AIM-7M sparrow & the RWR
-
You simply take away the freedom of 3rd party developers to set and model whole class of AAMs. Sorry, but somehow I’m not able to be happy hearing this news…
I understood very early that here is no way for “MY-BMS-FALCONs”, but a good way to take what is already given by BMS and make the best possible multiplayer and community expirience out of it - hence Falcon Online theaters and servers with respect to the BMS Dev work.
History has shown, that it is more effective if many pull in the same direction, than in a different directions. Not only can it be very confusing, but this can also create undesired “fronts” between “modders” and “devs”. I understand the passion of “MolniFalcon”, “ElectroniBattlefield Falcon”, “FreeBMSFaclon”, “OpenBMSFalcon” or aka “MyFalcon”…and what not … but reality is reality and fiction is fiction
-
Oky.
And now what? … are you suggestion to rewrite the AHR code (which could delay the project by 2 weeks to 6 months or more) for a possible 0.1% of chaff chance?
im not suggesting to stop everything and to fix this issue - but lets atleast recognise it as an issue. from there the discussion on solutions and how to implement a proper ARH model can start, if its worth it - i understand you dont think it is.
-
im not suggesting to stop everything and to fix this issue - but lets atleast recognise it as an issue. from there the discussion on solutions and how to implement a proper ARH model can start, if its worth it - i understand you dont think it is.
Well, you can look at it as flawed, and you can look at it as an unfinished feature of a total AIM-120 upgrade in BMS. The easy way is to think of it ~same as why we didn’t implemented IFF till now or why JSOWs in 4.32 are still fake version of Mavericks. The answer to all is one - Unfinished code, and we choose to leave it this way and fix/finish it when there is more time for it, rather than just “fix” it same as code was working before (same as older/other versions) which is pretty poor solution for what should be a pretty complex simulation of the real thing. This is our choice to leave it like that until we fix it in a real way and not just to make someone happier. Maybe people aren’t noticing the small details, but in BMS things are being done as close as possible to reality (Of course in the limitation of knowledge), that doesn’t mean that everything is perfect, far from it, but we try to do things in a real way and not just “fix” things which are problematic.
And BTW, the real chance is probably pretty close to 0 anyway, so total 0 isn’t that different
Yknow, from what I-Hawk said… it looks a lot like its already a planned subject to get work on. Id feel a lot more confident if it was promulgated as a CM, CCM, upgrade project, but just labelling it an AIM-120 upgrade is a start.
-
I simply not understand the process and the goal. If you wished the holy undefeateble it would be possible to set more insanely smaller chaff chance and in case a developer does not like still had too for change. Now the code is different currently we have no options. I simply cannot see what was the point is swap the customizable to a non customizable system which has the same result in case you set 0 chaff chance value…
-
because the customisable system is not VERY customisable molni… and its simply arcade. pop a chaff = percentage chance that the missile will miss. Not realistic.
Yes, you have no options. Well, you do have one option - wait for the new code stuff to be reflected by DB values if appropriate.
-
I simply not understand the process and the goal. If you wished the holy undefeateble it would be possible to set more insanely smaller chaff chance and in case a developer does not like still had too for change. Now the code is different currently we have no options. I simply cannot see what was the point is swap the customizable to a non customizable system which has the same result in case you set 0 chaff chance value…
You keep saying “undefeatable”.
I really do not understand at all what your problem is with defeating ARHs in BMS???
Defeating ARHs in BMS is infact EASY in almost all situations - pretending one knows what he is doing in terms of BVR (and that without that “put the <m>symbol on 10 o`clock on RWR and break into it”</m> trick btw!).
In AF Aim-120s were much much more difficult to defeat… and in OF and FF ARHs were a friggn JOKE !!! …waaaay too easy - made by “modders” who only flew on “editors” or in F4browse and i am getting really tired to be told from those “desktop specialists”, who never appeared in any multiplayer human vs human BVR-events, how our missiles and chaffs are supposed to be :-? . “I can´t dodge a ARHs, so the code must be broken” is not the correct logic. Grr, sorry, but sometimes this make me angry.BMS is an excellent “balance” between AF and modFalcons imo… Not only that… it makes common sense in terms of what variables have to be generally considered in BVR engagements and missiles defensives.
Examples:
- Exploiting the proportional navigation and CATA intercept nature of the missile, meaning draging the missile to an extended lead intercept pursuit course where the missiles looses “track-angle” ability by overshooting its own FOV. (This happens as the missile is dragged into to parallel flight-path and due to its excessive speed, the target falls behind its own seeker FOV).
- Exploiting Line of Sight (LOS) rate, meaning flying as fast as possible 90 degrees to the inbound missile in order to exploit the seekers update-rate (works nice versus Aim-9x ie.)
- The Beam or the Notch at possilbe ranges (those are clear in BMS) to break the tracking-guidance aka the planes radar first. As example to defeat semi-actives as they require constant lock till impact or to break locks of actives before they enter the terminal stage (this is where chaffs would matter), or to break lock of bandits before actives go MPRF > HPRF.
- Using Groundclutter to confuse the tracking or guidance with radar-returns from the ground (“look down” of missile radar).
- Geometrically, meaning fighting the missiles maneuverbility due to its exessive speed (Gs and turnradius).
- The Sun as distraction for heat-seaking missiles.
- Rmin, meaning exploiting the missiles fusing-time by staying closer to the launch-plattform (if possible).
- Most importantly and probably prior to all others >> Kinematically, meaning bleeding the missiles energy by provoking increased drag in its initial or/and terminal flight-path. Clasic example would be a cold “snaking-maneuver” versus a missile with possitive closure i.e. or an initial intercept path determination and energy bleed-off as missiles flight path obeys your own trajectory.
- using lower altitutes against the missile (higher drag)
- using higher altitues against the missile (drastically reduced turn-abilities)
- and last but not least CHAFFS and FLARES as distraction or as LAST INSTANCE to increace the miss probabilities, whereas “miss probabilities” are puropsly minute (as described above) and are not “fail gurantees”.
- etc etc …
All those things WORK in BMS !! (see tapes below).
http://www.as-private.com/ACMI/R-77-1.acmi
http://www.as-private.com/ACMI/R-77-2.acmi
http://www.as-private.com/ACMI/R-77-3.acmi
http://www.as-private.com/ACMI/R-77-4.acmi
http://www.as-private.com/ACMI/R-77-5.acmi
http://www.as-private.com/ACMI/R-77-6.acmi
http://www.as-private.com/ACMI/breaklockfromtherails.acmi
http://www.as-private.com/ACMI/FancyOne.acmi
http://www.as-private.com/ACMI/TheHook.acmi
http://www.as-private.com/ACMI/Shwiing.acmi
http://www.as-private.com/ACMI/counter-def.acmi
http://www.as-private.com/ACMI/funkydonkey.acmi
http://www.as-private.com/ACMI/omega.acmi
http://www.as-private.com/ACMI/seriously.acmi
http://www.as-private.com/ACMI/excuseme.acmiIf you really think, that countermeasures (chaffs) are the only (or the most the important) method to defeat ARHs, then i think you have missed a whole chapter in missile defense.
-
You keep saying “undefeatable”.
Of course by EW, I never said anything about kinematic defet here in fact many times I have commented because of over modeled RWR the kinematic defeat of ARH missiles is easier than SARH beause RWR is 100% accurate.
-
…beause RWR is 100% accurate.
Hmm… we must be flying different versions of BMS then.
I would expect to hear anything about RWR, but not that it’s 100% accurate.Molni… I suggest You tried flying some online campains (Falcon-Online e.g.) to convince yourself how frustatingly INEFFECTIVE Aim-120 are against experienced vpilot
If I wanted to address any issue with ARHs in BMS, I would rather suggest that ARHs are “undermodelled” as they are too easy to avoid with comprehensive flying.Besides… do I understand you correctly in your last post? Do you suggest you would like to “dodge” ARHs just by means of chaffs??
Like flying straight and cool and just throwing alloy trash?Would that be real?? I dont think so.
-
Besides… do I understand you correctly in your last post? Do you suggest you would like to “dodge” ARHs just by means of chaffs??
No, not by only chaff, ground clutter + beaming + chaff. BTW this has happened in RL…
-
I simply not understand the process and the goal. If you wished the holy undefeateble it would be possible to set more insanely smaller chaff chance and in case a developer does not like still had too for change. Now the code is different currently we have no options. I simply cannot see what was the point is swap the customizable to a non customizable system which has the same result in case you set 0 chaff chance value…
Broken Record, same shit different thread…
Sorry to be rude Molny but you have Hijacked another thread.
-
No, not by only chaff, ground clutter + beaming + chaff. BTW this has happened in RL…
A chaff (and flare) deploy range and volume algorithm based on seeker range, seeker v, tgt aspect, tgt’s background is needed.
imo, a version of BMS with a degraded RWR is expectable before attempting CM algorithm development. It might be necessary to tune the RWR. -
re AS’s post - according to the (apparently not entirely accurate or uptodate) RP manual chaff is meant to be most effecitve vs ARH missiles from 8-6nm. once they are closer, the CCM tends to discount the chaff much more reliably. using chaff when its in close proximity isnt supposed to work very well.
i guess what he means by indefeatable is ‘undecoyable’.
anyway, i look forward to seeing what this aim-120 upgrade looks like if and when its finished if thats indeed what I-hawk meant…
-
anyway, i look forward to seeing what this aim-120 upgrade looks like if and when its finished if thats indeed what I-hawk meant…
Probably an improvement in the CD indexies (drag) due to CFD simulations, hence more range at higher altitutes and maybe not so easy avoidable with that “RWR 10 o´clock head-on dodging” anymore … just my guess
PS: at 6-8nm (if RP5 manaul is valid still) would indicate the moment of where the missile switches to independent or goes terminal, thus it would make sence to be “confuse-able” at that moment. But keep in mind, that at RP5 times there were no MPRF or HPRF stages introduced.
-
@A.S:
You keep saying “undefeatable”.
I really do not understand at all what your problem is with defeating ARHs in BMS???
Defeating ARHs in BMS is infact EASY in almost all situations - pretending one knows what he is doing in terms of BVR (and that without that “put the <m>symbol on 10 o`clock on RWR and break into it”</m> trick btw!).
In AF Aim-120s were much much more difficult to defeat… and in OF and FF ARHs were a friggn JOKE !!! …waaaay too easy - made by “modders” who only flew on “editors” or in F4browse and i am getting really tired to be told from those “desktop specialists”, who never appeared in any multiplayer human vs human BVR-events, how our missiles and chaffs are supposed to be :-? . “I can´t dodge a ARHs, so the code must be broken” is not the correct logic. Grr, sorry, but sometimes this make me angry.BMS is an excellent “balance” between AF and modFalcons imo… Not only that… it makes common sense in terms of what variables have to be generally considered in BVR engagements and missiles defensives.
Examples:
- Exploiting the proportional navigation and CATA intercept nature of the missile, meaning draging the missile to an extended lead intercept pursuit course where the missiles looses “track-angle” ability by overshooting its own FOV. (This happens as the missile is dragged into to parallel flight-path and due to its excessive speed, the target falls behind its own seeker FOV).
- Exploiting Line of Sight (LOS) rate, meaning flying as fast as possible 90 degrees to the inbound missile in order to exploit the seekers update-rate (works nice versus Aim-9x ie.)
- The Beam or the Notch at possilbe ranges (those are clear in BMS) to break the tracking-guidance aka the planes radar first. As example to defeat semi-actives as they require constant lock till impact or to break locks of actives before they enter the terminal stage (this is where chaffs would matter), or to break lock of bandits before actives go MPRF > HPRF.
- Using Groundclutter to confuse the tracking or guidance with radar-returns from the ground (“look down” of missile radar).
- Geometrically, meaning fighting the missiles maneuverbility due to its exessive speed (Gs and turnradius).
- The Sun as distraction for heat-seaking missiles.
- Rmin, meaning exploiting the missiles fusing-time by staying closer to the launch-plattform (if possible).
- Most importantly and probably prior to all others >> Kinematically, meaning bleeding the missiles energy by provoking increased drag in its initial or/and terminal flight-path. Clasic example would be a cold “snaking-maneuver” versus a missile with possitive closure i.e. or an initial intercept path determination and energy bleed-off as missiles flight path obeys your own trajectory.
- using lower altitutes against the missile (higher drag)
- using higher altitues against the missile (drastically reduced turn-abilities)
- and last but not least CHAFFS and FLARES as distraction or as LAST INSTANCE to increace the miss probabilities, whereas “miss probabilities” are puropsly minute (as described above) and are not “fail gurantees”.
- etc etc …
All those things WORK in BMS !! (see tapes below).
http://www.as-private.com/ACMI/R-77-1.acmi
http://www.as-private.com/ACMI/R-77-2.acmi
http://www.as-private.com/ACMI/R-77-3.acmi
http://www.as-private.com/ACMI/R-77-4.acmi
http://www.as-private.com/ACMI/R-77-5.acmi
http://www.as-private.com/ACMI/R-77-6.acmi
http://www.as-private.com/ACMI/breaklockfromtherails.acmi
http://www.as-private.com/ACMI/FancyOne.acmi
http://www.as-private.com/ACMI/TheHook.acmi
http://www.as-private.com/ACMI/Shwiing.acmi
http://www.as-private.com/ACMI/counter-def.acmi
http://www.as-private.com/ACMI/funkydonkey.acmi
http://www.as-private.com/ACMI/omega.acmi
http://www.as-private.com/ACMI/seriously.acmi
http://www.as-private.com/ACMI/excuseme.acmiIf you really think, that countermeasures (chaffs) are the only (or the most the important) method to defeat ARHs, then i think you have missed a whole chapter in missile defense.
it is broken. in the code it says that chaff can decoy it, in actuality it cannot. if you think that it should be undecoyable, that’s fine. but the fact that it’s undecoyable ignoring it’s own decoy % is clearly a bug and should be fixed. you don’t need to defend the sim as infallible. while it is truly excellent, this tiny bit of it doesn’t make any sense.
if you think the AIM-120 should have a 50% decoy chance or a 100% or a 0% doesn’t matter, that the missile effectively does not obey the way it’s supposed to work is a definite bug
-
I-Hawks comment blurs the line between bug and feature…
-
@Cik:
it is broken. in the code it says that chaff can decoy it, in actuality it cannot.
if you think the AIM-120 should have a 50% decoy chance or a 100% or a 0% doesn’t matter, that the missile effectively does not obey the way it’s supposed to work is a definite bug-
Do you have access to the BMS code to make such a claim?
-
Indeed. the percentage is irrelavant in this experiment as we analyse the function itself. What kind of objective tests have you done to support that claim? Elaborate.
-
Define “the way it’s supposed to work” according to your opinion? or to real world documenation or logic?
you don’t need to defend the sim as infallible.
I don´t, because i don´t observe what you observe and for me things make sense from the falcon-logic perspective. I remember the “why it was done that way” in order to have a compromised tactical semi-realistic solution. Chaffs deployed at the right situations and moments do make sense in my install.
Ps: On the other hand i must agree, that it is almost irrelevant in what quantity and quality (sequence or programing) chaffs and flares are deployed.
HERE i would love to see improvemts aswell.cheers
-
-
Quantity of chaff deployed basically IS irrelevant. Deploying two packets of chaff at once does not give the chaff bundle a bigger RCS.
-
Quantity of chaff deployed basically IS irrelevant. Deploying two packets of chaff at once does not give the chaff bundle a bigger RCS.
Two at once most likely not (seen from your logic above). But there is a reason for sequence-control (amount and intervall) of countermeasures.
Or do you think, they implemented that into the F-16 because it looks funnyPS: Also it is not sound, i still use different programs for 1-4. One (1st Prg) chaff program for defending missiles close up… another (3rd Prg) totally different one for fighting enemy airborne radars.
That´s what im using currently - personal preference!! - and not mandatory.
-
well, no arguments over the implementation of the countermeasures dispensing AS. I suspect they implemented it into the F-16 in BMS because thats the way it is in the real jet, without concerns over whether the real jet looks funny.
-
Of course.
Search into the Electronic Warfare Fundamentals the chapter about RWR and limitations. (Chap17 If I remember correctly)
…
Chapter 13 it is.
I also have shit loads of material on that topic i believe.