specific…
- SA-2 P-12/P-18 (Dvina / Volhov)
- SA-3 P-15
- SA-4 (has two on two different levels)
- SA-5 a site has one, a site can have 2-5 batteries
- SA-6 the SURN have the targ. acq. radar
- SA-8 the SP vehicle has that
- SA-10A/B the Big Bird is at the regiment/brigade command unit while the missile battery have only Flap Lid and with 45 min set up time the Clam Shell low level CW targ. acq. radar
- SA-11/17 has it (Kupol)
- SA-13 in RL has only target distance meter, it is not a targ. acq. radar, in RL that is not SEAD-able by that It is used only for seconds or less
- SA-15 has it like the SA-8
- SA-19 has it like the SA-8
- The HAWK also has such thing, in fact had dedicated low level targ. acq. radar in the beginning.
- PATRIOT has a single radar which is used for targ. acq. either but it does not have 360 degree scan zone…
- Flakpz. Gepard has it.
- Roland Marder also has it.
- Chaparral does not have it.
This was a totally meaningless statement…
More realistic ECM implementation
This is classified topic, the most exact examples are available only against SA-2/3 from early '80s and nothing else. So asking such thing is pretty funny. Even the jam modeling and different kind of jams is not possible such a abstracted model what the game presents…
To model well the ECM you would model the HARDWARE of EVERY SAM in the game.—>
More buildings, cities, so collateral damage becomes a real player
Without new engine and lot of work…
Spin setting for CBU’s
This is ANYTHIN but a general thing.
-
Guys…
One last time… This is not the topic to start a shopping list not to discuss functionalities…Over
-
Happy new years to all, hope everyone had a safe and blessed holiday, thanks all of the devs and everyone involved, not an easy task, keep up the good work… Amazing what you all have done, cheers!!