Solved AI TASMO Capability
-
You can use (307) AS-6 as vehicle/mover definition in CT.
Also, switch GUIDANCE from TV > RADAR.Wait… then need for AS-6 also -> Harpoon/ASM
Cheers
-
@white_fang Not a good idea to use other missile data and then edit it. Better create a new separate configuration.
-
@Nick-Taylor
Maybe in some cases, I agree. , but in “our” case it is kinda allowed , similar missile, AS-4 ~ AS-6 = Anti/ship with similar performance , supersonic.So, try it . then see is it satisfactory.
Definitely better choice, imho, then Kh-35 Kayak , which is subsonic.
Btw… you are not editing “misdata” … use standard AS-6.dat , as it has better IRST sensor for start , 45 nm range.
Cheers
p.s. in the end you’re also right … that db stuff should’ve been fixed ages ago
(I’ve fixed it for myself 10 yrs ago) -
@white_fang do you test it?
-
@Nick-Taylor the weapons our grandparents came up with are the stuff of nightmares
-
@VDK said in AI TASMO Capability:
@white_fang do you test it?
I promise, I will , latest this week, tomorrow maybe.
(I’ve already made changes as proposed above)But, now I’m in more problematic process of moving my whole custom modded theater to new 4.37.3 database and models … maybe you know what I’m talking about - it is like that after every minor/major changes… seems it will go fine for now., but not yet started moving files , editing xml’s etc… just checked for diffs - luckily , not so much.
But a bit of patience …Or , … wait till evening , I’ll fire up U2 (4.37.2) again and see in there, how it behaves. - from my exp , it should work as advertised
-
@spotdott said in AI TASMO Capability:
@Nick-Taylor the weapons our grandparents came up with are the stuff of nightmares
You are right … sad but true.
Compared to Falcon Allied Force (/meruns), the BMS engine is (currently) not capable of simulating very long-range missiles. Here is an example:
In Allied Force the AI can shoot an AIM-154 Phoenix from far far away out of the aggregated area (2D). The missile then is continuously calculated and suddenly pops up in the deaggrigated world (3D). The F-16 pilot has only a few seconds to react as soon as the active <M> appears on the RWR. Up to this point, except for the jammer symbol on the FCR, he had no indication of what was coming.
In BMS the range is much shorter, because of the different approach.
Download .tac .acmi .png for AF and BMS
BMS Mission Planning
AF Mission Planning
BMS Radar 160 nm
AF Radar 160 nm
BMS Radar 80 nm (radar contact)
AF Radar 80 nm (active M)
BMS Radar 40 nm (active M)
AF Radar 40 nm (Target already destroyed)
BMS ACMI (Missile launch at 56 nm)
AF ACMI (Missile launch >88 nm)
That would be a gamechanger if we had something similar in BMS.
-
@Nick-Taylor intersting stuff man!
-
Ok here it is test run in U2 … since it is most “stable” for now.
It is acmi7 file … see 2nd half.Since now AS4 = AS6 (misdata) missiles are performing identically, but there is room for improvement.
- Eg, missile speed is below M1 … need M2 , edit thrust section
- range in db is not respected, probably from sensor, Tu-16/22 fire from ~30nm (need +100nm )
Bu they do both hit and kill.
Cheers
-
@white_fang even the TU-22M was flying a bit “slow” (Mach 0.63)
I see that the enemy ship (Type 053H3) fires a SS-N-19 Shipwreck (P700 Granit). I did not know the ASuW beteween ships was possible (correct me if i’m wrong)
What was that theater??
Thanks!
-
Ok here it is test run in U2 … since it is most “stable” for now.
It is acmi7 file … see 2nd half.No chance to test your idea @white_fang - the file isn’t available anymore.
-
fixed for next update
-
-
@Nick-Taylor said in AI TASMO Capability:
No chance to test your idea @white_fang - the file isn’t available anymore.
Meh, no problem mate , tho … didn’t know that there’s limit on that upload provider.
It was just ACMI with AS-4 / AS-6 preliminary test, those weapons and carrying platforms need some love, but got it working for start.
As @MaxWaldorf said , they will be fixed officially , so there’s no need to jump ahead… we’ll see how, tho .… What was that theater??..
Just my testing playground in Balkans Of course, most of that stuff is locked under the hood… not officially supported still/yet. - for one reason or other.
-
@Nick-Taylor said in AI TASMO Capability:
@spotdott said in AI TASMO Capability:
@Nick-Taylor the weapons our grandparents came up with are the stuff of nightmares
You are right … sad but true.
Compared to Falcon Allied Force (/meruns), the BMS engine is (currently) not capable of simulating very long-range missiles. Here is an example:
In Allied Force the AI can shoot an AIM-154 Phoenix from far far away out of the aggregated area (2D). The missile then is continuously calculated and suddenly pops up in the deaggrigated world (3D). The F-16 pilot has only a few seconds to react as soon as the active <M> appears on the RWR. Up to this point, except for the jammer symbol on the FCR, he had no indication of what was coming.
In BMS the range is much shorter, because of the different approach.
Download .tac .acmi .png for AF and BMS
BMS Mission Planning
AF Mission Planning
BMS Radar 160 nm
AF Radar 160 nm
BMS Radar 80 nm (radar contact)
AF Radar 80 nm (active M)
BMS Radar 40 nm (active M)
AF Radar 40 nm (Target already destroyed)
BMS ACMI (Missile launch at 56 nm)
AF ACMI (Missile launch >88 nm)
That would be a gamechanger if we had something similar in BMS.
Please stop comparing arcade game data with BMS. Aim120 ranges and flight modeling in AF were totally fantaisist.
For your information AF did not have a different code than original F4 here.
The agged units firing on deagged or deagged firing on agged feature has been remove deliberately in BMS because it was super bugged and lead to very wrong results and a LOT of missiles lost for nothing
To compensate this , bubbles in BMS are now dynamic with the range of the longest sensor . It means that aircraft are able to fire at their max range missiles because they deagg units at the range of their max FCR range.
You can test this easily by flying against a f14 , you will see the f14 deagg much earlier than against a f16 flight. This allows the f14 to engage you at a much longer range for their aim54
Long story short , AA engagements are perfectly fine in BMS now and do not need faking agged vs deagged
Same with sams, their deagg bubble is dynamic so they can engage at max range
For Tasmo there is no issue as task forces are always deagged
Long range ground /sea - ground missiles are not simulated though at this point, that’s our weakness
-
@Mav-jp said in AI TASMO Capability:
Please stop comparing arcade game data with BMS. Aim120 ranges and flight modeling in AF were totally fantaisist.
For your information AF did not have a different code than original F4 here.
The agged units firing on deagged or deagged firing on agged feature has been remove deliberately in BMS because it was super bugged and lead to very wrong results and a LOT of missiles lost for nothing
…What button did I press with you?
Why do you forbid me to compare simulations?
Why are others allowed to do that here with other simulations e.g. DCS?
What if other simulations like FF, AF, DCS, etc. have good and stable features that BMS does not?
Why was this feature part of an AF patch if Lead Pursuit did not make a code change to the original F4?
Would you agree that something can be called a “Fix” by really diving into and actually fixing it OR by just removing the feature itself?I made the requested test against F-14 and MiG-31 in the current version:
Do you agree with me that it is not quite “as real as it gets” when a MiG-31 does not fire its AA-9 Amos until 50 nm, even though they have a range of over 180 nm?No offense here in any case, just asking questions.
-
@Nick-Taylor said in AI TASMO Capability:
@Mav-jp said in AI TASMO Capability:
Please stop comparing arcade game data with BMS. Aim120 ranges and flight modeling in AF were totally fantaisist.
For your information AF did not have a different code than original F4 here.
The agged units firing on deagged or deagged firing on agged feature has been remove deliberately in BMS because it was super bugged and lead to very wrong results and a LOT of missiles lost for nothing
…What button did I press with you?
Why do you forbid me to compare simulations?
Why are others allowed to do that here with other simulations e.g. DCS?
What if other simulations like FF, AF, DCS, etc. have good and stable features that BMS does not?
Why was this feature part of an AF patch if Lead Pursuit did not make a code change to the original F4?
Would you agree that something can be called a “Fix” by really diving into and actually fixing it OR by just removing the feature itself?I made the requested test against F-14 and MiG-31 in the current version:
Do you agree with me that it is not quite “as real as it gets” when a MiG-31 does not fire its AA-9 Amos until 50 nm, even though they have a range of over 180 nm?No offense here in any case, just asking questions.
I don’t forbid anything , I say that comparing two entire different games with one having a fantaisist aim120 data to draw conclusions on a AG engangement range issue (Op issue) is just bringing confusion here.
You are suggesting that AF had a better agged/deagged engagement code than BMS which is wrong because You are basing a conclusion on a totally wrong assumption and testing protocol
You are also whisking that BMS could be as good as AF if we were able to copy what AF did (they did nothing as they used F4 code )
What I wrote is the reality of what is in BMS.
The code that allowed to engage agged target from deagged target has been removed for very good reasons but has been fixed by a better bubble management
Again , your example of mig31 not engaging aa9 Amos at long range has nothing to do with the agged/deagged code but only on data , wether radar data or missile data.
I agree with you that this would need check.
By the way the AI does not engage at max range
The Op issue is data , so is your example
-
@Mav-jp said in AI TASMO Capability:
The Op issue is data , so is your example
Yes, could change the data of aircraft, radar, missile, seeker, aero, etc. so that the MiG-31 deaggregates much earlier (see pic) and locks the F-16 from far away . Nevertheless, the AI does not shoot the AA-9 from e.g. 150 nm. I guess it decides not to shoot because it could be a “lose” target tracking.
Any idea?