Stealth in BMS
-
@tiag said in Stealth in BMS:
I voted no.
I thought Falcon 4 was about realism?! That was the flagship of that hobby, wasn´t it?
“Stealth” does not come alone. It is not simply open the DB editor and change a value. There are dozens of avionics properties, weapons capabilities, networking between acft, jammers modes, RWR specs, Radar types, etc…that need to be modelled together. It requires extensive code support, and above all, someone (=with c++ skills + time + endurance…yes it takes years) willing to do that. Half-baked changes in the DB to simulate modern aircraft lead to unbalanced scenarios between platforms of different eras. See what is happening now in some theaters, people flying F-16s vs J-20s vs F-22s for example. There are a lot of “gears” from the real world war machine missing in BMS, what make such scenarios, yes, a Frankstein, and strongly unbalanced and unreal.I strongly disagree with some opinions that BMS needs these changes to have a chance in the future, a kind of evolution. IL-2, for example, still simulates WWII airplanes and the player base is much larger than BMS. They will certainly never simulate the Vietnam war to “evolve”. Their evolution is in new 3D models, novel terrrains and theaters, particle system, etc. There are similarly a large amount of things to be expanded and enhanced in the current BMS , which will certainly make it even more attractive and able to simulate new aspects of air warfare.
If you guys start making changes in DB without extensive code support, our small community will be fragmented very fast, potentially hurting Falcon 4 in the long run. Think about it.
These changes would only happen in theater mods, separate from usual installs, not replace them.
Escort jammers already are half baked products in BMS.This being said, I’m sticking to what I evoked earlier and am not really impatient to see that happen.
-
@drtbkj said:
… the Hornet, for instance… can be flown and fought just as well as the Viper.
Indeed.
Yet, this is a false equivalence. Surely, you don’t consider the 4th gen Hornet to stand in the same example as the J-20 or F-35…?
Dude - the Hornet was available as an add-on way back in Falcon 3.0…!
Your apples are fine, but your oranges are the issue of contention…
-
@tiag said in Stealth in BMS:
I voted no.
I thought Falcon 4 was about realism?! That was the flagship of that hobby, wasn´t it?
“Stealth” does not come alone. It is not simply open the DB editor and change a value. There are dozens of avionics properties, weapons capabilities, networking between acft, jammers modes, RWR specs, Radar types, etc…that need to be modelled together. It requires extensive code support, and above all, someone (=with c++ skills + time + endurance…yes it takes years) willing to do that. Half-baked changes in the DB to simulate modern aircraft lead to unbalanced scenarios between platforms of different eras. See what is happening now in some theaters, people flying F-16s vs J-20s vs F-22s for example. There are a lot of “gears” from the real world war machine missing in BMS, what make such scenarios, yes, a Frankstein, and strongly unbalanced and unreal.I strongly disagree with some opinions that BMS needs these changes to have a chance in the future, a kind of evolution. IL-2, for example, still simulates WWII airplanes and the player base is much larger than BMS. They will certainly never simulate the Vietnam war to “evolve”. Their evolution is in new 3D models, novel terrrains and theaters, particle system, etc. There are similarly a large amount of things to be expanded and enhanced in the current BMS , which will certainly make it even more attractive and able to simulate new aspects of air warfare.
If you guys start making changes in DB without extensive code support, our small community will be fragmented very fast, potentially hurting Falcon 4 in the long run. Think about it.
I’m not necessarily voting no, but I do agree with this. There is so much more than just stealth that is a factor on the modern day battlefield. I’m all for expanding the database with new jets and also like the challenge to take on jets like the F-22 or the J-20 in TE’s. Adding them to a campaign though, I’m not so sure. The balance is going to be off in my opinion for the reasons mentioned above.
The F-16 is currently still being updated to give them better survivability on the modern battlefield. F-16’s are being fitted with AESA radars, tested with IRST pods and all kinds of modern toys. We don’t have any of these toys yet in BMS. So you’re basically putting modern J-20’s (for as far as that is even possible) against F-16’s with the tech of a few years ago. It was mentioned above that 4th gens do have a future alongside 5th gens and that tactics are developed that 4th gen and 5th gen fly side by side. While this is true, we cannot simulate these tactics in BMS (with the AI). We don’t have the comms and networking capabilities that the real jets have. So in my opinion you will not have an accurate representation of what that modern day battlefield will look like.
I do like to sim the F-16 like I’m flying in present day, but you are limited in this because the sim is behind the real jet in development.
-
I suppose to have errorneously clicked on the poll, with unknown result.
My opinion is that more stealth is a bit of an imbalancing change because:
1.) The public RCS values can certainly be taken with a grain of salt. There are many factors influencing the RCS of an aircraft, these values aren’t static by any means.2.) The systems modeling in BMS doesn’t reflect the state of the art of sensors, defensive systems, weapons and networking capabilities available to many 4th generation fighters that would at least improve their chances of survival. Notably increasing the number of stealth A/C would cause a massive increase in difficulty.
3.) Bear in mind that stealth is also about RF emission control, IR signatures and passive sensors and targeting capabilities.
If you opt for a more stealth fighters campaign, I would recommend a separate campaign scenario for those who like to fly such aircraft. Keep one with limited stealth for game balance reasons for those who prefer to fly none LO types.
-
Good Day,All
Hi, Lorik, if you meant what Rouge wrote in the J-20 thread, then I’m with you. I was just curious if there was “more to the story”
'Gorn, when I wrote that I didn’t mean I was comparing the Legacy Hornet to a J-20. I was comparing it to a Viper. So, my oranges are fine
Tiag, Tomcatter, and Scorpion. You are right there there is much to Stealth that we can’t accurately model. Heck, I still hoping someone tells us what the rcs value means in Editor. But Tiag, changing one value did cause a change in game play, as I have described. I’d like your opinion on my reasoning, and for the sake of the discussion let’s narrow the topic a bit. Let’s use the example of the F-35C vs. J-20. Neither has AESA, both have TGP’s( at least if memory serves the J-20 does) and let’s call that a “poor man’s IRST”. So, can’t they be seen as balanced in those areas. The J-20 comes “stock” with a RCS of 0.4. The change I made was to take the 35C to 0.5. My question is, was that unrealistic, or did it just balance that part of the equation?
Scorpion, you raise a point that has added to my enjoyment of this . I find I am much more aware of emission control and passive sensors when I’m in the F-35. And, btw, we have no intention of, as you say, “notably increasing the number of stealth a/c”. As previously stated , we have no desire to turn this into a Fifth Gen Sim.
All we’re talking about is making the rcs values as realistic as possible, and all we’re asking is if the Membership wants us to share that in OFMKTO -
@jayb said in Stealth in BMS:
@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.And somehow in RL not with visible light but scale models or 1:1 models are put on pole to measure the RCS…
-
3 different systems and design approach and the F-35 has a more mature code now after various upgrades and updates.
-
@drtbkj said: 'Gorn… my oranges are fine
Hee hee…! Dude, if you lived near me, I would most certainly buy you an ice-cold, fresh orange juice to reward you for your passion and your civility…!
Cheers, man.
-
@Aragorn said in Stealth in BMS:
@drtbkj said: 'Gorn… my oranges are fine
Hee hee…! Dude, if you lived near me, I would most certainly buy you an ice-cold, fresh orange juice to reward you for your passion and your civility…!
Cheers, man.
You inspire ,or perhaps corrupt, me at times. Perhaps it’s two great minds think alike( a scary thought to be sure). Now , if you’ll excuse me, I have this sudden taste for OJ
-
Team,
Due to the current events playing out right now…I will vote yes! This is realistic…a couple of weeks ago, if you were one of the F-15 drivers escorting Pelosi to Taiwan and a J-20 pulled up along side of you. What would you have done? This is the new era of aircraft we have to deal with now. Also, might as well throw in the SU-57 Felon for good measure! -
Good Day, All. The poll came out essentially a tie. Thanks again for all the input, it was frankly more then I expected!
As you may have seen, we released OFMKTO 1.5 yesterday. We decided on a cautious approach, so 1.5 was released with the stock( as in stock KTO) RCS values in place . But, we will continue to research this, and we ask you to join us.
We invite you, from the main launch window, go to Editor, select the Vehicle and aircraft tabs, then left click on the F-35C. That pulls up the Vehicle Data Details window. There you will find '“radar cs”. In my TE testing what I did was change that to 0.5, for the reasons previously mentioned. Basically, the “stock” F-35A is 0.169, and from what we have found the C should theoretically be less stealthy then the A (larger wing). From this we saw the TE results I’ve described. Do you see the same? Try it air-to-air and air-to-ground. A value of .05 seems too stealthy.
The main reason we released 1.5 “stock” was because we know we have much to learn on this subject. It appears that the stock RCS values are frontal RCS in meter’s squared. We base that on the fact that most stock values given match, or at least almost match, what we have found. Obviously, confirmation of that is needed. Another thing mentioned in this thread are the other factors in Stealth. AESA, as Molni wrote. IR signature is another. Speaking of that, in that same Vehicle Data Window you see IR Signature. On all jets we’ve checked the value is 0. Our predominant theory is that IR Sig. is set somewhere else, or not modeled at all. As for radar, we can’t model AESA. But, can we model detection range?
So, our research and testing will continue, and your continued input is most welcome.
Resources-https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/stealth-aircraft-rcs.htm
http://faculty.nps.edu/jenn/ec4630/rcsredux.pdf
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. -
@drtbkj
I dont think you would NOT implement any stealth depending on the poll. Confess, that was a simply propaganda to your modThe RCS is a nominal CS for a F-16 being detected at a given detection radar range. All values are normalized to a base case: F-16C. You will understand better when you open that excell I did with someone from the past in 2008 for AF…see please the first TAB. Some of it still applies to BMS.
LINK
(donwload it, since some formulas may not work in Google).Beware that the numerical values are for AF based on the SP3 leaked code. You need to plugin the BMS values.
And have fun…that is the most important thing!
-
@tiag said in Stealth in BMS:
@drtbkj
I dont think you would NOT implement any stealth depending on the poll. Confess, that was a simply propaganda to your modThe RCS is a nominal CS for a F-16 being detected at a given detection radar range. All values are normalized to a base case: F-16C. You will understand better when you open that excell I did with someone from the past in 2008 for AF…see please the first TAB. Some of it still applies to BMS.
LINK
(donwload it, since some formulas may not work in Google).Beware that the numerical values are for AF based on the SP3 leaked code. You need to plugin the BMS values.
And have fun…that is the most important thing!
Hi, Tiag, Thanks for the Link, and your patience for our shameless self-promotion
-
@drtbkj A bit confused, as you say the stock RCS for F-35A is 0.169, are you suggesting to increase it to 0.5 (from your TE testing) or was it just a typo and you meant to say “decrease it to 0.05”, as you mention later on?
-
@unkindled said in Stealth in BMS:
@drtbkj A bit confused, as you say the stock RCS for F-35A is 0.169, are you suggesting to increase it to 0.5 (from your TE testing) or was it just a typo and you meant to say “decrease it to 0.05”, as you mention later on?
He wrote F35C.
-
@LorikEolmin You are completely right. Don’t know how I missed that.
Thank you, Lorik! -
I voted yes. I see BMS as remaining an F-16 simulator for the forseeable future, but if real life vipers may soon have to contend with stealthy adversaries, then we should have the choice to make theatres that represent this. No-one has to fly any particular theatre after all.
The way I see it is as a question of pure technical feasibility and how well-modelled ‘stealth’ will be.
-
@drtbkj said in Stealth in BMS:
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,
…
Comments are welcome.
I just briefly overlooked discussion…did not see answer (perhaps is hidden somewhere)
So just in short - IIRC, Falcon 4.0 RCS was the same on whole sphere (average), but it was changed later…?Unit for measure is Viper, so “F-16 is 1”, others are more or less…double F16 RCS is 2, smaller RCS planes 0.X…
Its not regular unit, its “to F-16 comparison”. (not sure about latest BMS code, this was Falcon 4 general rule imo)Sorry if someone answered already.
-
@Lukas hello, yes and no… Maybe BMS mathematical law is not linear… maybe it follows a non-linear slope.
-
@javelin10 said: I see BMS as remaining an F-16 simulator for the forseeable future.
Almost…
Falcon IS an F-16 simulator; Ispo facto it is named “Falcon”.
Ergo - the adjective “foreseeable” is not required.
pr0n