Santa's wishlist for BMS
-
@Foxtrot701 said in Santa's wishlist for BMS:
@molnibalage It’s nice to be killed without warning from 100 miles
To better model systems like SA-10 we need a properly working IADS…
Even HQ battalions with SA-15s are defenseless against JSOWs…
Tons of times I have explained. F4.0 can’t model properly the post Cold War systems.
Such uber weapons and JSOW are such thing.
If we remain roughly in the same region as the original F4.0 the game is just fine. As we move far from early 2000s the gap between the advanced toys of the best F-16 and AD increases.In fact even a more clever AD only with Cold War SAMs except the SA-10s still can be very dangerous…
Without warning is not ture. If the FCR of the SA-10 is active you can consider as a launch warning. The time to impact is depends on the distance between you and SA-10 which is practically 30-60 seconds.
-
@molnibalage Yeah, i agree with this.
Opposing modern AD goes beyond of what we usually do in BMS. Such tactics as SEAD/DEAD even with SDB/newest HARM/JSOW are unlikely to deal significant damage, they just don’t have range and are easy to shoot down. Things like coordinated cruise or ballistic missile spam don’t work properly in BMS due to the bubble and RTS logic.
I am aware of the behavior of SA-10. Anyway, it’s going to look like a hellish no-fly zone with a 100 nm radius. Go deck or take part of the big fireworks display in the sky…
-
@Foxtrot701 said in Santa's wishlist for BMS:
@molnibalage Yeah, i agree with this.
Opposing modern AD goes beyond of what we usually do in BMS. Such tactics as SEAD/DEAD even with SDB/newest HARM/JSOW are unlikely to deal significant damage, they just don’t have range and are easy to shoot down. Things like coordinated cruise or ballistic missile spam don’t work properly in BMS due to the bubble and RTS logic.
I am aware of the behavior of SA-10. Anyway, it’s going to look like a hellish no-fly zone with a 100 nm radius. Go deck or take part of the big fireworks display in the sky…
The very large engagement zone of the S-300 is a bit illusionary. It is not a real killing zone.
When targets have minutes to react and they aware the attack, launching missiles on every target would lead very quick missile inventory depletion…Also at 150 km distance considering a flat terrain the radar horizon is at 1200 meters. At 200 km is 2200 m, at 250 km is 3500 meter.
Just a very short dive under the horizon a 90 degree course change for 1-2 min and even climbing back above the radar horizon the missile simply can’t reach the target.
So at long range the S-300s are a constant threat which can lead mission kill and can seriously disrupt the operations but the real killing zone against fighters also is far, far, far smaller.
-
SA-20 is in EMF it just shoots a bit further about 80nm seems to work OK. The bubble is now 164nm (303km) since 4.34. And now 4.36 there is something about a dynamic bubble so can probably do it.
No data fair enough there you go. -
My list goes to:
-Central Europe Theater
-F-16A Cockpit -
@molnibalage said in Santa's wishlist for BMS:
@Foxtrot701 said in Santa's wishlist for BMS:
@molnibalage It’s nice to be killed without warning from 100 miles
To better model systems like SA-10 we need a properly working IADS…
Even HQ battalions with SA-15s are defenseless against JSOWs…
Tons of times I have explained. F4.0 can’t model properly the post Cold War systems.
Such uber weapons and JSOW are such thing.
If we remain roughly in the same region as the original F4.0 the game is just fine. As we move far from early 2000s the gap between the advanced toys of the best F-16 and AD increases.In fact even a more clever AD only with Cold War SAMs except the SA-10s still can be very dangerous…
Without warning is not ture. If the FCR of the SA-10 is active you can consider as a launch warning. The time to impact is depends on the distance between you and SA-10 which is practically 30-60 seconds.
SA-20A (S-300 PMU-1) IOC 1993.
SA-20B (S-300 PMU-2) IOC 1997.Early 2000s line may have some holes…
-
this chinese page has bms 4.37 leaked photo? is this legit photo or photoshop?
https://www.bilibili.com/read/cv16379429 -
Graphical damage modeling like torn out fuselage or wing.
-
@bstar07 said in Santa's wishlist for BMS:
Graphical damage modeling like torn out fuselage or wing.
Does BMS supports multiple hitboxes per object? That would be needed first and iirc it was mentioned in some thread by devs that code is there, 'tho I don’t know if it’s enabled.
Then damage visuals, it shouldn’t require too much of compute power, all in al Il2 sim did it twenty years ago. -
@Hubert3000 said in Santa's wishlist for BMS:
@molnibalage said in Santa's wishlist for BMS:
@Foxtrot701 said in Santa's wishlist for BMS:
@molnibalage It’s nice to be killed without warning from 100 miles
To better model systems like SA-10 we need a properly working IADS…
Even HQ battalions with SA-15s are defenseless against JSOWs…
Tons of times I have explained. F4.0 can’t model properly the post Cold War systems.
Such uber weapons and JSOW are such thing.
If we remain roughly in the same region as the original F4.0 the game is just fine. As we move far from early 2000s the gap between the advanced toys of the best F-16 and AD increases.In fact even a more clever AD only with Cold War SAMs except the SA-10s still can be very dangerous…
Without warning is not ture. If the FCR of the SA-10 is active you can consider as a launch warning. The time to impact is depends on the distance between you and SA-10 which is practically 30-60 seconds.
SA-20A (S-300 PMU-1) IOC 1993.
SA-20B (S-300 PMU-2) IOC 1997.Early 2000s line may have some holes…
Nope, that is inaccurate.
PM1 1993 in RUS, PMU1 1996 export.
PMU2 export from 2004. The export made possible to fund the RU acq. and development of the S-400. -
@Aragorn said in Santa's wishlist for BMS:
SA-n-TA-25-12
My biggest wish would be a capacity to externally code avionics under ADA language.
-
@Radium
COBOL maybe? That would mean we’d had a chance to meet the last one guy on the planet writing programs in that language -
@Xeno No, ADA ! That’s THE language to make avionics !
-
@Radium
I know, just messin with ya a lillte, ppl get way too serious way too often recently So let it be ADA
THB I’d take ability to include 3rd party avionics modules in any language in a heartbeat. -
@Radium
with Ada.Text_IO;procedure YourPlaneAvionics is
begin
Ada.Text_IO.Put_Line(“Placeholder for your avionics”);
end YourPlaneAvionics; -
@tiag Hahaha !!! Wiki is your friend !!!
-
@Hubert3000 You don’t want the SA-20 and 21
-
@Radium said: My biggest wish would be a capacity to externally code avionics under ADA language.
.
I have ADHD language.
My biggest wish would be the capacity to not have it.
-
@Aragorn said in Santa's wishlist for BMS:
@Radium said: My biggest wish would be a capacity to externally code avionics under ADA language.
.
I have ADHD language.
My biggest wish would be the capacity to not have it.
HD maybe, but AD I highly doubt it.
-
Here’s one that has been bothering me since 4.34.
Can we get the laser pointer fixed so you can see it in the TGP/MFD?
You can’t see it in the MFD unless you have your NVG’s on, and you can’t read the MFD with your NVG’s on creating a Catch-22. I’m ok with needing NVG’s to see it outside the jet, like looking through the canopy outside the jet, but why do you need NVG’s to see it in a MFD? The only reason I know it’s in the MFD is I have extracted display’s and I can look at it blinking in the exaction.