What LOD is considered to the TGP / AGM seeker images?
Posts made by molnibalage
-
RE: Updating some 3d models for ground vehicles
-
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: 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?
-
RE: FALCON 4.0 HISTORY - THE MUSEUM
@braulston said in FALCON 4.0 HISTORY - THE MUSEUM:
Going through some old Falcon 3 and 4 stuff and came across this.WOW! What is this? I have never heard about it.
-
RE: HAWK and HARMs
@Rouge1512 said in HAWK and HARMs:
Hello
Is it a deliberate thing that the AN/MPQ-50 (ALIC 430) of the HAWK ground-air system is all the time ignored by HARMs ?
Only the AN/MPQ-55 and AN/MPQ-46 (ALIC 230) attract them.
Thanks
https://www.ausairpower.net/API-AGM-88-HARM.html
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/AGM-88_HARMThe receiver employs Crystal Video Receiver (CVR) and Superheterodyne techniques, subject to frequency band. Reports indicate that the receiver processor is capable of sorting threat pulse trains in high density environments, from the C through to the J bands (0.5-20 GHz)
A band 100…250MHz 3m…1.2m P12, P18, P14
B band 250…500MHz 1.2m…0.6m
C band 500…1000MHz 60cm…30cm P-15, P-19
D band 1…2GHz 30cm…15cm
E band 2…3GHz 15cm…10cm SA-1, SA-2A/B/F, SON-4/9
F band 3…4GHz 10cm…7.5cm
G band 4…6GHz 7.5cm…5cm SA-2C/E
H band 6…8GHz 5cm…3.75cm SA-4, SA-5
I band 8…10GHz 3.75cm…3cm SA-3
J band 10…20GHz 3cm…1.5cm ZSU-23-4Behind the spiral antenna the HARM has another antenna with is UHF capable, between 300-1000 MHz.
Page 6.
https://ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/ndia/2009/gunmissile/AARGM.pdfConsidering these the AN/MPQ-50 should be able to targeted with HARM but maybe from reduced range.
-
RE: HAWK and HARMs
@Rouge1512 said in HAWK and HARMs:
Hello
Is it a deliberate thing that the AN/MPQ-50 (ALIC 430) of the HAWK ground-air system is all the time ignored by HARMs ?
Only the AN/MPQ-55 and AN/MPQ-46 (ALIC 230) attract them.
Thanks
AN/MPQ-50 is on the edge of the HARM detection band limit as I know.
0.5-1GHz. is quite far from the typical range of the fire control radars and RCG antennas. (2-20 GHz) -
RE: MIG-25 impossible to take off
@Mav-jp said in MIG-25 impossible to take off:
@airtex2019 said in MIG-25 impossible to take off:
@molnibalage this has been a physics bug for all non-AFM planes, known for over a year
https://forum.falcon-bms.com/post/368912
workaround is to fast-forward time in 2d, then enter the jet already airborn
And I have never been able to reproduce this bug.
As you can see on the post above the mig25 takes off fine
This one is really a PITA
RGR
@hiuuz said in MIG-25 impossible to take off:
@molnibalage I have made a simple TE and I was able to take off under 200Kts. Youtube quality is shit, but on the bottom of the screen you can see the speed. The flaps was down default.
Maybe it the specific airstrip is the issue. To me the plane behaves strangely, funny pitch rates during roll is experienced. I tried landing (I sit in the pit following takeoff) then takeoff again. It was not able take off.
(I discovered the takeoff issue when I checked the performance of the MiG-25 compared to reality. In average it was surprisingly accurate. In some areas the drag is underestimated in other cases over as I can judge. But when I performed the maximum performance interception by the book. The flight time to 400 km range the real life vs BMS flight time was almost the same. In 13 min 10 sec nominally by the book up to 21 km to 400 km horizontal distance. In BMS from 200 kts 200 ft to the point was 12:40 + but the time of the takeoff shall be added = almost identical.)
-
RE: MIG-25 impossible to take off
@hiuuz said in MIG-25 impossible to take off:
@molnibalage I never tried this, but has the MIG-25 flaps simulated? Maybe it’s in the upper position on take off.
It does not matter at 240 kts speed no matter the flap settings you shall be able to take off.
I tried a trick, I tried to make a roll while I pulled the stick. The plane was able to lift off with this trick but the performance was not the same compared to the cases when I started to fly airborne. -
MIG-25 impossible to take off
Just setup a TE and try to takeoff with the MiG-25.
It is impossible to perform a takeoff if a player controls the plane.
At 240 kts pull the stick as hard as you can do and the plane simply does not react.
When you sit in the pit in the air the plane in flyable. -
RE: AIM-9X Block II Mod for BMS
At least the mindset is good.
The point of the LoAL the make the AIM-9X a BVR missile at med-high alt against an incoming target. It is just a 99.9% theoretical capability that if you have a data link connection or DAS track, you can launch backwards. (Time lag? RoE?)
But. If you have data link or DAS and you sit in an F-35 nobody every shall be on your tail in the range of AIM-9X launching backwards… while you had not been killed with a missile launch…
-
RE: AIM-9X Block II Mod for BMS
@fegeleinn said in AIM-9X Block II Mod for BMS:
@Scorpion82 said in AIM-9X Block II Mod for BMS:
wouldn’t it possibly be better to create a separate AIM-9X Block II, rather than replacing the extant “Block I”?
Otherwise nevertheless a nice addition.
Yes, it would be more convenient to create separate Block II missile for gameplay purposes. However, in order to do that i have to create a separate database entry in KTO (and likely for every single theater). Every end-user would have to manually load those database entries using F4Editor which will complicate the installation process (unless there is another way to do it?). I might later create a standalone installer if there will be an interest for the mod.
The change simply should be sent to BMS team to implement it.
-
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: 4.37.3 AIM120 AQUISITION MODEL
Just a note from my side.
It is not an argument that how was modeled in the past ANYTHING if it was wrong and essentially it lacked a real foundation compared to RL. So far the ARHs were totally overmodeled. Now, they are not and they won’t be.
Maybe most ppl. have short memory but for a long, long, long time many IR missiles were also OP in every F4.0 version, they were essentially immune to flares. Now, IR missiles are ANYTHING but immune to flares, just think about old R-73 and AIM-9M and what we have now. Now, even the AIM-9X can be defeated.
This was in the past, AIM-9M.
Now try the same in BMS 4.37. Even the AIM-9X can be defeated, many times only some flares is enough if target is VERY lucky. (For gameplay perspective this is one of the best change what ever happened in the history of F4)
-
RE: 4.37.3 AIM120 AQUISITION MODEL
@Mav-jp said in 4.37.3 AIM120 AQUISITION MODEL:
@Stevie said in 4.37.3 AIM120 AQUISITION MODEL:
@Kavelenko - and I would expect that. The F-15 has a bigger, better radar…and one can’t really consider the AIM-120 without considering the radar.
…and I too am left to consider that it’s the radar model that is making the new missile model behave worse than I expect…I still say the 4.35 model met my expectations for the missile far better.
It’s good that you consider things but the reality is that a long as FCR lock is maintain , the relative performance (read SNR of concract) has no impact at all .
It is true that lock is easier to maintain with f15 than f16 due to more powerful radar
100% agree. This way of thinking that if larger = better in every aspect is simply false.
-
RE: 4.37.3 AIM120 AQUISITION MODEL
@Carbide said in 4.37.3 AIM120 AQUISITION MODEL:
@Mav-jp '‘First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in My sight, shall snuff it.’
Exactly.
-
RE: 4.37.3 AIM120 AQUISITION MODEL
@Mikyjax said in 4.37.3 AIM120 AQUISITION MODEL:
So this is a pure gameplay choice then?
Since the aim120 is now really nerfed and more realistically modeled compare to earlier do you think that would makes senses to reconsiderate that?There is so much things that I can mess up (and I love it), mistakes that are on me, non respect of the mar, shooting too far, outside of the Circle, bad Sa, bad tactics, bad decision… that when you did “everything correctly” wasting 3 missiles just based on a random loss of lock is a bit frustrating, and that’s only because there is nothing you can do about it. And I’m even talking in STT.
Anyway “BMS will always work that way because we want more challenge” would be fine by me, just asking if it’s worth considering
ARHs in the past were modeled as some kind of holy weapons. (As were all IR missiles before the new IR code.)
-
RE: 4.37.3 AIM120 AQUISITION MODEL
@Mav-jp said in 4.37.3 AIM120 AQUISITION MODEL:
@molnibalage said in 4.37.3 AIM120 AQUISITION MODEL:
Nice.
It is not clear to me the followings:
-
How is modeled the radar scan of the missile? Scan rate (angle sec/bars?) If the FRQ of the radar is known based on the size is is an easy calculation to determine the beamwidth. We can assume 10 GHz, almost every ARH uses the FRQ. Is it / will be modeled the scan?
-
Where came the info that the AIM-120 is able to operate both with HPRF and MPRF? I have no idea about the modes of the AIM-120. But even the huge R-37M has only HPRF mode based on its detection distance against incoming / receding targets. (~3 times difference. between incoming and receding target of the R-37 could perform both HPRF and MPRF the distance would be only half against receding targets.)
nowhere in the document it says that the AIM120 operates both HPRF and MPRF in the same time,
first there is a HPRF search , THEN a MPRF, never in same time
As far as the SCAN of the missiles radar is concerned, there is no scan modeled , it’s purely algorithmic at that stage. I dont think modeling scanning time will bring anything on the table considering the small size of the UV. It might in edge case reduce the PG a bit, but it’s really really a level of detail that is not worth the effort IMO (it’s already complex enough LOL )
Of course they are in sequence. But imagine the impact of scan time when the detection range of an ARH seeker is just 1/3 against a receding target if the missile is only HPRF capable. The missile in case of loss of track simply can fly-by the target because of the scan time and scanned volume of airspace.
-
-
RE: 4.37.3 AIM120 AQUISITION MODEL
Nice.
It is not clear to me the followings:
-
How is modeled the radar scan of the missile? Scan rate (angle sec/bars?) If the FRQ of the radar is known based on the size is is an easy calculation to determine the beamwidth. We can assume 10 GHz, almost every ARH uses the FRQ. Is it / will be modeled the scan?
-
Where came the info that the AIM-120 is able to operate both with HPRF and MPRF? I have no idea about the modes of the AIM-120. But even the huge R-37M has only HPRF mode based on its detection distance against incoming / receding targets. (~3 times difference. between incoming and receding target of the R-37 could perform both HPRF and MPRF the distance would be only half against receding targets.)
-
-
RE: Grumman F-14A
@buraktunahan said in Grumman F-14A:
Differences between F-14A and F14D:
Glove vane was disabled also for the F-14A following the early service period.
-
RE: FALCON 4.0 HISTORY - THE MUSEUM
@Thommo said in FALCON 4.0 HISTORY - THE MUSEUM:
May 2002 screenshots of Falcon: Operation Infinite Resolve from an article on FrugalsWorld, that refers to it as “Falcon V”.
Operation Infinite Resolve was being developed by G2Interactive but was cancelled in March 2004 before release due to contract issues with Atari.
Features of F:OIR listed included:
· DirectX 8.1 compatibility with hardware acceleration
· “Fly mud-moving missions with the A-10 Warthog - down-and-dirty!”
· “New Korean theatre campaign scenarios – fly missions against global terrorist networks.”
· “Photo realistic F-16 and A-10 cockpit and avionics; immerse yourself in the power of flying the real thing!”
· 12 player multiplayerThe FrugalsWorld article is accessible in the archive.org Wayback Machine.
Pls. share any info / image what you have, it would be great to include my Simulator evolution history series. (In Hungarian.)