Best posts made by molnibalage
-
RE: ECM and AWACS
@Rouge1512 said in ECM and AWACS:
@Mav-jp
SalutAgainst an opponent with its ECM in operation, it is not possible to know its altitude until its jamming has been pierced by our FCR.
But our friend the AWACS has no difficulty in giving us this information, all the time.
Isn’t this an inconsistency which harms the fidelity of the simulation of an engagement (and which prevents us from using beautiful tactics based on the good use of the protection cones)?
The reality is far more complex than this which means it is harder (?) to model in the game.
-
Most of self protection jammer works only against a specific FIRE CONTROL radar and sometimes it is limited to a certain sub-mode.
-
The ALQ pods have front/rear antenna limitations. As Falcon models the ECM that it works against every type of fire control radar is simply very strong simplification in abstraction. Because most of ECM pods have rear and forward antenna with different band coverage. Most of fire control radar uses cm wavelength. The lowest is the SON-4/9 with 3 GHz /10 cm, the highest the SA-8’s fire control radar with 15 GHz / 2cm
-
The targ. acq. radars mostly has longer wavelength than 3GHz / 10 cm.P-12, P-14, P-18 for ex. operate between 100-300 MHz. The targ. acq. radar of the SA-8 operates on 7 GHz / 4 cm, the SA-6’s at 6 GHz / 5 cm.
-
The ECM system transmits the power in a lobe. If the AWACS is out of the lobe the ECM does not cover anything.
-
The E-3 Sentry has a dm wavelength radar as I can recall. So it simply does not care about the self protection jammer. SOJ could cause problems and blind the plane in certain cases.
Translating to this into the game, even if a plane uses it self-protecting jammer an AWACS easily track it because it uses a different wavelength than the fire control radars and the plane simply fly outside the jamming lobe…
-
-
RE: Happy 25th Birthday Falcon 4.0! 1998-2023+
Video from 5 years ago… XD
Hopefully I can make another remake with the 4.38 with the new terrain.
-
RE: Santa's wishlist for BMS
@dutchfighter said in Santa's wishlist for BMS:
One thing i like to see in bms is civil jets or other aircraft. Normaly the sky is filled with civ jets and in compair a hand full mill planes
Now all planes are mill or mill related.
I think it would be fun to do intercept mission where you got to search for the enemy between all those civ jets. Now if you see something flying on your radar you know its mill (friend or foe)I saw something simulair on dcs but those planes are flying like they are a fighter jet (last time i saw it few years ago, i dont follow dcs any more so i dont know the state it is in right now.) And prop planes fly way to fast . I think the bms crew can do a much better job on that one then they did (back then)
If its al ready in bms where can i find it?
Civilian planes in war zone…???
-
RE: Quick update from the BMS Frontlines - November 2021
@vfp said in Quick update from the BMS Frontlines - November 2021:
yes i think those of us that dont have access like few ,we deserve a screenshot or something as a preview
Nope, this is not “deserving or not”.
If the BMS Teams thinks that such a hype train is pointless of have even negative effect they do not owe us with anything.
In fact even so many information about the status of the development so far was unheard. -
RE: Stealth in BMS
@drtbkj said in Stealth in BMS:
Good Day, All.
If you’ve been following the the OFM Journal thread, you’ve seen that we are flight testing the F-35C, for flight model refinement. While we’ve been doing so, we have also experimented with Stealth.
https://militaryembedded.com/radar-ew/signal-processing/radar-cross-section-the-measure-of-stealth#:~:text=The 5G F-35 has,size of a golf ball.Here are some numbers for you:
RL Frontal RCS (square meters)/Values in BMS( if frontal and units unknown)
F-18C= 1-3/1.23
-F-18E=1 /1.059
F-16-1.2 / 1
F-35A= .0015(I’ve also see .005 ) / 0.169
F-22= .00015 / 0.21
J-20= 1-3 / 0.41
One important caveat to our discussion is that the BMS Editor’s unit of measure (square meters, square feet, etc.) is not given, nor if this is frontal RCS. A clarification of these would be much appreciated,
The point of all this that in our testing shows true Stealth has a significant effect on BMS play. When we flight tested the MQ-25 tanker we tried a RCS of .005 and you could not lock it up on radar! I’ve created a “Flight Test” TE . In it the J-20 keeps it’s 0.4 but our test F-35C has 0.5 Where before the J-20 is shooting from beyond AIM-120 range , now you can get close enough to get to shoot(even close enough to get burn through when they jam)
It may not be an exaggeration to call it a “game changer”. And that, my friends, is the point of this post. Some might say Stealth " takes the game out of the game" . What do you think? Do you want us to include Stealth in OFMKTO and perhaps the other theaters we help with? Or, leave it to you to adjust(which BTW is very easy to do)
Comments are welcome.
JoeBecause Falcon never used anything similar to RL radar eq…
It has simply an substitutional abstract system.(In fact on my channel will be presented soon the radars vs stealth plane at least on basic level if you are interested to understand the topic.
)
Yo will see such calculation using the radar eq.
The BMS is simply not able to model these planes. In fact you do not have stealth fighter without PESA or AESA radar. Which also is not able to model the BMS4.
If you ask me just leave out the stealth planes from ANY campaigns.
n+1 times I have said. The engine of the Falcon / BMS is best for the late Cold War era until the early 2000s. Why so many ppl. whish to use the engine for such goals which are impossible? I simply do not get this.
The only possible very so-so modeled stealth plane can be the F-117.
- It is not a strategical asset.
- In RL it did not had radar or RWR.
So as an AI manned plane it is viable. But even for that modeling the not 100% omindirectional stealth is not possible. About only the F-117 is available a measured RCS value thanks to Dani Zoltan but only from a single direction.
By knowing the parameters of the S-125M the calculated RCS with ~ 60 degree azimuth is -29 dBsm. (0.0012 m2) The SNR-125M was able to detect the F-117 only from 14 km slant range.
-
RE: Airfield strikes and squadrons in campaign
I strongly agree with the suggestion.
This kind of improvement what is needed and not civilian traffic and bird strikes…
-
RE: Santa's wishlist for BMS
@Geraki said in On what grounds would you wish 4.37 to be developped?:
A-A SAM human control.
Forget it. You could not model even an S-75M Volkhov properly it has so many function and submodes. If you wish to get ANY enjoyable SAM modeling simply the current EW - radar modeling part of the game can be rewritten to 0 to such way that the engine should be able to model the following mai radar types from the 50s just the reach the S-300PT/PS…
pulse radar (SA-2 Dvina)
coherent pulse radars (SA-2 Volkhov)
CW radars (SA-5, SA-6, HAWK)
quasi CW radars (first PESA) PATRIOT, S-300PT,PSAnd you need such model to defined TOTALLY different fire control and targ. ac. radar. And these were only some SAMs. Just imagine the lots of other stuff, SA-8, SA-15, SA-19, and just because SA-6 is CW it is not identical with the SA-5 etc.
Even the SAMsim just scratches the surface of the topic.
If you ask me it would be great to have at least a well modeled deployment time for old and towed/deployed SAM vs real mobile SAMs. To model a real skilled opponent what can’t be killed with some HARM launches
-
RE: Do we develop the F-35
@Buzzbomb said in Do we develop the F-35:
@Aragorn You’re missing my point. Which is, as simply as I can put it: Without moving toward F-35 simulation, BMS runs the risk of becoming one of those sims that only deals with legacy aircraft.
To be a sim that only deals with legacy aircraft is fine, if that’s what you want. But from the very start, F 4.0 was made to simulate state of the art aircraft as its primary role and that has never changed as of yet.
The F-35 is new (well, new by 21st century standards…) and attracts a lot of interest. BMS supporting it (and to a high standard) will help to maintain interest in BMS and help keep the numbers of the active community members up. I believe that it would be a way to make our community larger and hopefully better.
I am NOT suggesting that BMS abandon the F-16, not in the slightest. But as time goes on the focus should shift more toward the F-35 at least until such a time as the sim seems to be focused as much on the F-35 as it is on the F-16.
There is simply more of a future for an F-35 simulation than there is for an F-16 simulation.
I can’t stop laughing…
If not even 4++ planes could be modeled.
Countless times I have explained the issues.
Currently the following main items in general are not modeled:- Not even PESA, also AESA radars
- MAWS
- IRST (while in RL there n+1 different type of IRST imaging, non imaging)
- towed decoy
And this is only the avionics, we have not spoken about the RCS char. modeling.
@Buzzbomb said in Do we develop the F-35:
I just want to add to my previous comments, and say that developing the F-35 simulation to the highest quality level in the publicly accessible simulation field is what is most likely to give BMS staying power in the years to come.
I strongly disagree.
Just as the F-35 is intended to eventually replace the F-16 as the primary fighter in use by Air Forces around the world, the F-35 simulation should become BMS’s new “home”.
As long as you can’t provide a real challenging environment for the F-35s it is 100% pointless to have on any level the plane.
We love our F-16 but reality is reality. Even though the F-16V modernizes the Viper greatly, it’s still not going to be in the future what the F-35 will be.
Not even the 4++ jets can be modeled but you wish the OP F-35s? Why?
In 30 years the F-35 will still be getting upgraded. Who thinks the F-16 can last that long? When that day comes the only flying F-16s will be retired warbirds working the airshow circuit…if there are even airshows. And I’ll be in my late 80s.
You know the modeled era has nothing to do with the level of entertainment. Strategy and many other genre is successful regardless they are in the stone age, ancient times, medieval, etc. Pick any of these, EU4, HoI 4, Total War series.
Just because you can have a crap F-35 it does not make popular. Because the HC community wishes at least an OK+ fidelity.
It is the F-35 that will keep BMS a viable and relevant simulation in the years to come. So I say, develop it to such a point that a new user won’t be able to tell if BMS was built for the F-16 or for the F-35 as the core of its existence.
The BMS4 is totally viable without a funny badly modeled F-35. An accurate sim is viable. Because older planes and stuff now are declassified the reality is just the opposite, especially considering the engine of the game. Even just modeling a 35+ year old S-300PT and PS is doable only by “clever hacks”.
-
RE: Do we develop the F-35
@Buzzbomb said in Do we develop the F-35:
@Aragorn You’re missing my point. Which is, as simply as I can put it: Without moving toward F-35 simulation, BMS runs the risk of becoming one of those sims that only deals with legacy aircraft.
To be a sim that only deals with legacy aircraft is fine, if that’s what you want. But from the very start, F 4.0 was made to simulate state of the art aircraft as its primary role and that has never changed as of yet.
The F-35 is new (well, new by 21st century standards…) and attracts a lot of interest. BMS supporting it (and to a high standard) will help to maintain interest in BMS and help keep the numbers of the active community members up. I believe that it would be a way to make our community larger and hopefully better.
I am NOT suggesting that BMS abandon the F-16, not in the slightest. But as time goes on the focus should shift more toward the F-35 at least until such a time as the sim seems to be focused as much on the F-35 as it is on the F-16.
There is simply more of a future for an F-35 simulation than there is for an F-16 simulation.
BTW haven’t you noticed the line of the the “we know what” sim?
F-15E
F-16C
F-4E (WIP)
F-5E
F-14A/B
AV-8B
Viggen
Mirage-2000
Mi-24P
MiG-21BISand so on.
Even the $$$$ eater ED does not plan F-35. Can you guess why?If you ask me, late Cold War and fictional 90s is the sweet spot for ANY HC sim.
Docs are available to model planes or give the capability for every legacy SAMs and even some dobule digits…Bro, in reality even the most basic submodes* of the SAMs are not modeled but you dream about F-35s. LOL
Half-leading vs three point guidane, optical guidance ect.
Latest posts made by molnibalage
-
RE: Updating some 3d models for ground vehicles
What LOD is considered to the TGP / AGM seeker images?
-
RE: How hard would it be?
@repvez said in How hard would it be?:
It is always painful to see the "model something in a HC sim what we do not know and no exact public data is available " like comments when ppl. do not realize the depth of their wishes.
- Even the '70s and '80s IRSTs are not modeled the game and the late
- '90s towed decoy
- or 70s PESA radar (MiG-31 + S-300P and PATRIOT.)
Then comes somebody who wish to model a plane based on YT cockpit video which has AESA, DAS, integrated EOTS and towed decoy, the most advanced HMD in the world and such kind of sensor fusion which was unimaginable before.
So not even more primitive subsystems can’t be modeled but hey, it is very wise to start all of them? Even if it could be doable what would be the point? Flying with such F-35 would be like cheating. You are stealth and you would have similar SA than having labels on AND seeing all the contacts on the HSD or whatever is called in the F-35.
I simply do not understand the ppl. As older a plane and as closer to the original scope of the F4.0 it makes more easier to model. Can you guess why the F-15C was the selected plane? Hm…?
Yes, oh no…
This rhymes with LOLAnd it is also f*cking annoying that your only performance here and every other place such “comments” like this. If ppl. wish to understand what is reasonable or not it would be great to listen to the ppl. who understand the technical background of these requests.
Putting F-35 (any version) in the sim beyond a 3D model is close to being pointless. It simply cannot be modeled and if it was it would not be fun from gameplay perspective. Nor the 3D nor the 2D could handle them. In fact the 2D/3D has issues even with double digit AD SAMs… Or with such plane like A-10 which is insanely OP in 2D world and impotent in 3D world.
If anybody wish to make a real work on it, fine, nobody can stop it. But when comes the “based on what” question what would be the right answer beyond the “just because”?
-
RE: How hard would it be?
@greenman said in How hard would it be?:
@MaxWaldorf I mean how hard would it be?there are tons of f35 cockpit videos online. And with the classified stuff I don’t think that the f16 that we have is all accurate.
Do you think that you have seen every possible “pages”? Compared to any existing F-16C / AM version in BMS4 anything what would be created to the F-35 by “tons of f35 cockpit videos online” would be laughably inaccurate. There is a VERY large gap between having an overview about the difference between an F-35 and F-16’s MDF, modeling them on a usable level is another. First of all JSF has some kind of “touchscreen” while the F-16 has PHYSICAL buttons.
I simply don’t understand why so people can’t let go of their obsession with the F-35 and other advanced planes and come up with very “interesting” ideas about what and how they should be modeled.
They cannot be modeled because of exact sources not mentioning the tons of subsystems of the plane itself.
- AESA radar?
- DAS?
- EOTS which function because of system integration on a totally different level to Sniper TGP.
- Towed decoy?
Even just modeling the AESA radar would be an insanely complicated thing.
-
RE: Updating some 3d models for ground vehicles
@Xeno said in Updating some 3d models for ground vehicles:
@Topo-0 Yep, but do we want to get stuck in low quality models for eternity?Also many 3D artists are more discouraged by limits put on their work than amount of work needed to get things exactly how they wanted it to be.
BTW poly count is less of a problem since new 3D model format was introduced. Now draw call count is the arch-enemy.
Can we consider this comment as a confirmation that the presented PT-76 preview with its detail with the highest LOD is feasible and similar will be the new “standard” for ground vehicles?
-
RE: Militavia Channel, a golden mine for military entusiasts!
@nekoworkshop said in Militavia Channel, a golden mine for military entusiasts!:
Thanks for posting this. I just realized I’ve watched his SA-2 analysis and it was definitely amazing, so much information packed in.
The first episode of the SA-2, the SA-2A,E,F was presented on Binkov’s Battleground as well as the SA-1.
If I made here and there videos following the S-300 very likely the next would be the SA-4. It is a very unique system and it would be the first army air defense stuff on the channel.
-
RE: Militavia Channel, a golden mine for military entusiasts!
@VIPER-0 said in Militavia Channel, a golden mine for military entusiasts!:
@Xeno said in Militavia Channel, a golden mine for military entusiasts!:
@VDK AFAIK yes
But look who it is…
@Xeno I want to congratulate you and on behalf of my wing too, the guys here send us notifications when they release new content and we discuss it on our internal channels.
Keep going like this and don’t be discouraged, you have a faithful community in us.
greetings
> P.S. If you close the channel we will chase you with sticks and torches
The video about the S-300PT, PT-1 PS definitely will be made but after that…
Fingers crossed. -
RE: Militavia Channel, a golden mine for military entusiasts!
@Xeno said in Militavia Channel, a golden mine for military entusiasts!:
@VDK AFAIK yes
Yes, it is mine.
-
RE: A golden era ahead for BMS
@Dex0Punk said in A golden era ahead for BMS:
With all this well deserved attention, do you think Falcon 4 will stay cheap for long? (because is not free) I don’t think so. But it won’t be as expensive to fly as the other sims.
Yes. No matter how we love BMS4 we are not speaking about millions of users. F4.0 is a retro game, its price it set according to this. No matter the BMS4.38 or any other BMS. It would be VERY strange to set up 60 EUR price as for a AAA game or even just 30 EUR (indie level) just because of BMS. BMS4 exist since 2011, and Falcon 4.0 only became cheaper and it is many times in sold in bundle with the F3.0 and Falcon AT.
For only 10 EUR… -
RE: A golden era ahead for BMS
@MaxWaldorf said in A golden era ahead for BMS:
@molnibalage only official BMS supported theaters might be ready by release of 4.38 but not sure
Thx. the quick reply.
-
RE: FALCON 4.0 HISTORY - THE MUSEUM
@braulston said in FALCON 4.0 HISTORY - THE MUSEUM:
@molnibalage It’s a program that allows you to take control of all aspects of a Falcon 3.0 campaign, deeper than allowed in the UI. Let’s say you want to assign your wingmen to fly B-52’s, just use strategic falcon and your wingmen are in b-52’s while you are in an f-16. Too many SA-7’s? Alter the number that can be at any one site to your liking, of course there is more to it, but these are a few examples.
Essentially the ME for F3.0?