BMS F18 A and C upgrade - community involvement
-
Why are you saying that?
Is it because the AESA radar?No … because of everything.
Please read again this post and go to linked threads … https://www.benchmarksims.org/forum/showthread.php?7248-BMS-F18-A-and-C-upgrade-community-involvement&p=209123&viewfull=1#post209123
-
I thought the array was made up of a load of TR modules that could act independently or together - so you can do ground mapping and other modes at the same time etc.
Would hazard a guess that the UAE dont put their manuals on the internet as readily
Yes, in terms of hardware with AESA antenna (array) is indeed made up of a load of TR modules which can be programmed to act independently (or together) -> But what you get in terms of software (what the pilot sees and interfaces with) is:
1- The ability to almost instantaneous scan the space ahead, since there’s no moving parts (no moving antenna) and the several TR modules can send signals for the different angles at the same time towards the space in need to be scanned.
2- The AESA radar can also scan in Air-to-Air modes and Air-to-Ground modes at the same time since like you said, the TR modules can be programmed individually to perform several different functions.But in the end the AESA is still a radar and as such it works and shows the pilot the exact same stuff as a normal radar does! The difference is that an AESA is more capable and scans much faster than a “conventional” radar.
Take for example the difference between the APG-73 found on the F/A-18C and the APG-79 AESA found on the Super Hornet (afterall this thread is about the Hornet, right?), in terms what the pilot sees (the radar “scope” or the radar “interface”) the differences are almost none, the APG-79 AESA even has the same B-sweep bar found on the previous APG-73 - The differences between the APG-73 and APG-79 are in terms of capabilities (for example: the APG-79 AESA scans, much much faster). -
Basically the only common stuff are less than 3%…
Only if you consider the antenna to be 97% of an entire radar system!!
But no, that’s not correct. Basically the difference between a “conventional” radar and an AESA radar is the antenna itself and of course the AESA also has some added capabilities only possible due to its antenna array.
For example the APG-79 AESA is based on the APG-73 but with an AESA antenna array.
Or also for example, the difference between APG-63(V)2 and APG-63(V)3 and the APG-63(V)1 is the APG-63(V)2 and APG-63(V)3 are AESA radars while the APG-63(V)1 is a “conventional” radar but otherwise the same radar (APG-63). -
Talking for the Viper, the only common stuff between the old APG-68 radar vs the new AESA APG-80 of Block 60 or the even newer RACR and SABR AESA’s, are approx 3%, and that is for common screw adapters, elec buses and minor stuff like that. Everything is changed, would be a huge post to mention most.
-
Talking for the Viper, the only common stuff between the old APG-68 radar vs the new AESA APG-80 of Block 60 or the even newer RACR and SABR AESA’s, are approx 3%, and that is for common screw adapters, elec buses and minor stuff like that. Everything is changed, would be a huge post to mention most.
Well, you have to remember that the Block 60 is a specialized F-16 version made specially for the United Arab Emirates and since the Block 60 was never intended to enter in service within the USAF so therefore there’s no need for the Block 60 to have any commonality with former Blocks (such as the Block 52) and due to this and the fact that the Block 60 is made specially for the United Arab Emirates, many avionics are in fact new in the Block 60 compared to older F-16 Blocks and it’s not only the radar that’s completely new, for example the Block 60 cockpit has 3 LCD MFD displays while older Blocks only have 2 CRT MFD displays.
-
Well, you have to remember that the Block 60 is a specialized F-16 version made specially for the United Arab Emirates and since the Block 60 was never intended to enter in service within the USAF so therefore there’s no need for the Block 60 to have any commonality with former Blocks (such as the Block 52) and due to this and the fact that the Block 60 is made specially for the United Arab Emirates, many avionics are in fact new in the Block 60 compared to older F-16 Blocks and it’s not only the radar that’s completely new, for example the Block 60 cockpit has 3 LCD MFD displays while older Blocks only have 2 CRT MFD displays.
I think he knows that already lol no offense
-
What?? 3 screens?? NO WAYY!!! :eek:
-
What?? 3 screens?? NO WAYY!!! :eek:
Might as well give it two vertical stabilizers and make it into a Navy fighter/bomber……oh…wait!
-
I think he knows that already lol no offense
My point wasn’t to “preach to the choir” but instead it was to make a point why the F-16 Block 60 AESA radar is completely different to the conventional antenna radar found on older blocks while this doesn’t happen with many other aircraft, namely the F-15 and F/A-18 where their AESA radars are very, very similar to their predecessors, the conventional antenna radars of older versions (the difference being the AESA antenna and the better performance that it brings).
Anyway, my point was that in terms of programming is “easy” to model an AESA radar, one just has to find where to make a radar scan in a much, much faster rate than an already modeled radar.
BTW, no offense taken…
-
Might as well give it two vertical stabilizers and make it into a Navy fighter/bomber……oh…wait!
LoL
-
My point wasn’t to “preach to the choir” but instead it was to make a point why the F-16 Block 60 AESA radar is completely different to the conventional antenna radar found on older blocks while this doesn’t happen with many other aircraft, namely the F-15 and F/A-18 where their AESA radars are very, very similar to their predecessors, the conventional antenna radars of older versions (the difference being the AESA antenna and the better performance that it brings).
Anyway, my point was that in terms of programming is “easy” to model an AESA radar, one just has to find where to make a radar scan in a much, much faster rate than an already modeled radar.
BTW, no offense taken…
I still think that it is an oversimplification of modelling, and to my mind, runs counter to all the points that BMS made publicly about using accurate database figures and making the code work.
besides, the radar avionics would need to be detailed too, so you’ll still need a -34-1 for the block 60 before you can model it correctly.
-
the conventional antenna radars of older versions (the difference being the AESA antenna and the better performance that it brings).
in terms of programming is “easy” to model an AESA radar, one just has to find where to make a radar scan in a much, much faster rate than an already modeled radar
No probs positively offering to a conversation m8
But,
It seems that you are putting all your money to the HARDWARE -part of the AESA radar, which is somewhat wrong. The big difference is actually the SOFTWARE -part, not only for the radar’s computer itself, but to the overall ability to receive data from other sources, internal and external, and provide them fused to the human in front of the screens. So, as per your sentence, “programming” of this system to BMS is referring to the -software part simulation, which although not difficult for an experienced coder with deeper Falcon/BMS code knowledge to implement, it is impossible due to luck of exact documentation. If you find and check the 2-3 available videos from the F-16IN real simulator (which is almost identical to the E/F Block 60 version) you’ll see yourself too that nothing is similar in man-machine interface and displays symbology comparing with the older standard F-16 birds.
There have been small parts of F-22-1 leaked out there, but you can’t find anything on the Block 60…
-
I still think that it is an oversimplification of modelling, and to my mind, runs counter to all the points that BMS made publicly about using accurate database figures and making the code work.
Well, like it or not all and every PC flight sim will always have “oversimplifications” no matter how realistic they claim or aim to be! For example, just look at the AWACS Declare function/call, is there anything more “oversimplificated” than that? I won’t say no but the fact is that the AWACS Declare in Falcon BMS is an oversimplification! Besides, lets look into the IFF interrogator (or the lack of it) in Falcon BMS - Isn’t it more realistic to have a simplificated or “oversimplificated” IFF interrogator than none?? IMO yes, there’s no margin of a doubt that having a simplified IFF interrogator is much more realistic than not having anything at all (regarding IFF interrogator) since and because the real aircraft does have an IFF interrogator and not having an IFF interrogator in the sim is ultimately Unrealistic not matter what someone may say.
So and resuming:
1- All and every PC flight sim will always have oversimplifications (no matter what realism they claim to have).
2- It’s better and more realistic model a system even if it’s modeled in a simplificated way than not having it at all. -
No probs positively offering to a conversation m8
But,
It seems that you are putting all your money to the HARDWARE -part of the AESA radar, which is somewhat wrong. The big difference is actually the SOFTWARE -part, not only for the radar’s computer itself, but to the overall ability to receive data from other sources, internal and external, and provide them fused to the human in front of the screens. So, as per your sentence, “programming” of this system to BMS is referring to the -software part simulation, which although not difficult for an experienced coder with deeper Falcon/BMS code knowledge to implement, it is impossible due to luck of exact documentation. If you find and check the 2-3 available videos from the F-16IN real simulator (which is almost identical to the E/F Block 60 version) you’ll see yourself too that nothing is similar in man-machine interface and displays symbology comparing with the older standard F-16 birds.
There have been small parts of F-22-1 leaked out there, but you can’t find anything on the Block 60…
Again don’t get me wrong but it seems that you are forgetting that an AESA radar in the end it still a radar! Yes, the AESA radar have some extra capabilities compared to “conventional-antenna” radars such as for example the capability to sending the signals emitted by an ECM gear/equipment, allowing it to jam a particular target/threat.
Nevertheless, don’t forget that “ability to receive data from other sources, internal and external, and provide them fused to the human in front of the screens” has nothing to do with the radar being AESA or not! Data is received from other sources by datalink (such a Link-16) which transmits (or receives) the information that one aircraft is receiving (from it’s onboard sensors) to other platforms (or vice-versa), for example you have this in Falcon BMS which models the F-16 Block 50/52 (equipped with a “conventional-antenna” radar) and in many aircraft the data is usually either displayed on the radar scope (even on “conventional-antenna” radar scopes) or in dedicated Situational Awareness pages/displays (such technology was already present for example during the 70’s in the F-14 despite being more primitive technology than what we have now).However, I do agree with you that not having an idea what is the symbology of a radar (such as the F-16 Block60 radar) makes it very hard (if not impossible) to model that same radar realistically.
Actually when I posted my idea of making an AESA radar by increasing “dramatically” an existing radar scan speed, I was thinking about the APG-79 AESA (and of course a future F/A-18E/F Super Hornet), afterall this is a thread about the F/A-18 (albeit not the Super Hornet) - If and in case it’s possible to make an APG-73 with realistic symbology than making an APG-79 AESA would also be possible (realistically) since the APG-79 AESA has basically the same symbology as the APG-73.
-
Well, like it or not all and every PC flight sim will always have “oversimplifications” no matter how realistic they claim or aim to be! For example, just look at the AWACS Declare function/call, is there anything more “oversimplificated” than that? I won’t say no but the fact is that the AWACS Declare in Falcon BMS is an oversimplification! Besides, lets look into the IFF interrogator (or the lack of it) in Falcon BMS - Isn’t it more realistic to have a simplificated or “oversimplificated” IFF interrogator than none?? IMO yes, there’s no margin of a doubt that having a simplified IFF interrogator is much more realistic than not having anything at all (regarding IFF interrogator) since and because the real aircraft does have an IFF interrogator and not having an IFF interrogator in the sim is ultimately Unrealistic not matter what someone may say.
So and resuming:
1- All and every PC flight sim will always have oversimplifications (no matter what realism they claim to have).
2- It’s better and more realistic model a system even if it’s modeled in a simplificated way than not having it at all.well first lets look at your example. not all F-16s carry an AIFF interrogator. tell me which tail number F-16 is simulated in BMS, and we can determine whether it should have that capability IRL.
now lets look at your point. every PC sim will have simplifications, yes. the processing power of the universe has been roughly determined - and obviously we cannot match it with a computer system. even for a limited finite state simulation, we will have to limit it in certain areas to prevent excessive run time or memory usage (and given that we want results in REAL TIME, those limits are noticeable).
now, you have taken simplification and oversimplification to mean the same thing, and whilst you can take it as such, you are missing my point by doing so, either willfully or negligently. so lets hypothesise:
1- Any PC flight sim not using the universe as its processor will always have simplifications - even if it uses navier stokes equations with real aircraft data and a server consisting of 10 cray computer systems, there will be a limit to the system somewhere.
2- this point was kind of obvious, I mean if your simulation cannot model the weak nuclear force, you dont just ignore it. If it is supposed to be there, it should - although if it is included, wrongly, then that should at the least be mentioned.I would love to see IFF featured in BMS. I mean, we have missile systems using incorrect avionics in 4.32, why not have IFF even if it is wrong? Id also note that Id prefer other incomplete things fixed or improved first.
so backing away from IFF, which was clearly not the point of your argument, we have simplification - take for instance newton’s law of gravity compared with einstein’s theory of special relativity. one is significantly more complex, and more accurate. one is simpler, and is used far more often because of that. it is not an oversimplification however. an example of an oversimplification might be having a flat plane which all objects are attracted to equally. depending on the purpose of your simulation, that might be sufficient - although clearly it was not for BMS.
BMS could model an AESA radar by making the scan and refresh rate higher - but that is not the key difference between a conventional radar and an AESA one. as it would require avionics changes regardless, it might as well be done properly.
but its nice to hear an alternate point of view anyway
-
Useless to wonder if is possible or not to model ti into BMS … There will be no AESA radar as long we do not have manufacturer resources or RL manuals.
This is the 1st initial requirements before thinking about implement it. -
Isn’t it more realistic to have a simplificated or “oversimplificated” IFF interrogator than none??
Depends if it make the simulation more or less realistic concerning identification process & criteria.
So maybe … maybe not … the point is that it will require a lot of effort and time to implement it anyway … whatever is made, “oversimplificated” or not.
So … (IMHO) coders do not want to spend a lot of time (with all possible issues concerning solo and MP stability) to implement an approximated/oversimplificated IFF like in FreeFalcon e.g. … but honestly … I do not really know how to do it better since IFF efficiency is directly linked to how pilots will use it and is theatre’s SPINS dependent… Talking AI wise … it is very complicated to determine how AI should use their IFF and witch mode etc … I do not see the point to model it if it is only for MP (human) use (?). -
I don’t really see the point of a transponder in BMS, i mean for MP maybe, but the single player can’t really benefit from it’s use, ATC does not use it, Ai flyers well … how many people in Virtual squad do actually have SPINS and ROE in their TE’s or modded campaign’s ? Is it worth dev’s effort?
-
I don’t really see the point of a transponder in BMS, i mean for MP maybe, but the single player can’t really benefit from it’s use, ATC does not use it, Ai flyers well … how many people in Virtual squad do actually have SPINS and ROE in their TE’s or modded campaign’s ? Is it worth dev’s effort?
I do not agree Spooky. IFF could be a nice and useful feature …. but must be implemented as correctly as possible and would be actually most useful for MP (AI call “Buddy Spike” … human sometimes won’t … or too late. )
-
Yes i see what you mean Dee-Jay, i was just wondering how many virtual squads out there really will have the use of it, i was just looking at it from the Devs side if it is worth their time ? i guess my argument is a bit invalid since they don’t really develop something for the mass.
Would save some time for sure