Is the ASM-135 shot possible in Falcon?
-
Specifically asking about this, on the F-15:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASM-135_ASAT
Would this test be possible with a modified database to include:
a) A satellite target operating at extreme altitude
b) Probably some sort of modified F-15
c) The ASM-135 added to the game with proper parametersAdditional concerns:
Is there an upper altitude limit in BMS?
Can you create a (for lack of a better term) geo-stationary plane that stayed in one spot over the airfield permanently (maybe using helicoptor code)?
How would the missile lock and would it ‘break’ AA combat by adding a super missile? -
In order to replicate one single historical event without much further value in the environment of the sim I would say that the coding/modeling effort required to achieve all this is not warranted.
-
In order to replicate one single historical event without much further value in the environment of the sim I would say that the coding/modeling effort required to achieve all this is not warranted.
@Pops1stVFW:
Out of curiosity…even if it could be done, why?
Setting aside the, ‘it would be fun’ and ‘I like a challenge’ aspect, targeting of satellites is certainly something that is going to come up in the next generation air combat environment, and I would love to simulate it in BMS.
While it would be nice to imagine this disabling something like a Datalink system (Hmmm, I bet I could set it up to disable IVC though…) I’m purely interested in this from an outside mod perspective, not modifying the core Falcon Code to support it.
-
In order to replicate one single historical event without much further value in the environment of the sim I would say that the coding/modeling effort required to achieve all this is not warranted.
Same here.
ASM-135 FM is not hard to do - and for balance, you can imagine to make it relatively not maneuverable But the target is, IMHO, a pain to code for very little added value.
The ARMA 3 thing is different, as it would enable to do real CAS which is definitely a more interesting mission to just go 45° and fire
-
@Pops1stVFW:
Out of curiosity…even if it could be done, why?
Also this:
@John:
"Many years ago the great British explorer George Mallory, who was to die on Mount Everest, was asked why did he want to climb it. He said, “Because it is there.”
…which is why I do almost everything I do in life.
-
ASM-135 FM is not hard to do - and for balance, you can imagine to make it relatively not maneuverable But the target is, IMHO, a pain to code for very little added value.
I was just thinking about this though, and presumably in Falcon gravity is constant through the altitude of the sim, so I am not sure you could ever get to the point where the rocket would be able to ‘escape’ gravity so to speak, which might mean it would need to be setup for constant propulsion to the target.
That’s certainly possible, but it complicates things a little bit.
I also don’t think there is a multi-stage missile in Falcon (maybe I am wrong about this) but that would also change the programming a little bit.
-
I was just thinking about this though, and presumably in Falcon gravity is constant through the altitude of the sim, so I am not sure you could ever get to the point where the rocket would be able to ‘escape’ gravity so to speak, which might mean it would need to be setup for constant propulsion to the target.
That’s certainly possible, but it complicates things a little bit.
I also don’t think there is a multi-stage missile in Falcon (maybe I am wrong about this) but that would also change the programming a little bit.
The rocket does not escape gravity
Even in the ISS, the actual gravitationnal pull is not far off the 9.8 m/s² we have down here. So that would not really be a problem. However, it probably travels quite a lot in the horizontal - probably more than what is available on a single theater.Guidance might be a problem…. not sure, however.
As for mutistaging, it is actually an issue for other thing than just the ASM-135 - most old russian SAMs have two stages as well.
-
As for mutistaging, it is actually an issue for other thing than just the ASM-135 - most old russian SAMs have two stages as well.
Is my assumption correct then that there is no multi-staging in BMS?
-
Is my assumption correct then that there is no multi-staging in BMS?
There is a value in sa2.dat which suggest otherwise - although I have no idea how it is used by the code.
-
There is a value in sa2.dat which suggest otherwise - although I have no idea how it is used by the code.
Hmmm, interesting. I suppose my next step is going to be figuring out how to modify the DB in Falcon.
Thank you for the very helpful information.
EDIT:
I’ve also had some thoughts about how to make this support the ARMA 3 integration - namely, it could bump the ARMA 3 integration online, crash teamspeak and/or IVC when the satellite is destroyed, and destroy drone uplinks and disable GPS in ARMA 3. HAVCAP missions for a satellite anyone?
Thinking about that, too, there is going to be a very narrow window in which you will have to fly to reach the proper altitude to fire the missile…which may potentially be in hostile airspace. So…even from the Falcon side, it is not so simple as lock a target shoot a missile.
EDITed EDIT:
Also nothing would make me happier then to trump DCS by doing this in BMS. -
Setting aside the, ‘it would be fun’ and ‘I like a challenge’ aspect, targeting of satellites is certainly something that is going to come up in the next generation air combat environment, and I would love to simulate it in BMS.
While it would be nice to imagine this disabling something like a Datalink system (Hmmm, I bet I could set it up to disable IVC though…) I’m purely interested in this from an outside mod perspective, not modifying the core Falcon Code to support it.
Restpectfully, I disagree… Maybe we should put Wright Flyer follwing your aspect… DB is filled even currently way to many garbage…
BTW how would you want to model the ASAT missile which is every today mostly classified? When I wrote the 300 pages long article 3 years ago I barely found anything about it. Otherwise Falcon engine is made for simulating things in atmoshphere and ASAT literally runs only outside of it. Also would be strange to model the trajectory of the satellite becase as I know the spehere effect is modeled somehow in Falcon but the map itself is flat as I know.
You always have very strange ideas… I cannot see the point why should be waste a singe minute to model this as long as even basics SAM have totally inaccuarte modeling after almost two decades of Falcon 4.0. I alway could list much more important things…
-
You always have very strange ideas… I cannot see the point why should be waste a singe minute to model this as long as even basics SAM have totally inaccuarte modeling after almost two decades of Falcon 4.0. I alway could list much more important things…
Hold that thought
-
stop teasing and release it already you big dummy
-
Restpectfully, I disagree… Maybe we should put Wright Flyer follwing your aspect… DB is filled even currently way to many garbage…
The Wright Flyer has no real practical use in a modern combat enviornment…though I would be willing to stipulate it is the ultimate Stealth Airplane…hmmm…
BTW how would you want to model the ASAT missile which is every today mostly classified?
I would model it so that it worked in Falcon to accurately hit a target at about 277 km. Because that’s what I want to use it for. Should I assume that the F-22 is going to be removed from the game, then? It’s largely classified, so is the EF2000…but someone still modeled those and put them in. Are your objections all over that thread too, or are you just singling me out?
Also this:
@molnibalage:even basics SAM have totally inaccuarte modeling
I shouldn’t bother because it’s going to be inaccurate, but then you go on to say the sim is already inaccurate? I’m really not following the logic here.
Otherwise Falcon engine is made for simulating things in atmoshphere and ASAT literally runs only outside of it.
But the aircraft that launches it does not.
Also would be strange to model the trajectory of the satellite becase as I know the spehere effect is modeled somehow in Falcon but the map itself is flat as I know.
Agree, not sure how this would work yet.
You always have very strange ideas…
They are also very fun! And that is why I do what I do.
I cannot see the point why should be waste a singe minute to model this as long as even basics SAM have totally inaccuarte modeling after almost two decades of Falcon 4.0. I alway could list much more important things…
And you’re more then welcome to list those things, and model those things yourself. This is something that interests me. I was only interested in seeing if the community had any technical expertise that might be helpful in my thought process for the project. The sum of knowledge here about the Falcon engine is impressive. People have developed whole toolsets for the development and management of data within the systems.
It’s just a shame they’re always so unwilling to share it when a project comes along that doesn’t interest them.
But in case you missed the point: this is my project. Not a request to the BMS Developers to change anything.
-
@Cik:
stop teasing and release it already you big dummy
Ok, I kind of asked for this kind of response…… but once and for all : the release will be there when its ready, period.
I will assum the “big dummy” was friendly.
/back to the original discussion…
-
that was the idea hombre, i don’t think the phrase “big dummy” has been used to insult someone seriously since at least 1900 :^)
-
The rocket does not escape gravity
Even in the ISS, the actual gravitationnal pull is not far off the 9.8 m/s² we have down here. So that would not really be a problem. However, it probably travels quite a lot in the horizontal - probably more than what is available on a single theater.Guidance might be a problem…. not sure, however.
As for mutistaging, it is actually an issue for other thing than just the ASM-135 - most old russian SAMs have two stages as well.
The idea that because it is still under gravity, it is not a problem to model, is a bit flawed. It would depend on the direction of gravity changing as the weapon travels across the surface.
For a flat theater, in a reference frame fixed to the surface of the theater, anything in a circular orbit will appear to be unaffected by gravity.
-
@Cik:
that was the idea hombre, i don’t think the phrase “big dummy” has been used to insult someone seriously since at least 1900 :^)
Fair enough
The idea that because it is still under gravity, it is not a problem to model, is a bit flawed. It would depend on the direction of gravity changing as the weapon travels across the surface.
For a flat theater, in a reference frame fixed to the surface of the theater, anything in a circular orbit will appear to be unaffected by gravity.
Yep, true. Anyway, to my mind, all this is better suited for Kerbal Space Program than BMS
-
:tjacked:
@Cik:
that was the idea hombre, i don’t think the phrase “big dummy” has been used to insult someone seriously since at least 1900 :^)
March 25th, 1977
It’s one of my favorite shows 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanford_and_son
"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=12&v=vQzk6j7pMGg
I am officially ‘old’ :uham:
-
Fair enough
Yep, true. Anyway, to my mind, all this is better suited for Kerbal Space Program than BMS
I dunno, the F-15 flight models Ive seen in KSP do NOT fill me with reassurance as to their accuracy…!
