this shows AI generated package preferences in the campaign. general does everything. AA, AG, SEAD, try to stick to those roles in those squadrons when packages are generated by the campaign engine. Note: if you’re flying an aircraft capable of a different role, you can still plan missions yourself without any restriction.
Best posts made by FreqiMANN
-
RE: Aircraft campaign role
-
RE: 4.37 killed the AMRAAM
at the risk of continuing to piss everyone off:
i havent had much issue with MY missiles hitting the targets. i always aim to launch at R-tr if i can. there is little a target can do if you launch within R-tr.
i do have a problem with the AI i fly with. they are wasting slammers at long range. their kill ratio is around 25%. multiple occasions where an F-16 will shoot all of its slammers at a target, miss, then get killed in an ensuing close range engagement.
i do believe the AI needs to be tweaked to reflect whatever change has been made in 4.37. they need to be much more conservative with missile employment.
-
RE: Every once in a while you learn something new ... "I'm a dot!"
wait until you hear, “just like beggars canyon, back home”
Latest posts made by FreqiMANN
-
RE: Every once in a while you learn something new ... "I'm a dot!"
wait until you hear, “just like beggars canyon, back home”
-
RE: 4.37 killed the AMRAAM
at the risk of continuing to piss everyone off:
i havent had much issue with MY missiles hitting the targets. i always aim to launch at R-tr if i can. there is little a target can do if you launch within R-tr.
i do have a problem with the AI i fly with. they are wasting slammers at long range. their kill ratio is around 25%. multiple occasions where an F-16 will shoot all of its slammers at a target, miss, then get killed in an ensuing close range engagement.
i do believe the AI needs to be tweaked to reflect whatever change has been made in 4.37. they need to be much more conservative with missile employment.
-
seeing DPRK REDFOR A-4 in ACMI. what is it?
always low and slow. (currently staring at one: M .3 angels 5) usually seen south of pyongyang. i’m assuming tacview is just using it as a placeholder, but i’d like to know what it actually is. AN-2? some kind of helicopter?
-
RE: New ECM model
thanks for the thread. was wondering about this, myself. IMO the manual could stand to go into more detail. XMIT 1 is stated that it turns off the forward antenna. however, i think it should explain in more detail the ramifications of this. using previous knowledge, i inferred the jamming is weak/nonexistent(?) in the forward arc. i think this information needs to be plainly stated. it would help to also quantify jamming strength between XMIT 1 and 2.
-
RE: FOV patch in configurator no longer working in 4.37.
@MaxWaldorf thank you. after inspection, it was pointed at my 4.36 install.
-
FOV patch in configurator no longer working in 4.37.
i had to modify the BMS cfg manually. that solution works fine, but i bet it’ll cause confusion with others that didn’t know you could do that.
-
RE: Timing discrepancy with flight plans involving both "refuel" and "holdpoint" actions.
@Jackal said in Timing discrepancy with flight plans involving both "refuel" and "holdpoint" actions.:
This premitted, what you saw doesn’t seem happening by chance to me, but could be due to some relation existing between those two kind of tasks
are you implying this is intentional as a piece of a future, yet-to-be-implemented, feature?
-
Timing discrepancy with flight plans involving both "refuel" and "holdpoint" actions.
When planning a flight that has a refuel steerpoint and a holdpoint afterward, the flightplan mirrors the hold time for both points and the time-on-station completely ignores the hold.
placing a 10 minute hold on the refuel point changes the hold point to 10 minutes. when changing the hold point, the same thing happens to the refuel point. the values are mirrored. flight plan time-on-station times reflect the hold time at the refuel point but NOT the hold point. in addition: If AI fly the flight plan, they hold at the refuel point and completely ignore the hold point.
More information:
https://forum.falcon-bms.com/topic/23175/questions-about-planning-inbound-aar-for-ai-package-in-a-campaign -
RE: Questions about planning inbound AAR for AI package in a campaign.
Further testing, today:
switched to KTO. flight plan shows same behavior. noted that there is a hold accounted for in time-on-station after the refuel point, but not after the hold point. created TE and tested flight plan in 2D with all AI. AI flight flies to refuel point, holds there. after station time ends, flight continues on. at the hold point, the AI flies on regardless of station time on the flight plan as if it was a regular nav point. this corresponds to the time-on-station observations i saw on the flight plan, itself. I’ve observed that target waypoint station time seems unaffected, like TARCAP.
while i’m glad BMS isn’t doubling the amount of time my AI spends flying in circles, that still isn’t optimal for what i wish to accomplish. i would like to frag and fly large package missions with AI. i would like them to hold away from the tanker for deconfliction, then continue on at a predetermined time/order. that seems impossible, currently.
to anyone in the know:
why is the station hold time mirrored on refuel/holding points?
why do the AI ignore the hold point?
is this a limitation of BMS? if so, can it be changed?
any workarounds people can think of?