Link 16 things you want in the next update
-
The only real missile intercept are for ballistic missiles
It is very unclear if there are sams able to engage harm but this is unlikely actually
But don’t worry you will have some challenge vs sams
I don’t fully understand what you mean by saying: “the only real missile intercept are for ballistic”
In this old video, a sea skimming MM-38 Exocet anti-ship missile is intercepted by an old RIM-7 NSSM launched by a frigate, during an exercise of the Hellenic Navy. Imagine with newer RIM-162 ESSM or other systems. The MM38 is destroyed about 1.5NM from the frigate. This is clearly a missile interception.
There are plenty of SAM able to engage HARMs in theory.
Anyway, heads up for the new challenge
-
I don’t fully understand what you mean by saying: “the only real missile intercept are for ballistic”
In this old video, a sea skimming MM-38 Exocet anti-ship missile is intercepted by an old RIM-7 NSSM launched by a frigate, during an exercise of the Hellenic Navy. Imagine with newer RIM-162 ESSM or other systems. The MM38 is destroyed about 1.5NM from the frigate. This is clearly a missile interception.
There are plenty of SAM able to engage HARMs in theory.
Anyway, heads up for the new challenge
Your video is not a Sam and not a harm
There is no evidence of a Sam kill on a harm
This is pure theory . We don’t like theories in bms
-
Allow Carrier moving in MP. (r20568)
:shock: Didn’t Mav say it was not possible to implement it?:-D
-
:shock: Didn’t Mav say it was not possible to implement it?:-D
“impossible” is not french
-
Option to reverse throttle axes…
-
I’ve missed something… Could you tell us more?
Scratch that. It seems I have not checked the manual thoroughly enough - and it took me awhile to find when I last heard of this. Turns out it’s in an older video tutorial where it was noted that in 433 the offset and pull up points are currently calculated always as offset from actual way point. This is all now functioning as designed and wonderfully with wdp.
What you need to implement really : users who check manuals better
Thank you all for the fantastic update and please have good holidays!
Ps: I still can’t believe clouds don’t spin. -
Scratch that. It seems I have not checked the manual thoroughly enough - and it took me awhile to find when I last heard of this. Turns out it’s in an older video tutorial where it was noted that in 433 the offset and pull up points are currently calculated always as offset from actual way point. This is all now functioning as designed and wonderfully with wdp.
What you need to implement really : users who check manuals better
Thank you all for the fantastic update and please have good holidays!
Ps: I still can’t believe clouds don’t spin.clouds ARE spining, but it’s is better masked when they spin
-
Regardless, the fix (along with so many others) is really good.
To me the looks of bms clouds are now firmly on the first place. Wings over flanders fields and wings over the reich still have a better library of sprites (just more diverse), but their implementation of flickering and layering in 3d (and therefore the flatness is visible) is rather annoying. Some libraries for p3d/fsx are great as well, but cost a lot and carry little function (no combat layer means weather without atmospheric model is just eye candy). So I think Falcon bms is as of today definitely on top
I guess next year we will finally see great volumetric clouds in new msfs 2020 but right now il2 skies look like cartoons. The titanim /outerra clouds are sad looking as well. So, until Microsoft announces a new combat flight simulator, all hope is on you guys
Thanks again -
Regardless, the fix (along with so many others) is really good.
To me the looks of bms clouds are now firmly on the first place. Wings over flanders fields and wings over the reich still have a better library of sprites (just more diverse), but their implementation of flickering and layering in 3d (and therefore the flatness is visible) is rather annoying. Some libraries for p3d/fsx are great as well, but cost a lot and carry little function (no combat layer means weather without atmospheric model is just eye candy). So I think Falcon bms is as of today definitely on top
I guess next year we will finally see great volumetric clouds in new msfs 2020 but right now il2 skies look like cartoons. The titanim /outerra clouds are sad looking as well. So, until Microsoft announces a new combat flight simulator, all hope is on you guys
Thanks againthank you for this
i think we have streched the current weather engine to its maximum potential…. have you tried the new interpolation map model ?
Just go from a Sunny to a inclement MAP and look how it works
i still need to improve the foging at the edge of the world ….
-
I\m currently downloading a weather sequence for some stormy korea, hope to see this soon.
Smooth transitions between cells has already been very impressive.
You are also stretching directx9 to its absolute limitoh on the sidenote, thank you very much for sharing the dev videos. I know how much time and effort this can take, but it’s very very appreciated!
-
The only real missile intercept are for ballistic missiles
It is very unclear if there are sams able to engage harm but this is unlikely actually
But don’t worry you will have some challenge vs sams
Mav-JP , my friend but that is entirely incorrect , don’t know really what you’ve tried to say above.
Modern sam’s , even RIM-7 ‘Sea sparrow’ which is not so modern , but is packed in bunches on carriers , like 100 missiles… are capable to engage almost every cruise missile, tomahawks, ASM’s , …
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-7_Sea_Sparrow
Anti-Balistic sam is ONLY the aegis “SM-3” , ‘Standard’ , but different version - the one which downed a low orbit satellite
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-161_Standard_Missile_3
So - that above was incorrect. …
- If you were like close (in engagement parameters zone) - you could theoretical shot down - even AGM-65 Maverick , with one of these.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SLAMRAAM
- For God’s sake, even ballistic weapons rounds (cannons, mlrs and mortars) were intercepted with modern sam weapons. (see Israel)
BUT! . Anti-Harm employment is never proven , so OK, tho , mostly for newer generations - like @Monlibalage says ‘double-digits SAM’s’ (sa-10 ,15,17,20) ARE capable of HIGH-SPEED target intercept … SO THAT could include even Harm … what PK would be -… that … is another story.
But, Weapon Vs Weapon … OH YES , by all means.
Cheers
-edit; … so we don’t end up in a ‘dogfight’ here - What I wanted to say , ANTI-HARM weapons employment status should be NOT “Impossible” , but , “Possible/Probable/Likely/Unlikely” - and that is not “in theory” anymore
-
For RIM-7 i can assure that its true.
They can either shoot down planes or AA/AG misiles -
Mav-JP , my friend but that is entirely incorrect , don’t know really what you’ve tried to say above.
Modern sam’s , even RIM-7 ‘Sea sparrow’ which is not so modern , but is packed in bunches on carriers , like 100 missiles… are capable to engage almost every cruise missile, tomahawks, ASM’s , …
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-7_Sea_Sparrow
Anti-Balistic sam is ONLY the aegis “SM-3” , ‘Standard’ , but different version - the one which downed a low orbit satellite
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-161_Standard_Missile_3
So - that above was incorrect. …
- If you were like close (in engagement parameters zone) - you could theoretical shot down - even AGM-65 Maverick , with one of these.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SLAMRAAM
- For God’s sake, even ballistic weapons rounds (cannons, mlrs and mortars) were intercepted with modern sam weapons. (see Israel)
BUT! . Anti-Harm employment is never proven , so OK, tho , mostly for newer generations - like @Monlibalage says ‘double-digits SAM’s’ (sa-10 ,15,17,20) ARE capable of HIGH-SPEED target intercept … SO THAT could include even Harm … what PK would be -… that … is another story.
But, Weapon Vs Weapon … OH YES , by all means.
Cheers
the problem is not intercept, the problem is detection
-
the problem is not intercept, the problem is detection
For today’s radar systems , even that is not a problem anymore. … In closer ranges you can detect even a pigeon with metallic ring on his leg.
(and bumping a head on radar screen , asking what is the blip ?) :uham:- You know what was the problem with AWACS - the speed , they’ve picked up cars hundreds miles away on highways over the bridges (technically they were above the ground) … so, the faster the objects the more suspicious for ‘bogey’
-
->>>High turbulence and severe weather SYS malfunction ability<<<-
Ability to get possibly weapons release error due to high turbulence or aircraft thunder striking during flight.
avionics error and BIT failures.
and VHF/UHF comms difficulty!!! during severe weather or high ECM environment.
-
It’ll be better to have better simulation of CBUs in BMS.
Currently they have circular damage area while IRL their damage area are more rectangular. Changing their damage area to rectangular ones would surely improve the effectiveness against vehicle convoys.
-
-
Videos on dispersion of CBU-97s shpw a more “longish” dispersion pattern than the spherical ones in BMS today.
So us the CBU-87:
-
Another thing that would be great to be implemented is the impact of the speed of the CBU to the damage area caused.
As the bomblets of the CBU are released over a definite period of time, the length of the damage area of the CBUs should be directly proportional to the velocity of the CBU. So is the case for CBUs in DCS, where he increase in speed is one of the methods to increase damage area. Currently in BMS, the CBUs have a bomb-like dispersion pattern that is spherical and only affected by BA. Such an implementation could allow more realistic tactics used for the CBU in BMS.
-
- For God’s sake, even ballistic weapons rounds (cannons, mlrs and mortars) were intercepted with modern sam weapons. (see Israel)
Yes, German Bundeswehr is using MANTIS AAA against mortar attacks:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/N%C3%A4chstbereichschutzsystem_MANTIS
https://www.army-technology.com/projects/mantis/So, downing an AGM with it should be possible as well.