Korea EM 1989 Update
-
Hi molnibalage, I’ve re-upload the imgages~
We known the ALL aspect is not so “all aspect” IRL, but in BMS, the AI seem to have some advantage in these scenario. I can even get locked on and fired upon by AI at 5nm head-on when I’m complete IDLE.
And have U even met the COOL problems ?
thx for the reply
I hope devs check this thread. Someting happened with IR code and is buggy? This should never happen. With idle setting with high inital speed and clos to 0 deg nobody ever should be able to lock you with AIM-9M with ~40k feet. In BMS4.32 this never happened. I try to make some tests today with original 4.33 and 1989 theater either.
-
The 4.32 is fine only get the COOL problem.
4.33(I don’t think its a 1989 problem,but since in 1989 we mainly use IR SRM,this may cause problems) seem extended the AI IR SRM lockon range, I don’t know whether by AI cheating or code change.
And the COOL problem is ,when COOL activated, sometime U can NOT get a lockon even at 2-3NM, but when you de-select the COOL function(return to WARM) on SMS, U will get the tone at once. Any one met this before?
-
In both version I got insane launch distances. Something happened with the code since 4.32…?
-
Why you blaming/questioning the code??
Not seeing any issues of this kind posted on the boards with either stock BMS or other Add-On theaters, EXCEPT here in this MOD. Which as you know, has been tweak to high heaven!!!
C9
-
Are you sure you are not reading the cool/ warm in the mfd backwards? It should say cool when the seeker is cooled and say warm when warm. I used to get confused and push the osb next to warm thinking it would set it to warm when in a few seconds it changes to say cool and the tone increases in pitch.
-
@Cloud:
Why you blaming/questioning the code??
Not seeing any issues of this kind posted on the boards with either stock BMS or other Add-On theaters, EXCEPT here in this MOD. Which as you know, has been tweak to high heaven!!!
C9
Because with original BMS4.33 I got such launch distance with AIM-9M what I never experienced from any Falcon version regardless the range in database are the same…
-
But who knows what you’ve changed. You might not even know. The DB is not the only thing that dictates range or other parameters. The FM’s play a role in it too.
And like I said, there’s been so much tweaking on that stuff it’s no wonder you’re seeing anomalies.
C9
-
Hello mate, U have confirm these extreme headon launch range from AI as well?
-
@Cloud:
But who knows what you’ve changed. You might not even know. The DB is not the only thing that dictates range or other parameters. The FM’s play a role in it too.
And like I said, there’s been so much tweaking on that stuff it’s no wonder you’re seeing anomalies.
C9
Theaters now 100% separated. In original theater with original DB I experienced the extreme long range head on launch. Should I reinstall just because this 4.32 and do comp. videos?
-
A suggestion for the next patch would be to replace the Block 40’s with Block 42’s instead. The reason for that being that in BMS the Block 40’s carry the Sniper ATP which wasn’t in service until the early 2000s, whereas the Block 42’s carry the LANTIRN pods which were delivered to the USAF in 1987. Plus that with the LANTIRN’s you get low altitude night strike capability which is a lot of fun.
-
A suggestion for the next patch would be to replace the Block 40’s with Block 42’s instead. The reason for that being that in BMS the Block 40’s carry the Sniper ATP which wasn’t in service until the early 2000s, whereas the Block 42’s carry the LANTIRN pods which were delivered to the USAF in 1987. Plus that with the LANTIRN’s you get low altitude night strike capability which is a lot of fun.
Does the BMS model the capability (resolution!) difference for TGP?
-
Does the BMS model the capability (resolution!) difference for TGP?
Nope, but with LANTIRN installed, we can get the TFR back to business
-
Both Block 40 and 42 are included and working - the 40 does have the model for the Sniper pod, but its weight/drag are those of the LANTIRN so its just a visual issue. I think one campaign has the 40’s and the other two have 42’s, but I can double check that.
Will take a look at the IR engagement distance, but if it is a stock issue I’m not sure I can do much to fix it. The only thing that comes to mind is deliberately reducing the dlz for head on launches which would cause the AI to hold its fire longer, but on the other hand the dlz would be wrong for the player. I’ve never noticed COOL not helping, though how much it helps seems to vary.
Made a few adjustments to the AGM-78 which should make it a little more useful over the AGM-45 than it is now.
-
Elouda, shouldn’t the block 40 have the FLIR as well? (like the block 42)
Right now it does not. Must go NOE…… -
I could add it, but the model only has 1 pod (the TGP), so it would be a little strange.
-
Blk 42 has stronger engine. It is fine to have one TGP + FLIR capable F-16.
-
Ah, I see, so it’s just a BMS problem then. Well the block 40 can definitely carry the LANTIRN pod. That’s the entire purpose of the bulky block 40 hud, to display the FLIR video. I wonder how difficult it would be to copy and paste the 2nd pod’s model over?
-
Both Block 40 and 42 are included and working - the 40 does have the model for the Sniper pod, but its weight/drag are those of the LANTIRN so its just a visual issue. I think one campaign has the 40’s and the other two have 42’s, but I can double check that.
Will take a look at the IR engagement distance, but if it is a stock issue I’m not sure I can do much to fix it. The only thing that comes to mind is deliberately reducing the dlz for head on launches which would cause the AI to hold its fire longer, but on the other hand the dlz would be wrong for the player. I’ve never noticed COOL not helping, though how much it helps seems to vary.
Made a few adjustments to the AGM-78 which should make it a little more useful over the AGM-45 than it is now.
Thanks for the good work, Elouda.
The AGM78 need a tweak indeed. AGM45 can hit something if launched with correct attitude , and it’s very slow at terminal which allow it to correct path. 78 seem have trouble to hit correct target, and it has a auto loft in beginning make even harder to aim directly to a radar.By the way, the headon DLZ tweak won’t be a problem for human players, we won’t even get the tone further than 6Nm in headon, the displayed long range is actually useless.
-
The JP233 on the Tornado is awesome.
It would be great if we could selective jettison the tanks on the Tornado ADV and Tornado Gr.1
Stock KTO has the same problem, S/J’ing the tanks only works on the Tornado IDS
-
+1.
Elouda, just about the Tornado, I’m referring to the ECR now: could the Cerberus ECM pod added to its database?
It would be a nice touch, and a realistic good news indeed. About the IDS instead, I can’t recall, but it could be the same - would you please verify?Thanks for your attention, anyway it goes, and best regards,