Stealth in BMS
-
I am staying with the F-16 as well. However, if say, F-22 and J-20 are not modelled properly, then in campaigns where those two come up against each other in 2D battle, then the outcome might be biased.
-
Hello,
The question of stealth aircraft in BMS is just the dome of the iceberg, in my humble opinion.
Beside the question of stealth aircraft, is the main idea of what we want in BMS.
-
Do we want an early F-16C simulator (circa 1985) representing a cold war era high intensity environment (integrated a disputed dominance between F-16 and Soviet opponents)?
-
Do we want a updated F-16C/MLU simulator (circa 2000), representing a post cold war era asymmetric warfare (where F-16 has the dominance of the sky against obviously inferior forces) ?
-
Do we want a late F-16C/V high intensity disputed warfare between various serious forces ? (USA, Europe, China, Russia, North Korea, South Korea, Japan and Taiwan ?)
In fact, there is no good answer. It just depends on our personal wishes. By my side, I trend to feel that option 3 is the most realistic, because of the following reasons :
-
Every software that does not offer evolution is going to die.
-
BMS is a F-16 simulator. F-16V is the future of F-16 and it opens a door to serious 5th gen simulation (AESA systems, advanced jamming systems etc…)
-
By moving to F-16V and 5th gen fighters, we will offer something new to our community, compared to what DCS for example gives in term of environment.
-
Moving to a 2020s environment would not avoid people to fly legacy eras. Only campaigns would be different.
To conclude, yes, for me, we must enhance the implementation of stealth technologies in BMS. That being said, I feel most skeptical about open data, because the real ones are confidential, maybe not for F-16 anymore, but certainly for F-22, J-20, F-35, Rafale and Su-57 for example.
To get something realistic, we really need more than RCS figures, but a true critical and contradictory engineering job, to avoid as much as possible partisan bias.
Radium
-
-
@Radium
There are probably ways to generate rcs maps from 3d models which might give consistency at least - despite everything being nothing more than guesswork.
Would need code changes probably. -
@drtbkj said in Stealth in BMS:
Good Day, All.
If you’ve been following the the OFM Journal thread, you’ve seen that we are flight testing the F-35C, for flight model refinement. While we’ve been doing so, we have also experimented with Stealth.
https://militaryembedded.com/radar-ew/signal-processing/radar-cross-section-the-measure-of-stealth#:~:text=The 5G F-35 has,size of a golf ball.Here are some numbers for you:
RL Frontal RCS (square meters)/Values in BMS( if frontal and units unknown)
F-18C= 1-3/1.23
-F-18E=1 /1.059
F-16-1.2 / 1
F-35A= .0015(I’ve also see .005 ) / 0.169
F-22= .00015 / 0.21
J-20= 1-3 / 0.41
One important caveat to our discussion is that the BMS Editor’s unit of measure (square meters, square feet, etc.) is not given, nor if this is frontal RCS. A clarification of these would be much appreciated,
The point of all this that in our testing shows true Stealth has a significant effect on BMS play. When we flight tested the MQ-25 tanker we tried a RCS of .005 and you could not lock it up on radar! I’ve created a “Flight Test” TE . In it the J-20 keeps it’s 0.4 but our test F-35C has 0.5 Where before the J-20 is shooting from beyond AIM-120 range , now you can get close enough to get to shoot(even close enough to get burn through when they jam)
It may not be an exaggeration to call it a “game changer”. And that, my friends, is the point of this post. Some might say Stealth " takes the game out of the game" . What do you think? Do you want us to include Stealth in OFMKTO and perhaps the other theaters we help with? Or, leave it to you to adjust(which BTW is very easy to do)
Comments are welcome.
JoeBecause Falcon never used anything similar to RL radar eq…
It has simply an substitutional abstract system.(In fact on my channel will be presented soon the radars vs stealth plane at least on basic level if you are interested to understand the topic.
)
Yo will see such calculation using the radar eq.
The BMS is simply not able to model these planes. In fact you do not have stealth fighter without PESA or AESA radar. Which also is not able to model the BMS4.
If you ask me just leave out the stealth planes from ANY campaigns.
n+1 times I have said. The engine of the Falcon / BMS is best for the late Cold War era until the early 2000s. Why so many ppl. whish to use the engine for such goals which are impossible? I simply do not get this.
The only possible very so-so modeled stealth plane can be the F-117.
- It is not a strategical asset.
- In RL it did not had radar or RWR.
So as an AI manned plane it is viable. But even for that modeling the not 100% omindirectional stealth is not possible. About only the F-117 is available a measured RCS value thanks to Dani Zoltan but only from a single direction.
By knowing the parameters of the S-125M the calculated RCS with ~ 60 degree azimuth is -29 dBsm. (0.0012 m2) The SNR-125M was able to detect the F-117 only from 14 km slant range.
-
Falcon 4.0 is based on a 4th gen jet the F-16C Fighting Falcon - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_4.0 and was hard coded that way… as for the rest of the aircraft mods add on’s well they are just toys and additional’s to the sim that add fun or the added function of dissimilar aircraft training. The focus however should be to keep the history of the sim, why Frankenstein it… is my take anyway.
-
@Reaperdog1 said in Stealth in BMS:
Falcon 4.0 is based on a 4th gen jet the F-16C Fighting Falcon - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_4.0 and was hard coded that way… as for the rest of the aircraft mods add on’s well they are just toys and additional’s to the sim that add fun or the added function of dissimilar aircraft training. The focus however should be to keep the history of the sim, why Frankenstein it… is my take anyway.
@Reaperdog1 so… instead criticize each time the additional toys that add only fun to BMS, because no one talking about new avionics for others ac in BMS ?.. sry but I cant resist … they are not "just toys that add fun to the sim " … I just want to see you working on a BMS 3dcokpit … after this I will talk willingly with you about toys !!!
-
@Reaperdog1 said in Stealth in BMS:
Falcon 4.0 is based on a 4th gen jet the F-16C Fighting Falcon - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_4.0 and was hard coded that way… as for the rest of the aircraft mods add on’s well they are just toys and additional’s to the sim that add fun or the added function of dissimilar aircraft training. The focus however should be to keep the history of the sim, why Frankenstein it… is my take anyway.
Let’s say, if you add an F-18 with modeled avionics and systems to the Falcon, for example, will it become worse and “lose its history”? As for stealth aircraft, it would be better to do block 60 and 70/72 for a start. Of course, I understand that there are a lot of limitations of the engine, but maybe someday it will be improved. (I know nothing about programming myself, and maybe it’s impossible.) Again, this is just my opinion.
-
@Supernova well by all means add to the sim, I meant no disrespect or cause for argument. Just that coming in and out of the F4 sim world after so many years, I have understood that in past the answer was it is an F-16 sim that is hard coded, unsure if that is still the case as the devs would know more, but if the code has changed fantastic, but as I understand it messing with code and not rewriting the whole thing could pork the avionics code for the F-16.
So question has the avionics F4 code been rebuilt allowing for new air craft systems?
-
So question has the avionics F4 code been rebuilt allowing for new air craft systems?
NOT… NOR OTHER “TOYS”
JUST “Stealth in BMS”
-
This was my… ehh proposal…
There is a man here around, done a degree Thesis for real-time calculating RCS on pc simulators. Not much time to write everything but you can dig up and find out how and outcomes. He used detailed 3D models (created on 3dsm etc. ) for F-16, F-4, F-35 and using modified SW was abled (and proved in the field) that RCS calcs for -16 and -4 was >90% accurate, dynamically from any angle. So next was the -35, so there are some estimation numbers somewhere…
This is the proper way to do it here too, starting from detailed 3D models, aircraft, stores, tanks, weapons, add colors (Have Glass etc. options), then real time calc similarly the dynamic numbers that would push this title fw.
Not the exact doc but just a clue to search.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324684985_Stealth_Threats_and_Anti-Stealth_Techniques
-
Anyway, what we discuss here is more venting than everything else because we can whine for hours including myself, it will never bring a dev to move because basics of BMS is that dev do what they want to !
-
@Raptor said in Stealth in BMS:
This was my… ehh proposal…
There is a man here around, done a degree Thesis for real-time calculating RCS on pc simulators. Not much time to write everything but you can dig up and find out how and outcomes. He used detailed 3D models (created on 3dsm etc. ) for F-16, F-4, F-35 and using modified SW was abled (and proved in the field) that RCS calcs for -16 and -4 was >90% accurate, dynamically from any angle. So next was the -35, so there are some estimation numbers somewhere…
This is the proper way to do it here too, starting from detailed 3D models, aircraft, stores, tanks, weapons, add colors (Have Glass etc. options), then real time calc similarly the dynamic numbers that would push this title fw.
Not the exact doc but just a clue to search.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324684985_Stealth_Threats_and_Anti-Stealth_Techniques
OMG, there are so many inaccurate things in the doc…
-
@Raptor said in Stealth in BMS:
This was my… ehh proposal…
There is a man here around, done a degree Thesis for real-time calculating RCS on pc simulators. Not much time to write everything but you can dig up and find out how and outcomes. He used detailed 3D models (created on 3dsm etc. ) for F-16, F-4, F-35 and using modified SW was abled (and proved in the field) that RCS calcs for -16 and -4 was >90% accurate, dynamically from any angle. So next was the -35, so there are some estimation numbers somewhere…
This is the proper way to do it here too, starting from detailed 3D models, aircraft, stores, tanks, weapons, add colors (Have Glass etc. options), then real time calc similarly the dynamic numbers that would push this title fw.
Not the exact doc but just a clue to search.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324684985_Stealth_Threats_and_Anti-Stealth_Techniques
Point is how it works for stealth fighters? When airframe is so much optimized to reduce RCS even row of few rivets or something protruding from the surface could increase RCS for +10% .
So calculating RCS from a 3D model in such cases may be way off. -
@Xeno said in Stealth in BMS:
@Raptor said in Stealth in BMS:
This was my… ehh proposal…
There is a man here around, done a degree Thesis for real-time calculating RCS on pc simulators. Not much time to write everything but you can dig up and find out how and outcomes. He used detailed 3D models (created on 3dsm etc. ) for F-16, F-4, F-35 and using modified SW was abled (and proved in the field) that RCS calcs for -16 and -4 was >90% accurate, dynamically from any angle. So next was the -35, so there are some estimation numbers somewhere…
This is the proper way to do it here too, starting from detailed 3D models, aircraft, stores, tanks, weapons, add colors (Have Glass etc. options), then real time calc similarly the dynamic numbers that would push this title fw.
Not the exact doc but just a clue to search.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324684985_Stealth_Threats_and_Anti-Stealth_Techniques
Point is how it works for stealth fighters? When airframe is so much optimized to reduce RCS even row of few rivets or something protruding from the surface could increase RCS for +10% .
So calculating RCS from a 3D model in such cases may be way off.Also using the 3D model shape simply neglect the effect of the engine following the intake. The radar antenna which act a reflector for a radar which scans any fighter etc.
(This is why built in the radar in tilted to EVERY stealth plane. B-2, F-35, F-22 it does not matter. Even it reduces the range of the radar.) -
@molnibalage
I guess here’s talk about models not used in game but much more detailed.
I guess then it could work for 4th gen fighters. All in all all all of the current fighters were designed using computer modelling. Yet it still might be not enough for stealthy design where every minor detail matters. -
@Xeno said in Stealth in BMS:
@molnibalage
I guess here’s talk about models not used in game but much more detailed.
I guess then it could work for 4th gen fighters. All in all all all of the current fighters were designed using computer modelling. Yet it still might be not enough for stealthy design where every minor detail matters.Agree with Molni, but there may be one other matter to count in the bill, I guess.
“How” is a stealthy design made? And “Who” may assure that all things have been made correctly? We are talking about strictly classified data/elements here, no nuts.
See if anyone can be able to know something about some “sexy” aspects of the Tornado or the Eurofighter (to quote the very frist examples coming to mind, not that this concept may be not true for any other war plane, of course).My humble opinion here.
With best regards.
-
Just an idea… how about making it an option in the game settings (maybe in the “realism” area) so you can choose whether you would want aircraft to a) use close-to-real-life stealth parameters (100%) or b) make them detectable as if they would not have any stealth material at all (0%)? For playability purposes, maybe intermediate levels of 50% or 33%/66% in between might be helpful as well? This way, everybody could choose to their own liking.
-
@Xeno said in Stealth in BMS:
@Raptor said in Stealth in BMS:
This was my… ehh proposal…
There is a man here around, done a degree Thesis for real-time calculating RCS on pc simulators. Not much time to write everything but you can dig up and find out how and outcomes. He used detailed 3D models (created on 3dsm etc. ) for F-16, F-4, F-35 and using modified SW was abled (and proved in the field) that RCS calcs for -16 and -4 was >90% accurate, dynamically from any angle. So next was the -35, so there are some estimation numbers somewhere…
This is the proper way to do it here too, starting from detailed 3D models, aircraft, stores, tanks, weapons, add colors (Have Glass etc. options), then real time calc similarly the dynamic numbers that would push this title fw.
Not the exact doc but just a clue to search.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324684985_Stealth_Threats_and_Anti-Stealth_Techniques
Point is how it works for stealth fighters? When airframe is so much optimized to reduce RCS even row of few rivets or something protruding from the surface could increase RCS for +10% .
So calculating RCS from a 3D model in such cases may be way off.Still, not really any other method available. If the 3D model is accurate enough (eg. includes the rivets) the RCS calculation will work.
That is not the same as RCS being the only factor to decide if you can be detected IRL, but for a BMS approximation it can lead to a more fair combat outcome IMO. -
Good Day, All
First, let me say that these are my opinions, and not necessarily the Mafia’s…@Rouge1512 said in Stealth in BMS:
I’m even afraid that this evolution will “kill” BMS, unless it evolves into a 5th generation aircraft simulator. But if the increase of the invisible threat remains only related to your theaters and that it doesn’t engage the whole evolution of the game …
And I write this knowing how to kill in BVR any invisible plane, at least in BMS 4.36.1 …Your feedback was what I was hoping for, both on the original question (stealth in OFMKTO?) and the larger question of stealth in BMS. I’m starting this post with this from Rouge because this is a real concern. I just want to make it very clear we do NOT want to make this a Fifth Gen Sim.
BTW, Rouge, please share your techniques for beating stealth in 4.36. That is a factor. People reach out to me saying they’re tired of getting hosed by planes they can’t even lock on radar.
Our view is very much like Radium’s. We want what I call Old, Middle, and New School in BMS. Old being 60’s-70’s with Sparrows and such, Middle with pre-stealth jets, and New with all the 4th and 5th Gen bells and whistles. And , the beauty of BMS is that we can provide that. Even if we put realistic RCS values in , anyone with a passing knowledge of the Editor or Mission Commander can simply change or remove the stealth jets. Chuckles already makes X-Plane, and a Fifth Gen-inclusive OFMKTO is possible, as we’re discussing here.
There are a lot of things in all your posts I want to discuss, but just so this post doesn’t become a book, there are a couple of specifics I’d like to address.
ReaperDog, you write " as for the rest of the aircraft mods add on’s well they are just toys and additional’s to the sim that add fun or the added function of dissimilar aircraft training. The focus however should be to keep the history of the sim, why Frankenstein it… is my take anyway.". That is your view and we respect it, but we emphatically do not share it. Let’s take the Hornet, for instance. It can be flown and fought just as well as the Viper. The Hornet and the other Other Jets are not toys , fakes, or Frankenjets to us, and we will continue to develop them. But, I bring this up to make a real point. We know ,or at least assume, that most of the BMS Community flies the Viper. Knowing that, we very strongly want to honor that and the Viper. It’s Legacy is secure with us. I mention that the feeling I get is that a lot of the no voters are doing so to not “ruin” the Viper.
The second point for now is can we do this? Molni, you in particular make a strong case that it can’t be modeled. I agree with you in technical terms. We can’t make AESA, and all that. We may not even be able to bring 100% total Stealth to BMS, at least not without hard code access.
But, I have to disagree with you in a way because in effect it HAS been modeled. I , by myself( so blame me ), without anything like your Tech skills, changed the dynamic air to air. There is still much to learn, but here is where I’m coming from… I made a simple 2v2 TE with F-35C’s vs. J-20’s. By simply changing the 35’s RCS to a realistic(we think) value, it turned the engagement from what we have seen in 4.36 to a 10-15 mile “knife fight”.
And that, my friends, brings us back to both the original and bigger question. Where do we go from here? -
@drtbkj said in Stealth in BMS:
Good Day, All
First, let me say that these are my opinions, and not necessarily the Mafia’s…@Rouge1512 said in Stealth in BMS:
I’m even afraid that this evolution will “kill” BMS, unless it evolves into a 5th generation aircraft simulator. But if the increase of the invisible threat remains only related to your theaters and that it doesn’t engage the whole evolution of the game …
And I write this knowing how to kill in BVR any invisible plane, at least in BMS 4.36.1 …Your feedback was what I was hoping for, both on the original question (stealth in OFMKTO?) and the larger question of stealth in BMS. I’m starting this post with this from Rouge because this is a real concern. I just want to make it very clear we do NOT want to make this a Fifth Gen Sim.
BTW, Rouge, please share your techniques for beating stealth in 4.36. That is a factor. People reach out to me saying they’re tired of getting hosed by planes they can’t even lock on radar.
Our view is very much like Radium’s. We want what I call Old, Middle, and New School in BMS. Old being 60’s-70’s with Sparrows and such, Middle with pre-stealth jets, and New with all the 4th and 5th Gen bells and whistles. And , the beauty of BMS is that we can provide that. Even if we put realistic RCS values in , anyone with a passing knowledge of the Editor or Mission Commander can simply change or remove the stealth jets. Chuckles already makes X-Plane, and a Fifth Gen-inclusive OFMKTO is possible, as we’re discussing here.
There are a lot of things in all your posts I want to discuss, but just so this post doesn’t become a book, there are a couple of specifics I’d like to address.
ReaperDog, you write " as for the rest of the aircraft mods add on’s well they are just toys and additional’s to the sim that add fun or the added function of dissimilar aircraft training. The focus however should be to keep the history of the sim, why Frankenstein it… is my take anyway.". That is your view and we respect it, but we emphatically do not share it. Let’s take the Hornet, for instance. It can be flown and fought just as well as the Viper. The Hornet and the other Other Jets are not toys , fakes, or Frankenjets to us, and we will continue to develop them. But, I bring this up to make a real point. We know ,or at least assume, that most of the BMS Community flies the Viper. Knowing that, we very strongly want to honor that and the Viper. It’s Legacy is secure with us. I mention that the feeling I get is that a lot of the no voters are doing so to not “ruin” the Viper.
The second point for now is can we do this? Molni, you in particular make a strong case that it can’t be modeled. I agree with you in technical terms. We can’t make AESA, and all that. We may not even be able to bring 100% total Stealth to BMS, at least not without hard code access.
But, I have to disagree with you in a way because in effect it HAS been modeled. I , by myself( so blame me ), without anything like your Tech skills, changed the dynamic air to air. There is still much to learn, but here is where I’m coming from… I made a simple 2v2 TE with F-35C’s vs. J-20’s. By simply changing the 35’s RCS to a realistic(we think) value, it turned the engagement from what we have seen in 4.36 to a 10-15 mile “knife fight”.
And that, my friends, brings us back to both the original and bigger question. Where do we go from here?He extensively did.