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.
-
RE: Barlock RADAR...but where/why??
Just small note, the SA-5B (S-200 Vega) never had the P-37 (Bar Lock) radar.
Different S-200 variants and their radars.
I’m working on the English version of the S-200 system currently.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzdPKsRJUHVoitxBwxAkh-g -
RE: Some suggestions for improvements for the next versions -4.5 ?
@seifer Ray Tracing would be the most useless thing in the sim.
- As for environment it is simply overkill it does not needed…
- In the cockpit I can imagine the load on any VGA at night where n+1 light sources and reflection in cockpit glass and these sources also have reflection surfaces…
IHMO the merits of a HC flight combat sim is not like that…
To me always the level of tactical environment be the no.1 point and everything comes just after.
So can we have nicer clouds? OK, but in this case the function of the cloud has to modeled block the IR and EO tracking as already happened.
The GFX imp. alone is 100% pointless.
I’m bored on games which are quite photoreal and simply looks very nice…
…while the AI sees through fog, dust and clouds… etc. -
RE: Do we develop the F-35
@Aragorn said in Do we develop the F-35:
@Buzzbomb So… by your logic…
There should be no RTS games which have a WWII theme…?
Because “in the future” nobody will shoot an M1 Garand…?EVERY copy of Steel Division or Company of Heroes are now irrelevant, and everybody should be playing WARNO…?
We can no longer fly a campaign which simulates 3rd and 4th generation fighters, because… er… simulations are only relevant when they simulate the present…?
“Most likely to give BMS staying power…?” LMFAO.
-
RE: Santa's wishlist for BMS
@tiag said in Santa's wishlist for BMS:
I wish an old school F-16A very dirty…slick bombs, apg-66, only sidewinders
Without the 100% accurate navigation, only INS, modeled INS drifting. No data link with accurate cockpit. My wet dream…
-
RE: Insurgency vehicles and factions based warfare.
@Additional-Cats said in Insurgency vehicles and factions based warfare.:
Pickup trucks, cars, fuel trucks, box trucks. Speed boats. Remote camps. Etc… Adding these and the road clutter of civilian vehicles could add a lot of challenge to theaters and missions. The non state groups are a big influence in the world of global conflicts and totally unexplored in flight sims. These groups could push over borders in areas of conflict and be added on maps just like national armies. It would add a lot to game. Factions could compete within the countries and added to maps as an under layer of the nation state to give political disunity and struggles for natural resources on maps. We could direct these and see their areas of control just like we can with national forces. Cartels, mercenaries, political parties etc… Air support for cas missions to hunt and contain them would provide a lot of action and could bring in a lot of variety and challenge. Do we have any vehicles like this? Would it be hard to add layers to these maps?
The engine of Falcon 4.0 was designed to model a large scale open, conventional war and not a COIN environment. If you wish to have such kind warfare I recommend DCS. I also recommend to add the long “nothing happens” time period for the scenarios… XD
-
RE: FALCON 4.0 HISTORY - THE MUSEUM
@Reaperdog1 said in FALCON HISTORY - THE MUSEUM:
FREEFALCON 5.5.5 ITO2 Promo Videos
The 2D pit era, I did enjoy the look and feel of cockpit art work.
OMG, I made it 10+ years ago…
-
RE: New maps?
@dutchfighter said in New maps?:
Hello,
I cant say enough i like the effort people like max waldorf etc puts in to falcon bms. No complaining on that part of the argument.
My only remark with falcon bms right now is the lack of “new” maps. Doing the “same” campaign over and over again on maps like desert storm, nevada, vietnam,korea etc. For me it feels after al those years little bit second handed.
Years ago i was trying to build my own map
But after a while somebody pointed to me that the person behind mission commander was making the same map but bigger, i did take a look at his website and saw a update i believe 2015 or 2016 that looks more complete then what i had so i ditched it. It have no point to have 2 of the same maps in my eyes. So i was hopefull i could fly the f16 above central europa .I have given him a option to use my free time which he refused which i fully understand btw.
My question is are there some new maps in progress besides central europa?
This cause of this is is maybe the lack of a real challenging red ATO, which never existed outside some 3rd party theater or MOD. Hopefully the future will change this.
A player simply sets his/her ATO at 0 hour to full BARCAP and strike only airbases and SAMs and easily beats the red side, especially if the red side is inferior.
It is painful to see when the dumb red side uses its J-x and other outdated planes attacking 100% unimportant target with 100% suicidal behavior. While the player uses its best plane for BARCAP and OCA strikes aims only a very limited area with highly concentrated advanced planes.
Even with 4.32 I was able to configure such red side where a red package used MiG-23, J-6 and H-5 to form a large package. The H-5s went against the airbase, J-5/6s attacked HAWK SAM (with RBK) and the MiG-23 escorted these planes. I could see 12-16 size red side package. It was quite big for a 2-4 size BARCAP where only a handful of F-16A or F-15A was available and most of planes were F-4D and F-5.
Even with these inferior planes the red side had REAL power.
Now imagine a theater where the WPACT meets with the West but BEFORE the era of multi target channel SAMs.ATM multi target channel SAM simply breaks the ATO + campaign and the AI.
-
RE: Do we develop the F-35
@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. 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”. 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. 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.
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.
And maybe it’ll be time to talk to the rights holders and see about an F-35 centric release to the general public. “Lightning 4.0”. We’d need that to boost participation.
One more note. Regardless the “we know what” sim was expanded with countless planes it does not have any “staying power”. Because its environment is dead and empty. While we know what the heart of the F4/BMS.
So from my POV what provides the staying power that the BMS has weather affected IR sensors, which has effect both for AD and air combat. You can customize quite quickly a campaign to have 80s or 90s environment than the show goes on.
This kind of environment upgrade and the assets keeps alive the BMS and Falcon. Not a plane what cannot be modeled and which would be totally OP. To me the F-35 is a who cares thing. Because it does not have a real opponent and theater for it and 0% of the real capabilities of the plane can be modeled currently.
The best era for the engine of the BMS is until late 90s. Yes, many advanced weapons and thing were integrated but I simply do not use them.
-
RE: Dynamic Campaigns Series
@tiag said in Dynamic Campaigns Series:
Perhaps some of you will find interesting…
I will keep this first post updated as I complete the series.
I will link in my flight sim evolution article series.
-
RE: F-15 PERFORMANCE
T.O.-1F15-A-1 manual is available, the best what you can get quickly.
To me, the model is enough accurate for a sim, because I can reproduce the climb records of the F-15 Streak Eagle if i set 2800 lb lower weight for the F-15A and the same fuel as happened in RL.
With -15C air temp, the difference between the BMS and RL is within the line thickness. To me this is fine. In fact even the old FM could produce this 11 years ago.