@Kolbe-49th said in Unexpected HARM behaviour:
I really have to admit that at the current state the Harm chapter is less than optimal. But it is obvious that you haven’t read it.
Let’s please stay on topic instead of going to false accusations
@Kolbe-49th said in Unexpected HARM behaviour:
I really have to admit that at the current state the Harm chapter is less than optimal. But it is obvious that you haven’t read it.
Let’s please stay on topic instead of going to false accusations
@Mav-jp said in Unexpected HARM behaviour:
@kyros said in Unexpected HARM behaviour:
@Mav-jp said in Unexpected HARM behaviour:
@kyros said in Unexpected HARM behaviour:
After multiple tests it seems the behaviour of the HARM is different than expected:
Setup:
- SA-2, SA-3 and SA-6 near the target steer point
- POS PB launch with in the active table only AAA (692) entered and in the tertiary table only the FCRs of the SAMS (202, 203 & 206)
Multiple times the launched HARM kills a FLAT FACE acquisition radar. This should not be possible since it is not mentioned in any of the tables.
When I select TBL 0 as tertiary table then I do get misses as expected.Oops sorry yes this is absolutly expected behavior
When you specify a FCR and when it is not found. The system automatically searches for the corresponding EWR of the same system
This is to avoid to waste a agm88
Congrats you are the first one to see that feature by himself , only 2 people in BMS team were informed about that before and you won’t find it in any manual
Use TI to avoid that behavior
So even if you only put the codes for the FCR’s in the threat tables, the HARM will still go for the accompanying acquisition radars?
Yes if it does not find the FCR first it will go for the Ewr of the same system
You need to use target isolate to prevent flex of you need it
Then what is the purpose of being able to seperately enter either the FCR or EWR? What happens now (in this case) is that there are 3 FCR’s active (from SA-2, 3 and 6) and that the HARM goes for an EWR of one of the systems. It doesn’t make any sense to me that the priority apparently goes to an EWR while there are other FCR’s active (before launch already and during the TOF of the HARM).
If the handed off threat is e.g. ‘6’ instead of ‘6T’ then it might make more sence to me but in this case the handed off threat is a AAA radar which has no related EWR and there are only FCR’s in the threat table.
@airtex2019 said in Trees on final approach:
@kyros this was true in 4.35 too … good news is, they’re just eye candy, they don’t collision-detect. so you can glide right through them
Indeed, I’ve reported it for numerous airbases before back then. I know you can fly through them but that’s real immersion killing for me.
@MaxWaldorf said in AI LGB bug:
@kyros you need to give us something here…
What are you basing your analysis on?
Tacview? Wingmen audio feedback?Please document your reports or we just can’t help (and it will be discarded)…
In game verification through TGP/visual. Just have an AI target something, fly at his wing and target e.g. the building aside and watch ownship and AI’s bombs hit through TGP.
@Mav-jp said in Unexpected HARM behaviour:
@kyros said in Unexpected HARM behaviour:
After multiple tests it seems the behaviour of the HARM is different than expected:
Setup:
- SA-2, SA-3 and SA-6 near the target steer point
- POS PB launch with in the active table only AAA (692) entered and in the tertiary table only the FCRs of the SAMS (202, 203 & 206)
Multiple times the launched HARM kills a FLAT FACE acquisition radar. This should not be possible since it is not mentioned in any of the tables.
When I select TBL 0 as tertiary table then I do get misses as expected.Oops sorry yes this is absolutly expected behavior
When you specify a FCR and when it is not found. The system automatically searches for the corresponding EWR of the same system
This is to avoid to waste a agm88
Congrats you are the first one to see that feature by himself , only 2 people in BMS team were informed about that before and you won’t find it in any manual
Use TI to avoid that behavior
So even if you only put the codes for the FCR’s in the threat tables, the HARM will still go for the accompanying acquisition radars?
Bug also reported for 4.35 already: When AI’s release LGB’s at the same time as a human (in close fingertip formation), their bombs will hit about 10 seconds (!) later. Hope this will be fixed.
@Mav-jp said in Unexpected HARM behaviour:
@kyros said in Unexpected HARM behaviour:
After multiple tests it seems the behaviour of the HARM is different than expected:
Setup:
- SA-2, SA-3 and SA-6 near the target steer point
- POS PB launch with in the active table only AAA (692) entered and in the tertiary table only the FCRs of the SAMS (202, 203 & 206)
Multiple times the launched HARM kills a FLAT FACE acquisition radar. This should not be possible since it is not mentioned in any of the tables.
When I select TBL 0 as tertiary table then I do get misses as expectedAll you other tables are set to « null/nothing » ?
Yes
The time to impact counter is way off from the actual impact, seems similar as in 4.35. I was under the impression this had been improved. When launching in POS PB with SD selected at a steer point with no radar I would expect impact near that steer point when the counter reaches zero. In this case when launched from 50 nm, there’s still 40 seconds on the counter remaining. From 30 nm still 20 seconds. Makes PET shots for other flights very difficult.
After multiple tests it seems the behaviour of the HARM is different than expected:
Setup:
Multiple times the launched HARM kills a FLAT FACE acquisition radar. This should not be possible since it is not mentioned in any of the tables.
When I select TBL 0 as tertiary table then I do get misses as expected.
When the DED HARM page is accessed in NAV mode and then the mastermode is changed to AG (with HARMS loaded and selected), the ICP rocker switch keeps changing the steer points instead of the HARM (DED) tables.
There are trees way too close near the approach ends of Seosan AB on both sides
When the multiple JDAM ripple on multiple targets option is selected in the config editor, the DED display will show ‘JDAM’ next to the 0 on the MISC page even though only HARMs are carried and no JDAMs. Both in NAV and AG mode with HARM as the selected weapon.
@DrJester Awesome pics! What theatre & airbase are that?
In a previous release the following was stated:
“PS: No campaigns yet. I’ll create them for BMS 4.36 due to the detailed paperwork (ACO, SPINS, JIPTL etc.) that will accompany them.”
Can we expect them anytime soon? I loved the detailed and realistic ones from 4.34!
Some minor issues with the theater:
In other words: The Speed Caret which is the symbol indicating the DED TOS Req Speed on the HUS’s speed scale is dependent to the HUD speed selector switch and should ALWAYS be calculated using the current total headwind component (which would make sense).
Please check if it is only the “Speed Caret” on HUD, or if the “Req Speed” in DED TOS page is also wrong/changing depending on HUD speed selector (?)
The RQD GS indication on the DED is always correct. It’s only the carrets for the CAS and TAS that are wrong.
Please provide a video.
Even with a 80kts xwind I had no issue on my side .
Don’t have video. It’s actually with head/tail wind, not so much with cross wind. Try with 85 kts head wind on a 100 nm leg with 410 kts planned ground speed and follow the CAS carret precisely. The CAS carret starts around 300 kts initially and keeps increasing until it becomes too high to follow around 20 nm from the next waypoint. Doesn’t make a very economical flight.
With tailwind the CAS carret behaviour is the other way around, it starts way too high and decreases throughout the leg.
Current workaround is to switch to GS and follow that carret but this isn’t practical.
Anyway, hope it will be solved sometime.
And maybe will not anytime soon as it is a minor issue (especially compared to some other things).
As long as you follow the carret you will be on TOS anyway.
No, you often won’t depending on crosswind. I missed your earlier question (Are you able to respect the planned TOS (+/-10s) by following the caret until about 3Nm remaing distance to waypoint?)
Answer is no when using realistic weather maps with 70 - 100 knots of crosswind at altitude. The CAS carret goes up to non-achievable values 10’s of nm’s from the selected waypoint (on 100 - 200 nm legs).
I suspect this is also the reason why AI flights often skip half of their waypoints when crosswind is present.