Falcon BMS Forum
    • Register
    • Login
    • Search
    • Categories
    • Unread
    • Recent
    • Unsolved
    • Popular
    • Website
    • Wiki
    1. Home
    2. Osprey
    • Profile
    • Following 1
    • Followers 2
    • Topics 3
    • Posts 17
    • Best 7
    • Controversial 0
    • Groups 0

    Osprey

    @Osprey

    20
    Reputation
    12
    Profile views
    17
    Posts
    2
    Followers
    1
    Following
    Joined Last Online

    Osprey Unfollow Follow

    Best posts made by Osprey

    • RE: AIM 120

      @Bloodhound161

      We have done very intensive AIM-120C5 testing within our squadron too the moment 4.36 was released to review our usual BVR timeline & MAR numbers.
      Interestingly, during our live firing tests, we have very similar encounters. I would say most of the time the missile works well. But there are a few surprising discoveries that we are still closely monitoring and need more data as proof as it behaves very differently vs 4.35

      1. Missile goes pitbull - target maneuver - regardless of launcher snips or not, at times the missile would lose track of target and acts like a cheapshot

      2. Missile goes cheapshot due to launcher snips well before husky - target does not maneuver & without ECM - at times the missile would surprisingly keep effectively tracking the target

      3. Target fox3 hot aspect at you while you fly a crank / flank aspect toward the target, regardless of entering MAR or not, the moment you get a “M spike” on RWR, just execute notch maneuver, survival chance is very high, i would say 80%+. This makes respecting MAR & Out maneuver no longer that important. In 4.35 if you entered MAR even if you notched, the chances of being killed was very high & respecting MAR & Out was very important.

      These tests were done mostly in the range of 18-30nm and showed a much lower pK of AIM-120C5 vs. 4.35

      From one perspective i kind of believe it may be more realistic because the pK of long range BVR missile shot may not be that high actually in real world (?) and there’s no any public document / data proofing that real life long range BVR shot has high pK anyway. Whether the pK would increase significantly in the range of 5-18nm & maybe having a more reliable pitbull / husky tracking are something we would explore more with more tests.

      From another perspective, the notch maneuver has surprisingly high survival rate make me feel a bit unrealistic. But again our test was done at the range of 18nm+ and i google a lot & could not really find any real life data supporting that AIM-120C should have a decent high pK at medium to long range. Maybe at the end of the day it’s really about “probability”. Nothing wrong about the Notch maneuver but just give you a lower survival chance vs Out maneuver. In real world it’s real life so would mostly go for a safer option vs. in game we could accept higher risk so we dare to notch & take the chance.

      And in real life maybe there’s always defect in production. Maybe some of the AIM-120C5 stock age is too old or maybe some defect resulting in even pitbull but still lose track on the target - who knows

      Anyway it’s interesting to have these discoveries to compare vs. 4.35

      posted in Technical Support (BMS Only)
      Osprey
      Osprey
    • Damage model idea

      Hi community

      Since 4.34, missile damage model were improved that it’s no longer just hit or miss but rather depends on proximity / trajectory / explosion timing etc which are awesome.

      I presume in real life during BFM, especially when it comes to gun kill, it is very important to maintain safety distance in order not to suck in the debris which would pose safety concern. This is where reposition is emphasized. Since this is not modelled, it does not matter to fly through the explosion because damage caused by debris is not modelled.

      During AG bombing run, especially when it comes to more than 2 ships bombing, it is also very important to respect fragmentation envelopes because sucking in debris is a serious threat to aircraft safety.

      Just an idea and proposal, not sure if there’s anyway or possibility to introduce damage model to flying through exploded aircraft & not respecting fragmentation envelopes which result in sucking in debris and cause certain % of damage based on different timing / proximity / trajectory etc…

      Know it is definitely not easy to implement this from a coding point of view, but just thinking these could be another great as real as it gets feature. The missile damage model wasn’t easy either, but it’s now realistic which is awesome.

      posted in General Discussion
      Osprey
      Osprey
    • RE: Taiwan Theater 4.36

      @LMR-74 There’s quite some details that i’d like to optimize so please allow me some time for the hard work.

      posted in Taiwan
      Osprey
      Osprey
    • RE: AIM 120

      @Mav-jp Thanks for the clarification. This makes sense. Looking very forward to having both of the glitches optimized & fixed. I would say the missile performance would be perfect & very realistic if MAR & OUT maneuver could be respected and that NOTCH maneuver within MAR would still mean having high chance of being killed.

      posted in Technical Support (BMS Only)
      Osprey
      Osprey
    • RE: Taiwan Theater 4.36

      @Micro_440th Thanks! It’s time to contribute to the community after enjoying the flying so much & let’s all make this sim the best 💪🏻

      posted in Taiwan
      Osprey
      Osprey
    • RE: Weather discrepacy between server host & clients

      @LorikEolmin I see. Thanks for the clarification. I experienced same problem before in 4.35 with map model. Since 4.36 implements new fog layer, i have not tried customize map model from F4Wx yet as not sure if they are compatible. Will give it a try and see how it goes in 4.36

      posted in Technical Support (BMS Only)
      Osprey
      Osprey
    • RE: AIM 120

      @Seifer What? Are you saying the AIM-120 guidance issue won’t be fixed yet with U1? Can’t wait for this issue being fixed as it literally put most of our proper BVR training on pause. Issue of RWR won’t spike at 32nm+ hopefully will be fixed too with U1. I can wait longer for the release of U1 but please don’t release U1 with these issues unfixed. 🤒

      posted in Technical Support (BMS Only)
      Osprey
      Osprey

    Latest posts made by Osprey

    • RE: Will this be possible Map in Taiwan Theater 4.37 ?

      @LMR-74 I guess this map isn’t Taiwan theater. It is the entire pacific theater already. It is a very big map and no longer Taiwan theater that is out of our zone.

      posted in Taiwan
      Osprey
      Osprey
    • RE: AIM 120

      @Seifer What? Are you saying the AIM-120 guidance issue won’t be fixed yet with U1? Can’t wait for this issue being fixed as it literally put most of our proper BVR training on pause. Issue of RWR won’t spike at 32nm+ hopefully will be fixed too with U1. I can wait longer for the release of U1 but please don’t release U1 with these issues unfixed. 🤒

      posted in Technical Support (BMS Only)
      Osprey
      Osprey
    • RE: Taiwan Theater 4.36

      @Micro_440th Thanks! It’s time to contribute to the community after enjoying the flying so much & let’s all make this sim the best 💪🏻

      posted in Taiwan
      Osprey
      Osprey
    • RE: Taiwan Theater 4.36

      @LMR-74 There’s quite some details that i’d like to optimize so please allow me some time for the hard work.

      posted in Taiwan
      Osprey
      Osprey
    • Damage model idea

      Hi community

      Since 4.34, missile damage model were improved that it’s no longer just hit or miss but rather depends on proximity / trajectory / explosion timing etc which are awesome.

      I presume in real life during BFM, especially when it comes to gun kill, it is very important to maintain safety distance in order not to suck in the debris which would pose safety concern. This is where reposition is emphasized. Since this is not modelled, it does not matter to fly through the explosion because damage caused by debris is not modelled.

      During AG bombing run, especially when it comes to more than 2 ships bombing, it is also very important to respect fragmentation envelopes because sucking in debris is a serious threat to aircraft safety.

      Just an idea and proposal, not sure if there’s anyway or possibility to introduce damage model to flying through exploded aircraft & not respecting fragmentation envelopes which result in sucking in debris and cause certain % of damage based on different timing / proximity / trajectory etc…

      Know it is definitely not easy to implement this from a coding point of view, but just thinking these could be another great as real as it gets feature. The missile damage model wasn’t easy either, but it’s now realistic which is awesome.

      posted in General Discussion
      Osprey
      Osprey
    • RE: ATIS always "Visual"

      @Micro_440th Thank you Micro for checking. Your description is exactly what i’m referring to.

      posted in Technical Support (BMS Only)
      Osprey
      Osprey
    • RE: ATIS always "Visual"

      @Mav-jp Where can i find “IMC condition in the chart IIRC”?

      posted in Technical Support (BMS Only)
      Osprey
      Osprey
    • RE: ATIS always "Visual"

      @Mav-jp Thanks for your reply. I am fully aware of minima. I think you misunderstand my question. My question is for example, weather at Gunsan is cloud at 1000ft, visibility 1km, this is absolutely IMC condition and must fly IFR because you won’t see anything. However, if you switch to ATIS, the ATIS will tell you it’s “visual” condition and not instrument condition which is not in line with the actual condition. But, without a doubt a visibility of 1km is still above minima on the chart, which is 800m visibility. But above minima condition does not mean it’s “visual” condition. It is IMC and shall be instrument

      posted in Technical Support (BMS Only)
      Osprey
      Osprey
    • ATIS always "Visual"

      Hi community

      I’ve been doing some IMC / IFR training.
      I’ve noticed that no matter how terrible the weather is, the ATIS has been always under “visual” and not “instrument”.
      Is this a bug or what is the criteria to get ATIS to switch to “instrument” when the weather condition is in fact IMC

      posted in Technical Support (BMS Only)
      Osprey
      Osprey
    • RE: Weather discrepacy between server host & clients

      @LorikEolmin I see. Thanks for the clarification. I experienced same problem before in 4.35 with map model. Since 4.36 implements new fog layer, i have not tried customize map model from F4Wx yet as not sure if they are compatible. Will give it a try and see how it goes in 4.36

      posted in Technical Support (BMS Only)
      Osprey
      Osprey