Korea EM 1989 Update
-
Sure, here’s a short summary;
AIM-54A;
-Increased active seeker chaff vulnerability
-Increased missile loft and loft time, decreased drag coefficient
-Decreased missile nav gain, should result in less energy bleed in terminal phase
-Added 0.8 second delay to engine ignition
-Adjusted dlz for new performance (this may need further tweaking)AIM-54C;
-Same as above, except as noted below
-Seeker more vulnerable than before, less than A model
-Slightly more loft than A modelAA-9;
-Increased lofting bias, reduced drag coefficient
-Adjusted dlz to account for new performanceAA-10A/C;
-Slightly increased loft, slightly reduced drag, adjusted dlzAA-10B/D;
-Reduced seeker gimbal angle
-Increased nav gain slightly
-Reduced drag, adjusted dlzAA-11;
-Adjusted dlzSM-1MR/ER;
-Reduced chaff vulnerability
-Increased lifetime
-Increase loftSM-2MR/ER;
-Increased lifetime
-Reduced loftSA-2;
-Increased loft
-Reduced vulnerability to jamming
-Increased maximum range slightlySA-3;
-Added post-launch guidance delay
-Increased nav gain
-Increased loft time
-Allowed maneuvers in boostguide phase
-Increased first stage booster burn time by 1s
-Reduced minimum engagement range
-Increased maneuverability
-Increased maximum range slightlySA-5;
-Increased loft
-Increased first stage booster burn time by 1s
-Increased maximum range slightlySA-6;
-Reduced minimum engagement altitude
-Increased maneuverability slightlyMost MANPADS;
-Slightly higher maximum engagement altitudeMost AAA;
-Slightly increased maximum engagement altitude -
After updating from v2.51 to v2.55, is it required to use a new campaign when playing? Will our old campaign save be playable with this version?
-
Should be playable, but you won’t see the Chinese etc. units switch to HQ-2’s instead of SA-2’s unless you start a new one. This is mainly an issue for the first 2 campaigns, Iron Fortress should be mostly ok. The other issue is fixed SAM sites won’t have MANPADs until they get resupplied.
I’d give it a try, if you have issues the 2.51 version will remain up incase you need to revert to it (Link is in the thread, not on first post).
-
Thanks for the quick response Elouda! UOAF will update to the new version and give it shot.
-
@Molni, and all others of course. The old lods i had shared with the BMS forum for the phantom havent tried to see if they work in -U3 And when i started the new porting/editing of the E/F I did stop to try to develop them more as the new lod is stunning, more accurate and ofcourse more detailed. A little highpoly but thats what details do.
@Elouda if you want i can export a E/ESK with some skins as well and updated dat(if u havent got a problem with the ~65k triangles), therefore my question will be if you want seperate aim-9 rails or built in. the difference is that in A-G weapons its kinda funny sometimes like AGM-65’s fins touching the rails etc. If you see my thread for E/F u can see some screenies of the -E and the ESK. Now for -G i havent got anything yet. I think will be my next version.Ps: Heres the thread : https://www.benchmarksims.org/forum/showthread.php?28375-F-4E-F-Phantom
-
Sure, here’s a short summary;
AIM-54A;
-Increased active seeker chaff vulnerability
-Increased missile loft and loft time, decreased drag coefficient
-Decreased missile nav gain, should result in less energy bleed in terminal phase
-Added 0.8 second delay to engine ignition
-Adjusted dlz for new performance (this may need further tweaking)AIM-54C;
-Same as above, except as noted below
-Seeker more vulnerable than before, less than A model
-Slightly more loft than A modelThe problem chaff does not work against ARH. By the code - I do not know is bug or intentional - chaff has 0 effect for ARH. Even if you set 1 or higher value for ARH seeker nothing happens. This is why I do not like ARH era. Is not fun to fly in an environment where are demigod weapons.
The DLZ data is used by the AI. In 4.32 range in DB had effect in 2D range and both max. range in 3D world. Regardless what big range was set by range data in dat file max range did a “cut”. The range data in dat files mostly concerning only for 0 aspect but data rest is handled by the code somehow while is possible to set up any aspect breakpoint on different altitude to get and eng. enevelope.
IHMO AA-10/AA-11 do not need kinematics tweak. They are using the RL spec. imp. and their drag coeff is similar to AIM-7/AIM-9 has should be. Because of their larger weight and diamater and lack of dual thrust you can see what you see.
SA-2;
-Increased loft
-Reduced vulnerability to jamming
-Increased maximum range slightlyPls. do not increase the loft. Because of RCH guidance the missile and both the target have to be in the cone of fire control radar. This means a very narrow “retacgle cone tunnel”, which is about 7x7 deg wide. In case you increase the loft value you breake this abstraction. The FCR follows both the missile and target with the same radar to calculate guidance commands. This is why does not have ABM capabilty the SA-2/3 because they cannot track both the ABM and launched missiles in most of cases because of high speed such big lead aim is required.
On the right side of the image, 7x7 deg. Outside of the cross you have only elevation or azimuth data. (On left side is LORO gudiance where, is a different method which I do not explain here.)
http://kepkezelo.com/images/21rqd6xdys2o6tyc81u1.jpgAnother image, missile flies within the 7x7 deg.
http://kepkezelo.com/images/g61cuab7goumlp70u1vs.jpgI checked performance of SA-2 and is good it does not require tweak.
SA-3;
-Added post-launch guidance delay
-Increased nav gain
-Increased loft time
-Allowed maneuvers in boostguide phase
-Increased first stage booster burn time by 1s
-Reduced minimum engagement range
-Increased maneuverability
-Increased maximum range slightlySame case as above. Don’t increase the loft. Also I do not understand why you allow maneuvers in boostguide phase. I can provide you sources about eng. envelope.
SA-5;
-Increased loft
-Increased first stage booster burn time by 1s
-Increased maximum range slightlyIn suggestion thread you can find thrust. Why did you changed? What range value you changed?
SA-6;
-Reduced minimum engagement altitude
-Increased maneuverability slightlyIn RL max. G of missile is 15G.
Most MANPADS;
-Slightly higher maximum engagement altitudeWhat is the exact value?
-
@Molni, and all others of course. The old lods i had shared with the BMS forum for the phantom havent tried to see if they work in -U3 And when i started the new porting/editing of the E/F I did stop to try to develop them more as the new lod is stunning, more accurate and ofcourse more detailed. A little highpoly but thats what details do.
@Elouda if you want i can export a E/ESK with some skins as well and updated dat(if u havent got a problem with the ~65k triangles), therefore my question will be if you want seperate aim-9 rails or built in. the difference is that in A-G weapons its kinda funny sometimes like AGM-65’s fins touching the rails etc. If you see my thread for E/F u can see some screenies of the -E and the ESK. Now for -G i havent got anything yet. I think will be my next version.Ps: Heres the thread : https://www.benchmarksims.org/forum/showthread.php?28375-F-4E-F-Phantom
I can do a very quick test today. I do not see any reason what can prevent the usage. Stone age LODs are working with 4.33.
-
I have personally a huge problem with some tweaks to make the theater more “interesting” or “playable”. Call me old fashioned, but I want as realistic as possible.
If you in all these tweaks could give unclassified sources that the tweaks are at least plausibel….I know Molni did a stong research in the past…May be you guys could use that as start point?!But perhaps nowadays I am the only one looking for warfare realism…
-
I have personally a huge problem with some tweaks to make the theater more “interesting” or “playable”.
I totally agree with you. Basically what I’ve seen is it’s tweaking to tweak for tweaks sake!!! :rolleyes:
But of course, they’ll rebut that they have the proof that what is being done is exactly as it should be in the real world!!
C9
-
I have personally a huge problem with some tweaks to make the theater more “interesting” or “playable”. Call me old fashioned, but I want as realistic as possible.
If you in all these tweaks could give unclassified sources that the tweaks are at least plausibel….I know Molni did a stong research in the past…May be you guys could use that as start point?!But perhaps nowadays I am the only one looking for warfare realism…
I checked dat files after release of 4.33. BMS4 Team applied the weight and imp. data what SpGoro, ODS and me gave, and recalculated most of aero. coeffs for “1st line” AAMs and SAMs which are frequent in BMS4. (I will check Patriot and HAWK also.) These become very good FMs. The problem is AIM-54. Even they applied good thrust and beliavable tot. imp. the missile has simply shit performance comparing to AIM-7F/M. At low and med alt this is true because insane drag of AIM-54 prevents the missile acclerate above the AIM-7 and deaccel much faster. The problem high and very high alt performance Even above 30k feet launch against 30k feet target AIM-7F/M has better range than AIM-54. This can’t be good. In RL the longest launch distance of AIM-54 was 204 km against a high flying dore and after 134 km of flying AIM-54 hit the target. You simply cannot reproduce this distance in BMS4…
Some RL cases.
1972
December 20 – An F-14 accomplished a ‘four-for-four’ AIM-54 test over the Pt. Mugu missile range. Flying at M0.7 and at 31,500 ft, the Tomcat launched four AIM-54s against five targets – three QT-33 and two BQM-34, each flying at M0.6
and at altitudes of between 20,000 ft and 25,000 ft. The missiles were fired at relatively short ranges, between 25 and 30 miles, and were launched in quick succession - not simultaneously. One missile scored a direct hit and the three others passed within the warheads’ lethal zones, thus scoring hits.1973
November 21 – First Phoenix proves effectiveness in full-arsenal testing on an F-14 operating over the Pacific Missile Sea Test Range. The F-14 fired six Phoenix missiles over a 38-second period and guided them simultaneously at six separate targets 50 miles away, obtaining four direct hits. Flown by CDR John R. “Smoke” Wilson and LCDR Jack Hauver, the Tomcat was flying at speed of M0.78 and an altitude of 24,800 ft - while the target drones were flying at speeds of M0.6 to M1.1. This was the only time six Phoenix were launched by a single aircraf.My father has a book where one of the test is on a chart with speed and range data. It is not possible to get the same range in BMS4. AIM-54 needs a tweak even it is based only “guessing”. (I will be at home Sunday, I will make a picture about it.)
In my MOD I added only a single F-14 sq. because of AIM-54 is a demigod weapon. Against DPRK dose not count much because most of red jets does not have dispeners, so being immune to chaff has almost no impact, but in Eurowar campaign I did not used F-14.
-
The problem chaff does not work against ARH. By the code - I do not know is bug or intentional - chaff has 0 effect for ARH. Even if you set 1 or higher value for ARH seeker nothing happens. This is why I do not like ARH era. Is not fun to fly in an environment where are demigod weapons.
Was not aware of this, thanks. In that case those changes have no effect. They were based on the data you sent me.
The DLZ data is used by the AI. In 4.32 range in DB had effect in 2D range and both max. range in 3D world. Regardless what big range was set by range data in dat file max range did a “cut”. The range data in dat files mostly concerning only for 0 aspect but data rest is handled by the code somehow while is possible to set up any aspect breakpoint on different altitude to get and eng. enevelope.
I tested any of the adjustments to dlz against a variety of targets, in most cases it was simple +/- 5-10% adjustments based on testing results. AIM-54 is the only weapon with major changes.
IHMO AA-10/AA-11 do not need kinematics tweak. They are using the RL spec. imp. and their drag coeff is similar to AIM-7/AIM-9 has should be. Because of their larger weight and diamater and lack of dual thrust you can see what you see.
Main tweaks were to the B/D variants, almost 50% higher drag is not correct for these. The A/C were adjust downward slightly, but this could probably be reverted if people feel its not correct. AA11 was purely a dlz and not a kinematics tweak, as the dlz was consistently underestimating the range by 10-15%.
Pls. do not increase the loft. Because of RCH guidance the missile and both the target have to be in the cone of fire control radar. This means a very narrow “retacgle cone tunnel”, which is about 7x7 deg wide. In case you increase the loft value you breake this abstraction. The FCR follows both the missile and target with the same radar to calculate guidance commands. This is why does not have ABM capabilty the SA-2/3 because they cannot track both the ABM and launched missiles in most of cases because of high speed such big lead aim is required.
On the right side of the image, 7x7 deg. Outside of the cross you have only elevation or azimuth data. (On left side is LORO gudiance where, is a different method which I do not explain here.)
http://kepkezelo.com/images/21rqd6xdys2o6tyc81u1.jpgAnother image, missile flies within the 7x7 deg.
http://kepkezelo.com/images/g61cuab7goumlp70u1vs.jpgI checked performance of SA-2 and is good it does not require tweak.
Increase was from 0.5 to 0.75, which is very marginal, but helps prevent the ‘missile slams into the ground’ when engaging a descending target. Launch angle should still be largely within the FCR cone, can do so tests and revert if needed. Range adjustments were to dlz as the stated engagement range was rarely being fired at, and missiles had plenty of energy at old intercept.
Same case as above. Don’t increase the loft. Also I do not understand why you allow maneuvers in boostguide phase. I can provide you sources about eng. envelope.
Actual loft was not increased, only time by 1 second. Maneuvers in boostguide was actually based on the SA3 data in your own 80s theater to solve accuracy issues (which you demonstrated in a youtube video, and which I was able to recreate). In combination with the guidance delay (which covers 50% of the boostguide phase), the missile now makes an aggressive turn after the delay, then settles in the the regular intercept, and increases lethality notably. Range tweak was again simply dlz change, as missiles had energy to spare, especially after booster adjustment (taken from SAM sim data).
In suggestion thread you can find thrust. Why did you changed? What range value you changed?
Only change was burntime increase for first stage as per SAM simulator data. Range value was dlz, increased by 0.05 (7%).
In RL max. G of missile is 15G.
And that is what it is now. It was 13G.
What is the exact value?
Varies, but inside kinematic. Biggest change is SA-7, from 5000 to 8000ft. Most other were much less significant. This was database change, not dlz.
I have personally a huge problem with some tweaks to make the theater more “interesting” or “playable”. Call me old fashioned, but I want as realistic as possible.
If you in all these tweaks could give unclassified sources that the tweaks are at least plausibel….I know Molni did a stong research in the past…May be you guys could use that as start point?!But perhaps nowadays I am the only one looking for warfare realism…
That’s entirely your choice, but unfortunately there’s a number of weapons that are simply poorly modeled (maybe for lack of relevance, or for lack of data), and I’ll take educated guesses/logical estimates for these over just saying ‘meh, fully realistic or bust’ anyday. The AIM-54 is one good example, as is the stock AGM-45 (mini-HARM), AGM-78 (to space!!) and the AGM-123 (using the AGM-45 drag data no less!!) is another. No, I don’t have exact data for how they everything should fly, but I can get a pretty good idea looking at shape, weight, propulsion, etc. I’m not coming at this blind either, I have a physics degree and play with external ballistics calculations for ‘fun’, so I do have a pretty good idea of how things (should) fly.
-
Rgr.
-
…
That’s entirely your choice, but unfortunately there’s a number of weapons that are simply poorly modeled (maybe for lack of relevance, or for lack of data), and I’ll take educated guesses/logical estimates for these over just saying ‘meh, fully realistic or bust’ anyday. The AIM-54 is one good example, as is the stock AGM-45 (mini-HARM), AGM-78 (to space!!) and the AGM-123 (using the AGM-45 drag data no less!!) is another. No, I don’t have exact data for how they everything should fly, but I can get a pretty good idea looking at shape, weight, propulsion, etc. I’m not coming at this blind either, I have a physics degree and play with external ballistics calculations for ‘fun’, so I do have a pretty good idea of how things (should) fly.Dear Elouda,
I am entirely aware that Falcon 4 BMS has some weapons with wrong models. That is not the point, if you read again my post. My point is: If you will change something, please write why, or give numbers why that. Molni did that in the past for several of his changes. Believe or not, I/we checked most of them and most of they made sense!
If we don´t follow at least one reasonable “protocol” when changing things, what makes us, BMS community, different from any other fan-boy-air-combat-community?Furthermore, this is not a competition of titles or degrees! If it was many people here would win easily against you about physics, numerical kinetics simulation or aerodynamics.
I suggest we keep our tweaks strictly constrained to:
- Availabiity in manuals and diagrams
- What can be numerically shown
- Videos of weapons/platform in action
- Or perhaps factual accounts. (<- this is hard)
Hope to see a 80s theater as real as possible in BMS.
-
Dear Elouda,
I am entirely aware that Falcon 4 BMS has some weapons with wrong models. That is not the point, if you read again my post. My point is: If you will change something, please write why, or give numbers why that. Molni did that in the past for several of his changes. Believe or not, I/we checked most of them and most of they made sense!
If we don´t follow at least one reasonable “protocol” when changing things, what makes us, BMS community, different from any other fan-boy-air-combat-community?Sorry, unfortunately it really isn’t a habit of mine to document changes in detail, particularly on a project I do just for fun, and when its not terribly hard to open up the files and run a comparison against the stock stuff if someone is interesting in knowing what changed (or if I need to double check against stock values myself).
In an attempt to go cover the earlier list;
AIM-54A/C;
-Mainly observational (firing and watching these things fail to loft properly, and then bleed energy)
-ARH seeker changed were based on Molni’s suggested values, scaled down closer to the stock figures (in general I’ve tried to be ‘less extreme’ with seeker changes in general)
-Range data from various sources, main goal was just to get it atleast somewhat higher than in stock (it’s still lowballed compared to real performance in all likelyhood), and actually allow them to be fired without ending up inside WVR in most casesAA-9;
-Similar case to AIM-54, less extreme. Very similar weapon aerodynamically, so only made sense to extend aero changes over to a slightly lesser degree.AA-10;
-B/D issue was observational, was confused by massive energy bleed compared to A/C models. As said, 50% higher drag is not correct. In retrospect may have a lowballed these a little, will probably revert A/C to stock values and B/D to something between old stock and current.SM-1ER/MR;
-Seeker changed as it was either a mistake or overlooked
-Flight profile and lifetime changed to try to get closer to real kinematic range, still way too shortSM-2ER/MR;
-Flight profile changed as weapon was consistently ‘overlofting’ and loosing lock even on easy targets (pretty sure this is not realistic behavious)SA-2;
-Loft changed slightly for reasons stated above (hitting the ground)
-Jamming vulnerability changed based on Molni’s data, though less extremeSA-3;
-Booster duration increased based on data from SAM sim
-Launch & guidance issues changed to help with inability to hit even non-maneuvering targets at many aspects, due to missile accelerating to too high of a speed before beginning maneuversSA-5;
-Booster data from SAM simRange/DLZ changes;
-Adjusted if kinematics were changed (AIM-54, SAMs) or if they were notably off in testing (AA-11). These were all based on in-game observations, and as said apart from the AIM-54, were all in the +/-10% range. The max altitudes for MANPADs were based on a number of sources (mainly just recorded hits for the SA-7) and some kinematic testing in game.Furthermore, this is not a competition of titles or degrees! If it was many people here would win easily against you about physics, numerical kinetics simulation or aerodynamics.
I don’t doubt that, as there seems to be quite a few experts here. The point was moreso that I’m not merely ‘shooting in the dark’ and do have an appreciation for the intricacies involved (obviously I have no exact information on how the game handles its physics, which is why I put these through a lot of testing)
Hope to see a 80s theater as real as possible in BMS.
Well, most likely had I not taken the effort to list these out for Gusy after he kindly asked, chances are that apart from the AIM-54 and SA-3, most of these would have been entirely unnoticable by people. The focus of this update was largely on getting the bulk of incorrect SAM systems (SA-8/9/13) out of the DPRKs hands and replacing them with SA-7s and gun AAA, all of which are realism orientated changes. The bulk of these small tweaks came up simply because of observations when testing that part of it (such as finding out how awful stock SA-3’s are, when trying to close with them to check that the MANPADs at the unit were firing, was a matter of flying straight and level), and then trying to figure out how/what was going wrong.
-
SA-2;
-Loft changed slightly for reasons stated above (hitting the ground)Was a viable tactics in early Vietnam War era to fly towards to ground so the calculated impact point was under ground and missiles flew into ground. This was the cause why was addad “K” guidance method, you can see this in SAMSim manual.
-
Dear Elouda,
I am entirely aware that Falcon 4 BMS has some weapons with wrong models. That is not the point, if you read again my post. My point is: If you will change something, please write why, or give numbers why that. Molni did that in the past for several of his changes. Believe or not, I/we checked most of them and most of they made sense!.
Is good the hear this.
-
Thanks for the input gentlemen. I will take another look at some of the changes and revert or scale back any that seem too notable. Mainly this concerns the SA-2 missile loft, and the AA-10 aero changes (particularly with regards to the A/C variants, some sort of middle ground for the B/D variants will probably be adopted).
I’m currently investigating a report about installation issues with the new full installer, if anyone has had issues could you please let me know and tell me which installer (7zip or rar) you used, and if you had a prior installation. Thanks. Currently suspect that one of the two may have been corrupted while uploading, so will reupload them tonight if that is the case.
-
If you need I can explain how you can define new and more battalinos by copy existing ones.
-
If you need I can explain how you can define new and more battalinos by copy existing ones.
The HQ-2 is a copy of one the SA-2 battalions. Correct me if I’m missing something, but from what I understand its just a matter of making a copy in the Units->Battalions section, including the CT, then changing the CT ‘Specific’ portion to a unique ID so it can be referenced by teunits.lst, etc.
If you’re wondering why there aren’t more variants of battalions to flesh out the OOB more accurately, its simply because this is just a first pass in implementing the material you sent me. Priority here was to change the bulk of battalion level defence to SA7/AAA. Actual Brigade/Division structure remains largely unchanged barring the addition of a few Chinese/Soviet HQs. That will be a addressed in a later version.
-
Thanks for the input gentlemen. I will take another look at some of the changes and revert or scale back any that seem too notable. Mainly this concerns the SA-2 missile loft, and the AA-10 aero changes (particularly with regards to the A/C variants, some sort of middle ground for the B/D variants will probably be adopted).
I’m currently investigating a report about installation issues with the new full installer, if anyone has had issues could you please let me know and tell me which installer (7zip or rar) you used, and if you had a prior installation. Thanks. Currently suspect that one of the two may have been corrupted while uploading, so will reupload them tonight if that is the case.
use the last 7z version