In 4.34 there are 2 missile launch tones for some RWR systems. One have file name called Launch.ogg and another is LaunchRecycle.ogg.
What is the difference between them? Why there are 2 tones now?
Posts made by macieksoft
-
2 different ML tones for RWR.
-
RE: AIM-9X Performance
Russian or NATO flares, it makes no big difference. It is still the flare that works like a flare. It is still just a small point for FPA seeker. They may have different energy rise times and so but they are still just small point for a seeker, nothing like aircraft. You have to forget anything about previous seekers when you think about FPA. Flares have different shape than aircraft, simple as that. In some situations AIM-9X may be fooled by flares, but in most of them flares will get rejected.
Brinks and ADT developed invisible light spectrum bulbs for the consumer market that completely render IR and thermal, starlite, all imaging useless.
You mean IR dazzlers, right? Well, TOW-2A and TOW-2B both uses optical tracking in IR spectrum, but thanks to beacon sending pseudo random sequence of strobes it is no longer working against them. Guess why late T-90s went off production line without SHTORA systems installed. It was simply no longer working. Guess why DIRCMs are installed now instead of simple IRCMs. Because regular IRCM (that works much like SHTORA, it sends a pulses to confuse tracking system) is almost useless against modern missiles. It blinds the FPA sensor, but only from very short range. It may increase miss distance, but the fragment will nail the target anyway. This is why they need DIRCMs, because they can concentrate all the energy at a small area and then have much longer working range.
Flare rejecting code for BMS seems to work resonably in 4.34. I noted that in certain situations even weak AIM-9P can reject flares in BMS. Expecially when they do not intersect with engine plume. AIM-9X seems to hit the shit most of times. This seems right because flares, both in BMS and in reality, are not a magic decoys that works in every situation. Well, nothing is perfect and under certain conditions even 9X can be fooled i think. Especially from longer range when there is no easy way to distinguish what is flare and what is not (from distance both the aircraft and flare are just about one pixel, so only filtering by things like energy rise time and trajectory may do something about it).
EDIT: Just have fired some IRIS-T to check the heck in instant action. Seems to be preatty good at flare rejection just like AIM-9X is (same sensor so makes sense). Fired some of them on targets popping flares (both in head on and tail aspect), all of them hit. The problem with them is that they have very low range (at least DLZ says so), so the proper flight model is probably not yet implemented (they seems to be no better than AIM-9P at range).
-
RE: BMS 4.34 IR MODELING
Why MICA IR has so good seeker range?
And does anybody knows if any F-16s in BMS can carry it?
What about IRIS-T? Has it working flight model (in 4.33 it was not working well, it had range much shorter than AIM-9M)? -
RE: Lantirn vs Sniper Pods
Sniper pod is just targeting pod with no navigation capabilities. Things that are not implemented in BMS include RCCE mode (recce mode for automatic picture capturing of wide area for reccce purposes), multi target tracking, video datalink and so on. Also things related with focus, contrast and boresighting are not implemented.
Combine lantrin NAV pod with Sniper? Why not? May be usefull for night missions.
-
RE: TGP image 'rotating'
The real Sniper pod also has no fluid zoom, rather than that it zooms in steps:
-
RE: SA-17 Grizzly - Harm killer ?
@Master:
Can you link that manual plz?
I seen many of them, can’t recall which one it was but i think it was one of those for HAF series F-16C.
The detailed data for the panel (rather than just generic info and fault list for PFL) is in the classified supplement that have not yet leakedCould be that one: http://falcon.blu3wolf.com/Docs/HAF-F16-34.pdf
Starts at page 511 regarding PFL.
Pages 847 and 848 for panel. -
RE: SA-17 Grizzly - Harm killer ?
@Master:
When BMS makes SAMs able to engage missiles, we should also be given the MALD to be able to saturate them.
Or rather more advanced jammer with RANRAP, DRFM, VGPO, RGPO, angle deception and so. Real ALQ-184 has it all.
Detailed data is classified, but assuming that it is software defined almost anything we put in it will be more or less realistic.I seen some data in one of the manuals, the complete fault list with enormous ammount of position for that ECM pod was available (manual was not classified), most of them were related with some of the mentioned techniques. Also some very generic data on that panel was mentioned.
Constrains of this makes it very thermal on the terrain. IRL it works, but in perfect conditions. Intercepting a HARM and a Scud are two different things.
Yes, if the SEAD flight is using terrain masking (just like the strike flight is) there is very little time to intercept HARM. Turning radar on and trying to acquire it may be a suicidie for the radar itself It is also why HARM is HARM and not just ARM. It needs a speed to give enemy less time for reaction.
-
RE: Cougar TQS Comm Switch IFF IN/OUT
To interrogate you use TMS left actually, TMS right is for RWS>TWS and TWS target stepping in CRM mode.
I also wonder why the comm switch had positions called IFF in and out. Maybe some earlier blocks made some use of it? It is normally used for L16 and IDM, at least in later blocks.
Another misleading thing is IFF ident button, it is not really related with IFF but with mode 3/A transponder and serves the same function as so called ATC ident buttons in civilian aircraft. -
RE: SA-17 Grizzly - Harm killer ?
In reality it does for sure, even old SA-2 could do that, at least in theory.
AFAIK in BMS SAMs do not engage any missiles. -
RE: AFT station interface unit (ASIU).
Because from what i recall that panel is meant to be on the rear station, and you cannot fly back seat in BMS for now.
Let the DEVs explain what the hell is it for in BMS -
RE: Falcon BMS 4.34 Changes you noticed.
-Much better AIM-9 behavior. Not just the flare locking thing… Also the more natural uncage sound behavior, the uncaged sound was previously either on or off, now it fades (lowers frequency) as the missile looses the target, also there is some sound variation when target starts popping flares. Not sure if sounds are fully realistic (DCS ones seems closer to the ones seen on some real F-16 videos), however things may depend on particular AIM-9 variant i guess. Here is the real dead:
no uncage unfortunatelly. Here is one with uncage:
I wonder how would real AIM-9X sound sound like, guess it would be different than M.-Avionics improvement for AGM-84A.
-Colors for MFD can now be programmed in DTC, nice thing to have.
-Azimuth limits for FCR seems to behave a little different way (they are no longer centered on the cursor, they move when trying to place cursor past them).
-On some video i have seen that MAVerick track lines (the so called crosshair) now shakes when tracking target.
-IDM have been improved, now it is tied to radio channel from what i heard and it can be toggled between UHF and VHF for AA and AG datalink separatelly.
-Targeting/NAV pods can now be loaded in loadout screen normally (choose any configuration you want).
-Some new cockpit variants have been added.
-I know about new JFS behavior aswel as things like possible hot start or hung start but i have not yet tried campaign (waiting for the YAME MFD extractor so i can have my touchscreen fully functional before i start campaign).
-In avionics configurator there is ASIU?!
-ATC and AWACS have changed.And…
…The IFF of course! -
AFT station interface unit (ASIU).
Well, have anybody noticed that option in avionics configurator?
I guess what it is for but in BMS we can’t take a back seat so why would we have one? -
RE: Link 16 things you want in the next update
What if IFF seems easy to use?
Remember that there are still people who do not have problems with things like MAV boresighting, handoffs and limitations, IFF use, use of any other weapons (including men in the loop, HARM, OSA (wasp) swatter, JDAM, JSOW and so on)…
Well, i don’t think that there is any technical thing that can be too complex for me… …The problem is still AAR in turn but that is kinda manual thing…
-
RE: Link 16 things you want in the next update
@Master:
Seeing how well the BMS team integrated IFF,
I was expecting IFF to be a thing someday in BMS, but they way they implemented it was somehow unexpected for me. I mean the way AI uses IFF, it is probably the best IFF implementation in civilian SIM at this moment.
They have put a lot of work in it for sure, anyway they also reworked some things related with weapons (AGM-84A, AIM-9, not sure what else). Also IDM received some updates (now IDM is tied to the radio channel). Hope that someday we will see L16, if they nailed IFF that way the L16 seems to be perfectly possible for BMS team. -
RE: AIM-9X Performance
I wonder what would happen if flares were obscuring the target. It could make rejection difficult.
-
RE: AIM-9X Performance
Thats not incredibly specific circumstances…
In 4.33, there were complaints that the AIM-9X was immune to flares, “holy weapon”, unrealistic…Complaints were mostly about 9M variant which had eyeball (FM?) type of seeker, that seeker is not as good in flare rejection.
As for AIM-9X, that weapon should be much better in rejecting flares, it should reject them preatty well based on thermal energy distribution, obviously nothing is perfect but it should be a lot better than anything with FM thermal seeker.I wonder if real AIM-9X can lock on a flare (when you do uncage). I guess it will, at least from the distace when there is no way to distinguish what is what (just few pixels so you have to wait till missile gets closer). Wonder what gonna happen if you lock it on a flare and then the flare burns out or missile starts to see the proper target, what it gonna do?
-
RE: Link 16 things you want in the next update
So my Link 16 things wishlist is following:
General system features:
-Possibility to set transmission power aswel as set receive only mode.
-Possibility to zero the keys (just like it is with IFF already) making system useless
-DTC initialization procedure
-Multiple channel selection for fighter to fighter aswel as mission control
-HMCS integration (for showing PDLT and so)Fighter to fighter related:
-SEAD datalink
-AMRAAM shoot lines (you will know at wich targets your buddies guide AMRAAMs at)
-Lock lines for wingmen AA tracks
-Secondary target transmission
-HTS triangulation
-Expanded data format for friendly aircraft
-All the basics like transmitting SPI, markpoints, friendly positions and soMission Control related (AWACS and so on):
-Expanded data format (to see things like type of threat), that would get rid of the radio clutter as it would be no longer needed to use declare!
-Mission Assignment for things like CAS and so on (AI AFAC would transmit those messages when you are CAS flight and you check in). WARNING! Knowing what is MA may make you banned on ED forum, so use that knowledge with care
-Mission Assignment for AA targets (AI AWACS would send them for CAP, SWEEP and interception flights).
-Friendly tracks (air defense, non air defense, naval and so)
-Enemy tracks (air, naval, air defense, non air defense ground targets)You got a lot of info on L16 there:
http://falcon.blu3wolf.com/Docs/MLU_M3.pdfGenerally speaking L16 would be my biggest wish for BMS at this time. Hope it will come at some point (i know it won’t be soon but i am rather petient men).
-
RE: YAME64 suite
Looking forward to see YAME for 4.34.
I was using YAME in 4.33 because in D3D hook mode it has no visible performance impact, the resolution of exported MFDs is also fine.Just wonder if you gonna fix (or maybe you already did it?) the bug with D3D hook mode getting sometimes stuck (textures somehow freezes and stops to refresh so i get the static picture). This was sometimes happening to me, especially when exiting campaign and starting instant action and vice versa.
-
OSA missile boats are too damn tough.
Well, i found OSAs to bee impossible to kill with single hit. It seems to need 2 Harpoon missiles, same with 2 AGM-130 rocket propelled bombs. Well, don’t you think its too tough as for such a small boat?