Yes.
Coupled with advances in ECCM(which I don’t think BMS really simulates), low level has no real benefits over standoff.
Yes.
Coupled with advances in ECCM(which I don’t think BMS really simulates), low level has no real benefits over standoff.
are bubble sizes at all software or even engine moddable?
ie can we hope to ever see increased bubble sizes?
Comparing to RL the flare resistance of advanced IR missiles are way, way over modeled. Old test with 4.32 but all Falcon are the same in this topic…
In RL targets what used fterburner could defeat AIM-9s during ODS many times only with half or a dozen of flares. In Falcon from about ~20 tests above with no AB and 100+ flares your chance to success is close to 0. When I recoreded this video I gave up after 20 attempts to record a single missile defeat…
Modeling values what I used in my Korea '80s MOD. You can change values
http://www.mediafire.com/file/m7ijba4ewiu033z/Modeling_values-BMS4.xlsAbout seekers.
http://www.mediafire.com/file/nq6i1ja0ds9gqi4/Histoy_of_the_Electro-Optical_Guided_Missiles.pdf
you have to notch, over even completely go nose on to hide your exhaust, while flaring.
in the video you posted, your tail is always visible to the missile.
God this is depressing, they got rid of F-16’s at Hill AFB by where I live and swapped over to the 35 (except maintenence on ejection seats etc will still come here). Makes me sick and sad… such a POS waste of money. Lord help any pilot in one unlucky enough to be seen. Like clubbing seals. The idea of replacing the Viper with something that does nothing that great is retarded, advances in radar could easily neutralize the only plus this plane has, if it hasn’t happened already. This is the Military Industrial Complex milking us like a cow.
they were saying the same thing when the F16 came out (that matters)
the f35 does EVERYTHING better than the f16.
more ords,more range,more upgrade-able etc. etc.
First you must distinguish between the different type of Jamming Action, not the Jammer its self because focusing on the hardware isn’t actually what explains how that works. there is different type of Jamming :
- Communications Jamming
- Radar Jamming
- Standoff Jamming
- Self-protection jamming
- Cover jamming
- Barrage jamming
- Spot Jamming
-Swept Spot Jamming- Deceptive Jamming
etc…
The Jamming Concept is always jam the receiver not the transmitter, it involves placing a signal into the receiver that interfers with the recption or processing of the desired signal, the confusion of jamming the transmitter comes from the fact that a monostatic radar has its transmitter and receiver in the same place.
Now its classified by “Type of Threat Signal”, “Jamming Geometry”, “Jamming Technique”.
- Communications Jamming is measured by the so called “Jamming-to-Signal Ratio J/S” each signal propagates from its transmitter to the receiver, the comparaison of the received power of the jamm signal divided by the receieved power of the desired signal is the J/S, the higher the J/S the more effective the jamm is .
-Radar Jamming there is much more complicating facts but lets make it brief , radar jamming is a function of the fourth power of the distance to the target divided by the square of the distance to the jammer, its also a function of the radiated jammer power to the radiated radar power and the ratio of the radar side lobe power to main beam power and the final factor is the RCS of the target, the smaller the RCS the larger the J/S.
Now Standoff Jamming and i know this is becoming too long but that’s simply how it is to reach Deceptive/Repeater Jamming at the end , so Standoff Jamming is the protection of an aircraft inside the lethal range of an enemy weapon by a jamming aircraft that is outside the lethal range of that weapon EA-6B for ex , Standoff jamming aircraft are larger and carry large jammers with high radiated jamming power , they must have extra jam power to overcome the square of the distance. but also the Home-On jam modes are a significant threat to standoff jammers within weapon lethal range, when the aircraft gets close enough to the radar the radar can acquire a track and the radar is said to burn though the jamming as we call it in BMS, a standoff jammer can prevent a radar from locking a friendly aircraft but does not have enough power to break lock of a radar the is already tracking a friendly aircraft.
now i will jump directly to Deceptive Jamming since this can take hundreds of pages because its a highly complicated subject , for Deceptive/Repeater Jamming , Tracking a target means that the radar has a set of range and angle values that’s allows it to predict a target future position with that said a deceptive jammer causes a radar processor to believe that a target is somewhere else, it thereby breaks the tracking lock of the radar by pulling the radar off in range or angle, deceptive jam requires precise knowledge of the parameters of the radar signal arriving at the target and is normally only applicable for self-protection jamming, there is at least 10 types of Deceptive Jamming :
1/ Range gate pull-off
2/ Inbound Range pull-off
3/ Cover Pulses
4/ Inverse Gain
5/ AGC Jamming
6/ Formation Jamming
7/ Blinking
8/ Cross-Polarization
8/ Cross-Eye
10/ Terrain Bounceyou can read about these types in details in Electronic Warfare Books but be ready for a lot of nerdy Maths and Physical Properties that you need to have as basics , i will talk briefly just about
1/ Range Gate pull-off : the deceptive jammer transmits a stronger pulse synced with the pulse it receives from the radar, then the jammer delays its pulse gradually increasing the amount of delay which makes the radar to lose lock on target.
I hope this gives you an idea about Jamming in general, however its a complicated subject and i highly recommend anyone who wants to know the real facts and how this stuff works to read books about it its the only way you’ll get the right information, because even in the internet a lot of stuff is WRONG !! Happy Jamming and sorry for the long blabla of mine just trying to give as much info as i can.
just next time add some space between paragraphs lol
Good Day, All,
This is perhaps a question for a Dev, but I’m wondering about a particular personal procedure of mine . That procedure is to use a "half maximum range release rule"for whatever munition I’m carrying. The question is, does that raise the Probability of Kill in BMS or am I just putting myself at higher risk?
I’ve read that with Maverick this is true, how about other ordinance?
depends if its against the braindead AI, then yeah half the max range, but if its against players (rare for BMS), then you should put them on the defensive as soon as possible.
It is that fast. Actively scanned arrays (The only kind which can do simultaneous AA/AG) form multiple beams independent of each other. Where one looks has no bearing whatsoever on any of the other beams. Meaning it can simultaneously view the entire FOV of the dish. While several beams are tracking, several other elements continue to scan as fast as the dedicated radar processor can shift the phases to steer the beams. The fact that it takes 2 seconds for the FCR display to update simulates the effect of the beam steering process in a “scanning” mode, which takes far less than 2 seconds. If it were not more effective and more efficient than a typical Passive array, it would not be worth the extremely high cost to upgrade nearly every aircraft in the world to an AESA. Which implies the dish can perform the full gambit scan in less than 2 seconds. It takes microseconds to form a beam, and having multiple elements means you can transmit with one and immediately move on to the next beam phase, while concurrently tuning a different element to listen for the return. Granted, there are some dishes more effective than others, due to an increased number of elements. But the fact remains, you can simulate the effects of the technology under the current system, which was the original question.
it does so in range “layers” as individual transmitters alone can project little power, but together can project much more.
at the long ranges, all of the transmitters would be used to project all of the power of the radar, but at shorter ranges the transmitters can divide up the FOV to track and aquire targets.
it still does take time though.
the biggest advantages are for ground mapping, where the transmitters can scan the ground concurrently.
Perhaps you should read the thread again, because I’m not the one who’s been calling people ignorant or incompetent. That would be you. So before you get too defensive, maybe you could clarify what it is we’re actually trying to prove? It started as whether or not you could simulate the effects of an ESA radar, given the major defining characteristics of an ESA radar are
1. Greater resistance to jamming - Check
2. Ability to track multiple targets across the entire FOV of the radar, including high and low altitudes simultaneously - Check
3. Greater resistance to Look Down Clutter - Check
4. Decreased time between track updates - CheckThen it moved on to whether or not I’m an idiot, or as you put it something about knowing anything at all about any of the code or database. Still open to debate, but as of yet nothing I’ve said has been incorrect, and I provided the proof of what I claimed.
Then it moved on to I’m a bigger idiot because I thought any of the values in the RCD file had any effect on the 3d pit at all. See answer above.
Then it moved on to only being one of the values having any effect, I think…maybe? Is that where we are now? I’m really not sure how to refute your arguments because you keep changing your tune so I’m not sure what we’re actually discussing anymore. So let’s start with what the actual question is you’re trying to answer, and go from there.
question what are the specific limits to the player pit visualization with regards to slew rate, and FOV?
I personally would like any sort of documentation on what individual values so we don’t have this he said she said bull. its anti-productive.
what is the formula the game uses to detect targets?
be as specific as possible.
depends on your definition of success. money has been thrown at them at an unprecedented rate… and it’s 4 years overdue with very little to show. by my definition, that’s a monumental failure.
though it will be interesting if whenever they finish they lease out that engine.
Have you ever considered some potential/possible other internal limitations/constrains? … Many ppl seems too often think it is just a matter of figures in a database …
Why do you think we can’t have SA-20 with much more 50Nm range? …One more discussion for nothing.
Cheers. Will enjoy a sunny day today.
What are the biggest limitations for the engine?
well at the very least does the BMS team accept donations?
maybe a feature poll, get the community more involved etc. etc.
We cannot afford that. Period. The BMS community as a whole is very small. Even if there were 100,000 people who would pay serious money for BMS “5.0”, that would be nothing compared to the actual development cost of a commercial “next level Falcon 4.0” simulator. Developing complex combat flight simulators is not a profitable enterprise. It ruined Spectrum Holobyte and then MicroProse. It’s not sustainable.
who says that it would be “just” the bms community, star citizen made $150,000,000 from crowd funding alone. I’d wager that even a fraction of that would be enough to make multiple high-fidelity planes.
You are totally wrong
First facts : BMS is unsurpassed in many domains , even by so called “pro companies” like DCS
Second fact: if you want BMS team to make BMS for a living , no way you would have enough money to pay the entire BMS crew . Especially considering the very high level of expertise of some of of us
In BMS :" on code pas avec le cul" and that makes a difference
With the various crowd funding tools available, money can be found if the product has a fan-base, a couple posts in the right place on reddit. coupled with the fact that flight sims in general have some heavy whales (big spenders), the idea of a “falcon 5” will have them throwing money at you.
give the F16 free, then charge for other planes.
if your curious just throw a post up on the flightsims reddit and see the flood of responses you will get begging you.
Glad we don’t have ppl speaking about “money” in the team and happy that it will remains our “hobby”.
The problem is that while BMS is an awesome mod to the original falcon 4, the game as a whole is limited by the decisions made in the original game and also by the attention that can be given to it because it is only a “hobby”. I am wondering if we raised enough money so that you could make a living, you could create a full-fledged game that could take falcon 4, or even BMS to the next level with regards to the limitations of modern day tech.
essentially i am asking to make this “hobby” your job.
DCS is an ok game, but the company that makes it is limited in what they can do, both in willingness, ability/talent, and where they are located.
How much would it take for you to make the definitive DCS + actual game (persistent dynamic campaign (war)) ie “Falcon 5”.
like im asking you to start a patreon or that star citizen thing with a price, so we can raise funds to get you guys working in your own studio making a full game.
DCS is basically dead in the water, all they can produce are US planes and I have no doubts you could pull the studios making their planes away from them. they also haven’t innovated at all in the 20 years since falcon 4.
and you know moddable
and open source (only if you want).
PLEASE RESPOND.
why not just rename the hornet into the superhornet lol
How awesome would it be if this game had a “Persistent Dynamic Campaign”?
and how could we get the devs to implement this (currently in early access)?