Very sad!
Posts made by Nick Taylor
-
RE: [4.37.3] AI ATC Vectoring
@tiag said in [4.37.3] AI ATC Vectoring:
@Nick-Taylor on the picture you posted I see the CAS speed of the F-15 in front of you with 180-200ish knots. The F-16s behind you have 200CAS. Why are you flying at 317 knots before entering final?
Already saw the other flight at base leg and did an abort at this point in time. Then I observed the F-15s.
-
RE: [4.37.3] AI ATC Vectoring
@Mav-jp said in [4.37.3] AI ATC Vectoring:
Increasing the distances would make the airbases not working at all between take off and landings.
Mmmmh, do understand what you mean and the issue behind it. Military aircraft have the mentioned approach minimums in real life. What about the following ideas to avoid this and still be able to have realistic spacing between aircraft?
- If there are a lot of aircraft approaching, but no flights departing, why not open both runways for landing?
- Same if there are only departing aircraft and no arriving traffic?
- What about an continous TOS calculation for STPs (Split and Land) for flights that are RTB towards the same airbase, so that necessary spacing can be build already between the last two steerpoints?
- Why not limit the number of aircraft in the air at the same time, from the same airbase already during flight generation?
- In really urgent cases, why not reroute single flights to their alternate field?
Just looking for a solution, if possible and interest.
-
RE: [4.37.3] AI ATC Vectoring
@Mav-jp Hey Mav, you can see the AI behaviour in both of your ACMI files:
combat AP.zip.acmi
At 5:00 you can see that Gator42 and Gator43 are coming very close to each other (2.483 ft instead of a minimum of 6.000 ft for VFR approach) .
At 5:44 you can see that Gator43 aborts the landing approach when the distance to Gator42 has dropped below 1.500 feet.
pLAYER.zip.acmi
Here the situation is even worse. At 12:00 you can see that Lynx51 and Lynx52 are coming much too close to each other (406 ft
At 12:35 you can see that Lynx52 aborts landing when the distance has dropped to 122 feet.
The expected behavior would be, that under VFR conditions the distance of >=6000 feet between aircraft is maintained (IFR >=3 nm). The distance between individual flights should be IFR >=5 nm (IFR >=10 nm).
Makes sense?
Greetings from Buchenau,
Nick -
RE: [4.37.3] AI ATC Vectoring
@Mav-jp said in [4.37.3] AI ATC Vectoring:
i have flown your mission twice
Thank you for digging into this. I’m packing for a week-long Falcon 4 LAN event right now.
For the younger folks here: This is an event where you connect PCs with Category 4 cables and when you sit up in your chair, you can see real people holding beer bottles and smiling in your face. Yes, more than 50 human beings.
Here I can take a look at your ACMIs and report back to you as soon as possible.
-
RE: Grumman F-14A
Hey Radium,
Hope everything is fine on your end. Nice to see that you’re still so much dedicated to your hobby.
I do understand that you can’t make every possible squadron … and what about VF-14 Tophatters?
Just kidding,
Nick -
RE: AI TASMO Capability
@Mav-jp said in AI TASMO Capability:
The Op issue is data , so is your example
Yes, could change the data of aircraft, radar, missile, seeker, aero, etc. so that the MiG-31 deaggregates much earlier (see pic) and locks the F-16 from far away . Nevertheless, the AI does not shoot the AA-9 from e.g. 150 nm. I guess it decides not to shoot because it could be a “lose” target tracking.
Any idea?
-
RE: AI TASMO Capability
@Mav-jp said in AI TASMO Capability:
Please stop comparing arcade game data with BMS. Aim120 ranges and flight modeling in AF were totally fantaisist.
For your information AF did not have a different code than original F4 here.
The agged units firing on deagged or deagged firing on agged feature has been remove deliberately in BMS because it was super bugged and lead to very wrong results and a LOT of missiles lost for nothing
…What button did I press with you?
Why do you forbid me to compare simulations?
Why are others allowed to do that here with other simulations e.g. DCS?
What if other simulations like FF, AF, DCS, etc. have good and stable features that BMS does not?
Why was this feature part of an AF patch if Lead Pursuit did not make a code change to the original F4?
Would you agree that something can be called a “Fix” by really diving into and actually fixing it OR by just removing the feature itself?I made the requested test against F-14 and MiG-31 in the current version:
Do you agree with me that it is not quite “as real as it gets” when a MiG-31 does not fire its AA-9 Amos until 50 nm, even though they have a range of over 180 nm?No offense here in any case, just asking questions.
-
[4.37.3] AI ATC Vectoring
AI ATC Vectoring
Version
4.37.3 (x64)Build
1329Detailed Description
During multiple Campaign flights we observed that ATC is vectoring the flights correctly, but does not leave enough space within and between flights. This is why we had to abort our approach, although we followed the ATC instructions very carefully. Sometimes on the glideslope we had no view on an aircraft directly in front of us (they came in below and from an unexpected angle) and during touch down we found ourselves in the blast of two big F-15 engines. That happened so often, that I now created a reproducible case.Pictures
Here I had to abort my approach, because GATOR4 flight was to close:
GATOR4-3 and 4-4 did the same:
Otherwise I had find myself here, like during this Campaign flight:
Example files
4373-BUG-AI ATC Vectoring.zipCrash logs
noneReproducibility Procedure
- Load 4373-BUG-AI ATC Vectoring.tac
- Take #1 seat of CAJUN5
- Commit to 3D
- Set UHF4
- Request Visual Approach (T T T 1)
- Follow ATC instructions as presice as possible (altitude, heading, speed)
- Observe the behavior of the AI flights
Expected Behavior
ATC should vector the aircraft with enough spacing between eachother. -
RE: AI TASMO Capability
Ok here it is test run in U2 … since it is most “stable” for now.
It is acmi7 file … see 2nd half.No chance to test your idea @white_fang - the file isn’t available anymore.
-
[4.37.3] Campaign Files - Brigade Link Issue
Hello,
Currently, we are flying a campaign with several pilots where we are heavily influencing the ground conflict and giving manual orders to several ground units. There were some CTDs and we assume to isolate the cause around Supply Battalions. When we looked into the data, we could see that there were missing links to Brigades in the area of Supply and some Air Defense Battalions: (marked orange)
Here the view on a single battalion:
Therefore, I have now revised all campaign files and corrected the missing Links and Unit Flags. As you can see, all entries in Mission Commander (Version 0.5.29.763) are displayed correctly again. The CTDs have not reappeared until now and our first tests have shown that the modified Brigades and Battalions still behave correctly:
Note
No units were added or deleted.
This is not an official patch from the BMS team.
Thanks to Falcas for Mission Commander - still a great tool.ZIP Archive includes original files (“Backup”) and the new ones (“save.cam - Brigade Link Correction”) .
Feel free to use.
Cheers,
Nick -
RE: AI TASMO Capability
@spotdott said in AI TASMO Capability:
@Nick-Taylor the weapons our grandparents came up with are the stuff of nightmares
You are right … sad but true.
Compared to Falcon Allied Force (/meruns), the BMS engine is (currently) not capable of simulating very long-range missiles. Here is an example:
In Allied Force the AI can shoot an AIM-154 Phoenix from far far away out of the aggregated area (2D). The missile then is continuously calculated and suddenly pops up in the deaggrigated world (3D). The F-16 pilot has only a few seconds to react as soon as the active <M> appears on the RWR. Up to this point, except for the jammer symbol on the FCR, he had no indication of what was coming.
In BMS the range is much shorter, because of the different approach.
Download .tac .acmi .png for AF and BMS
BMS Mission Planning
AF Mission Planning
BMS Radar 160 nm
AF Radar 160 nm
BMS Radar 80 nm (radar contact)
AF Radar 80 nm (active M)
BMS Radar 40 nm (active M)
AF Radar 40 nm (Target already destroyed)
BMS ACMI (Missile launch at 56 nm)
AF ACMI (Missile launch >88 nm)
That would be a gamechanger if we had something similar in BMS.
-
RE: AI TASMO Capability
@white_fang Not a good idea to use other missile data and then edit it. Better create a new separate configuration.
-
Tactical Reference - Fuel Tanks need some love
Here is an update for the Tactical Reference with pictures for all fuel tanks:
Version
4.37.3The ZIP archive contains:
- TacRefDB.xml (…\Data\TerrData)
- TGA image files (…\Data\Art\TacRData)
Fuel tanks are beautiful!
-
RE: AI TASMO Capability
@VDK said in AI TASMO Capability:
@Nick-Taylor nice job! I was wondering the same question 1h ago!
Thanks!
Thank you very much!
The current weapon AS-20 “Kayak” Missile Data is very similiar to that of the AGM-84 “Harpoon”:
The AS-4 “Kitchen”however has a quite different attack profile:
-
AI TASMO Capability
AI TASMO Capability
Version
4.37.3 (x64)Build
1329Detailed Description
The Kh-22 (AS-4 “Kitchen”) is a Russian built long-range anti-ship missile with a range of about 320 nm. This large missiles is used on the Тu-22 and Tu-95 strategic bombers. However, in BMS, only the TU-22 can be selected from these two for TASMO missions. Then the AS-4 is used as the standard weapon for such task. Here, the AI bombers are not able to deploy this weapon at long range and they are shot down by the ship’s defenses beforehand.Pictures
Example files
4373-BUG-AI TASMO CapabilityCrash logs
noneReproducibility Procedure
- Load 4373-BUG-AI TASMO Capability.tac
- Take #1 seat of CYBORG5
- Commit to 3D
- Set Autopilot
- Switch view to TU-22 (6)
- Accelerate time to your own choice (max. x8 recommended)
- Observe the behavior of the bombers
Expected Behavior
The bombers should be able to fire the long-range anti-ship missiles from a safe distance without too much risk of being shot down themselves.Possible Root Cause
The Kh-22 (AS-4 “Kitchen”) in BMS reads SimWeapon Data “38) G-M82” - which probably does not correspond to an anti-ship missile.
Changing this to that of the Kh-35 (AS-20 “Kayak”) (Range = 160 nm) to “211) AS20” the weapon deployment works as expected.
-
AI Wingmen Blast Avoidance
Version
4.37.3 (x64)Build
1329Detailed Description
The AI wingmen do not drop efficent number of bombs on target and do not avoid own bomb blast properly.
This behavior does not change with the AI skill level.Pictures
Example files
4373-BUG-AI Blast Avoidance.tacCrash logs
noneReproducibility Procedure
- Load 4373-BUG-AI Blast Avoidance.tac
- Take #1 seat of HAMMER7
- Commit to 3D
- Freeze Sim (Shift+P)
- Set VHF 15
- Set Autopilot
- Set AG TGP
- Cursor Zero (CZ)
- Lock TGP cursor on smalest building at Army Base (see picture)
- Unfreeze Sim
- Command wingman “Attack My Target” (W 1)
- Switch to HAMMER7-2 outside view (8") and observe the behavior
Expected Behavior
Aside from flying the approach behavior, the AI wingman should only throw 2 of 6 MK-82s on target and pull up in time to avoid being hit by the blast himself.The nice option in U3 where you can command the AI wingman to execute a “Dive Bomb” prevents losing the jet in this case. However, it should be possible for the AI to use weapons and dodge blast shrapnel intelligently.
-
RE: Tupolev Tu-95MS
Great! Thank you, my friend.
Bringing people together, especially in such dark days, is a great motivation for me, especially when such results come out of it.
I’m very rarely on Teamspeak anymore. Will check in from time to time. Hope to see you soon, mate.
Cheers,
Nick -
RE: Two Questions. Re Changing enemy AI competency level and Threat circles on HSD
Open the TE in edit mode
Click TEAMS from the left top menu
Select the flag of the side you want to change - you can change pilot and SAM/AAA settings.
Resave the TE and you should be good to go.Duke
72nd VFWThis would not change anything, because AFAIK the skill level is saved for each flight to the TE file.