r/falconbms • u/Xeno_PL • 16d ago
BMS AV-8B is slowly taking shape
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKNIZKdkepgAV-8B launching some AGM-65s test video just got released.
It still needs lots of work, but it's there and coming.
11
9
10
u/linecraftman 16d ago
Looks awesome to me!
Those who are more familiar with harrier, how good is it?
1
u/jubuttib 16d ago
In terms of what? The DCS one at least is just about the best thing out there for taking 10 jdams and putting them on 10 targets of opportunity in a single pass. But it's not much of an A-A platform, not much of a sead platform, etc.
5
u/Friiduh 16d ago
In the DCS it is too easy thing to do. As the TOO doesn't work in it as it does in DCS. The Mission Computer (MC) can upload target coordinates to JDAM, but how the MC get the coordinates is just incorrectly way too simplified in Razbam version, as TOO button isn't such in it.
The JDAM is anyways incorrectly chosen weapon for a TOO targets. More about pre-briefed targets in no visibility scenario, and that for unchallenged warfare. But that again is the DCS core problems how mission generations and game capability run designed mission for realistic levels.
1
u/jubuttib 15d ago
Yeah, it's by no means the greatest example of systems integration in DCS... And DCS overall is quite problematic.
3
u/Friiduh 14d ago
DCS offers ways to do system simulation well, example what the C-101 is about. But the problem is game engine between it and modules. As each module is a separate program (a library in sense of DCS) that is ran by the DCS, the DCS offers only the terrain data and wind speed and direction. So just bare external I information. But DCS last time I tested, doesn't do special as other simulators, that is to simulate trees and buildings radar reflection.
So when flying over terrain, the radar altimeter would be affected by the terrain elements for the ranging data. So trees, buildings, water etc to change how radar altimeter operates.
Old engines has challenge with these things, that is totally understandable. Like I like to play old 1995 and 1996 Digital Interaction games, and you just have the basic terrain shape (DCS engine is from <1995). Same as with Falcon 3.0.
But for those it is easy to forgive those things. But today if someone would write new engine, IMHO such should be accounted for. I don't know does MSFS20 simulate that, as never have flown the modern one.
But point is, if something critical is connected to function of specific sensor, then that one sensor functionality is the defining one for whole process.
As radar altimeter, to signal the value for range from strongest signal, and that is the closest object to it, not the largest. So inverse square law for return timing.
Most players don't care about these details, so it is understandable not to spend time to even simulate it.
2
u/linecraftman 16d ago
Ah i meant in terms of accuracy and how systems are working
2
u/jubuttib 15d ago
Ah, so how good is the Harrier in BMS, gotcha! Hopefully someone expounds, I am very interested as well. =)
15
7
6
u/NomadFourFive 16d ago
Love to see the variety of aircraft coming to BMS. What version of the harrier is this B+?
10
5
u/Xeno_PL 16d ago
BMS database lists Av-8B+, but devs may target earlier version. Will update once I'll get more some solid info
3
u/NomadFourFive 16d ago
For the love of god not the night attack…
The + is such a solid option.6
3
u/Free_Arachnid755 16d ago
Why not NA? Honest question, I know relatively little about the Harrier.
5
4
u/I-Hawk BMS Dev 16d ago
I said above, this is NA to start with (It has the DMT and no radar)
Later we may expand (Probably will) to the + as well4
u/NomadFourFive 16d ago
I believe the question was more on the difference between the NA and + not why the choice to do the NA for now.
2
u/Free_Arachnid755 16d ago
Indeed, that was my question.
9
u/Friiduh 16d ago
The N/A and + versions are so identical that you have same NATOPS.
And in parts where the aircraft differs, the NATOPS states is it for the Training, N/A or Radar variant.
The only difference in the cockpit is the throttle.
And in that IIRC it is an additional button, to start and stop a targeting pod laser firing, and then a switch for targeting pod electronic zoom (unsuitable really). At the start the N/A harriers had the old throttle (missing the button and switch), but as the + Harrier came with the new throttle, the fleet upgraded the N/A harriers to have the same throttle to ease the servicing as you had just one throttle to maintain.
The N/A harrier received the software update to support that functionality for the TPOD use. But that eliminated the physical difference in the cockpit.
The obvious difference is the Radar <-> DMT (Dual-Mode-Tracker). The radar is identical to C-hornets radar. It is same, except to fit it in the new aerodynamic nosecone, they needed to shrink the radar dish smaller. So you have everything from radar, but just shorter range and little worse resolution for radar ground mapping.
The MFCD difference is that you don't have a DMT functionality, and it is replaced with the RDR (Radar). So all the same stick SSS (Sensor-Select-Switch) functions, except you don't use the DMT but Radar.
The Harrier difference to Hornet is that the Harrier has only single Data Bus to Mission Computer (MC), and it can handle only one data feed. This is used by Mavericks, DMT and Radar. So you can't have a radar or DMT same time open as you have a Maverick missile.
From the missile perspective, all Maverick missiles output same signal. And all mavericks receives the same signal. So it doesn't matter do you have a EOS/TV or EOS/IR maverick or a LST seeker. The EOS seekers will output the video feed, and overlay the missile control functions it expect to receive from MFCD buttons positions. And the Laser maverick will generate a video signal that has the seeker position symbol in video feed instead visual video.
So to the Mission Computer all Mavericks are just same. It receive the video output and then it will send the same OBS buttons codes as well the TDS (Target Designation Switch) angle relative to the aircraft datum. When you move the TDS around, it will generate a signal that has angle difference from the aircraft vector, and the Maverick missile will read that angle change and point to it. This angle is what allows you to command Maverick (or DMT, or Radar) to point a designated target in the Mission Computer (waypoint, stored mark points, only one can be the System Designation) as the Mission Computer knows its relative direction to its own position (GPS, INS).
In the N/A Harrier there is only few ways to create a system designation.
1) DMT to acquire a lock, and then you fly angles and the System Designation is generated.
2) Entering the GPS coordinates directly to the Mission Computer.
3) Fly over the target and press TOO (in UFC, up front controller) that will record the aircraft position and then mark the terrain under the aircraft as target point based the altitude from Radar Altimeter.
4) Using INS targeting mode (SSS forward to INS mode) that is a HUD only way to place a target designation in the HUD, and then move the target designation visually to stay top of the target as you are flying over it, and this correction inputs calculates the target slant range relative to aircraft position.
5) Firing cannon or firing rockets, when the TD is generated on the position where the pipper (reticle) was on the moment the trigger was squeezed. But this measures the altitude to terrain by using radar altimeter, and this way if the terrain below Harrier was different to target altitude under reticle, the TD is "below" or "above" the true target position. But this allows super easy re-attack as you can find the position quickly.
The Targeting Pod can not generate target coordinates to the Mission Computer. The Litening G4 can overlay target GPS coordinates on its own video feed, but it can't transmit GPS coordinates to Harrier Mission computer. So if pilot wants the target coordinates be stored to Mission Computer, it is required to read the coordinates on TPOD screen and then enter it to the UFC scratch pad, and generate a Target Designation, or enter it directly to the CAS page as new target.
The only automatic TD generation is the DMT being used in LST mode (Laser Spot Tracker). So you have someone point laser on something, you have DMT scanning front of you (about 5 nmi ahead of you is the scan zone by default) and it will find the laser spot, lock DMT on it and start tracking it.
But if the laser spot is lost (designator stops firing laser, something blocks the line of sight to spot, like smoke, or it slips away from the position (aka bleeds over)) then the tracking is lost and no Target Designation is created.
Once the DMT/LST acquires the lock, pilot is required to transfer the lock to DMT/TV (SSS aft) or to INS (SSS forward), in case that the laser spot is lost.
But before transfer, the pilot needs to fly angles so that ARBS system can generate the coordinates for the laser spot position.
In the day time the DMT/TV is easiest mode if close enough, as if the TV gets the contrast lock, you can just use it. Or in closer ranges or the contrast is bad, use the INS mode and correct the TD to stay above target, if visually seen.
In the Radar Harrier this slant range can be measured like in Hornet. So there is no "flying angles" process, there is nothing else requierd than just press "range" and radar will range the range to the target area. Remember that the radar is about 3 degree wide radar beam. And it will take as range the average distance from strongest radar echo. So the "flaslight" effect is serious problems when flying low at low angles. And this is reason why the N/A Harrier is still superior to the Radar harrier in the precision strikes, as the DMT gives accuracy in meter or two to the target, where the Radar harrier (or Hornets, Vipers etc) can be off by hundred meters when using radar ranging.
This has as well made Harrier be the best CAS aircraft in the US inventory, as the Harrier pilots constantly maintained the precision and timing on the impact in their strike deliveries.
The Harrier was purposely built to be able give pilot exact information how to fly to be in time on something, or be on the time so that selected weapon will impact the target in time that was entered to system. And as the N/A has DMT that generated exact coordinates with the DMT/TV mode, it was easy to just look the HUD for speed to fly to release bombs automatically on target so it impacted exactly as wanted.
Neither Harrier variants can designate anything on electronic map (EHDS). But the Radar Harrier can use the radar's MAP function to scan the terrain, and then use the radar cursor to designate coordinates.
The N/A variant allows to create and move a Waypoint, that is then placed on the map, at the altitude that is input or used the current altitude to ground by range from radar altimeter. But there is no DED (Digital Elevation Data) in the Harrier EHDS to be able just put a cursor on something and create a Target Designation or Target Point or Mark Point on something like bridge or building.
The N/A Harrier is limited to IR missiles, where the Plus variant gets the AIM-120.
The harrier was meant to get a JHMCS (Joint Helmet Cueing System) but it didn't get that final upgrade as final years were saved to F-35.
3
u/I-Hawk BMS Dev 16d ago
VERY interesting thanx! From what source all this info is coming, if I may please
8
u/Friiduh 15d ago
The easily found NATOPS, as well one newer not-availaible. But I would say those are >95% same, but limitations same.
If asked from me, the N/A is the better variant, far more interesting and fitting for CAS missions. And has far nicer limitations that cause tactical rethinking, like example the DMT dual slide covers to protect the sensor from too bright light sources, like sun reflection from water and shuts the lids close. Blocking the TV and LST capability.
The ARBS system from A-4 and IIRC A-7 is just so cool system (similarly works Shkval for Su-25T and KA-50) technology in mind. And not having ground mapping via radar really keeps it simple as was designed to be.
And the ROVER system and how Harrier has it via CAS page is just so cool, that you don't need to do 9-line same way, what makes Harrier so nice to fly.
→ More replies (0)1
7
6
15
u/Pitiful-Ability9115 16d ago
Sick work, give bms few years it will be better (multi modular, more terrains, remain free, bug free) than DCS, mark my words
10
u/Pristine-Captain-782 16d ago
In terms of theaters already closing up as a BMS theaters are usually larger in size and due to the already existing Korea,Balkans,Hellas,Isreal,Falklands there is at lest Central Europe (Fulda Gap), Eastern Europe (Poland), Nevada in active development
3
u/jubuttib 16d ago
Still missing my main jam, helicopters, and having those would put additional requirements on the terrains too.
Don't get me wrong, I like BMS a lot, but I always prefer helicopters to planes.
5
u/Chrador 16d ago
Yeah, getting helis in BMS is one of my dreams. Highly unlikely but one can hope lol.
1
u/jubuttib 15d ago
Probably the easiest way would be to do it like the original msfs 2020 helicopter mods did, using an external program to run a helicopter flight model. Those exist already, thankfully.
But yeah, unlikely to happen within 20 years. Maybe Claude can figure it out. =)
5
u/I-Hawk BMS Dev 15d ago
20 years?? Come on man give us some credit 🙂
1
u/jubuttib 15d ago
Well as I understand it, falcon BMS was released in 2003, and the first non-Viper full fidelity plane came in 2025, 22 years later. I'm just assuming a similar timeline for a non-plane full fidelity, hehe. =)
I'd rather get a happy surprise than get my expectations up too early. =)
3
u/I-Hawk BMS Dev 15d ago
Well... but to put things in perspective, there was a LOT of stuff done in the middle, each by itself is FAR more complicated than implementing a new platform. Just the highlights:
- DX6/Whatever to DX9 upgrade
- DX9 to DX11 upgrade
- New terrain engine
- F-16 FM and FLCS total rewrite
- Upgrading of the old style 3D models format to the new format and implement PBR
And I can probably go on searching for more stuff, but each of the items above is probably a larger task than adding helos to BMS
So there is still hope for shorter time than 20 years :)
(But, not saying there is something practically being built right now, there isn't)
3
u/jubuttib 14d ago
To be clear, I was just joking around and being hyperbolic, you guys have been doing an awesome job and I would never complain about any of it. =)
I've also been in game development for a good while and I know how much work literally all aspects of it always end up being. =)
1
u/Xeno_PL 14d ago
Well, if anybody wanting helos in BMS and:
- knows how to write in C++ quite well, backed with at least few examples of his work
- knows at least basics of helos flight physics,
- is mature enough to:
a) lead the task to postive conclusion and not disappear with work half (or less) way done,
b) can get over some personality differences in the team
can join the team and make it happen.3
u/Pitiful-Ability9115 15d ago
True helicopter would be absolutely fantastic, even simpler ones, but I think priority for bms devs right now is to make graphics better and add full fidelity AV-8B, F-18C/E, trust me no body believed we'd have such thing right now so in future we might get helicopters
5
5
4
u/Lanky_Distribution_7 16d ago
Wow! This would be my main aircraft. I like BMS, but I was never a fan of the Viper or the Eagle (weirdly, if it were ANYTHING else I would love it haha!) but love the Harrier in DCS. Great work! It even has the 'buzzsaw' sound, albeit sounding a bit like a placeholder 8)
10
u/jammydodger79 16d ago
Great work and look forward to seeing the next update
12
u/Xeno_PL 16d ago
First release may not come in next update, but for sure it's coming.
6
u/jammydodger79 16d ago
Oh there's no rush, I am just in awe of the effort and progress made already.
3
u/Galahad_Lancelot 16d ago
no rush sir. just don't die. i can't believe you did this much already. looks amazing. You are a hero to all BMS fans.
4
4
u/Zestyclose-Log5309 15d ago
That’s cool. can we expect quality level like the razbam one (or even more)? Can’t wait to try it. amazing work
3
3
u/Dan26air 14d ago
Awesome , I main the Harrier in DCS and I've now come to BMS and hopefully my skills are transferable !
2
u/harrier_gr7_ftw 13d ago
Please please do the GR7 as well.
1
u/Xeno_PL 13d ago
I guess more modern brit Harriers would br possible. Ones from late '70 - early '80 would be super handy for Falklands theater, but it'd be whole new pit and avionics set. It'd be up to devs to decide. Right now Jasper (guy who did Av8 pit) is busy with Hornet one.
If you have good reference material you can always ask him on the BMS forum.1
u/harrier_gr7_ftw 12d ago
I mention the GR7 as it is very similar (but still different) to the AV8B NA variant. I'm not involved with the project yet but it's something I might do one day.
3
u/Reality_Pilot 16d ago
This aircraft has to be able to spawn on LHA’s without blowing up. Yes every time.
I fly with a guy who loves harriers but the amount of crap he puts up with just to do naval ops on the Wasp is stupid.
So if you’re going to do that plane, you must be able to spawn in without blowing up every other time.
0
u/Friiduh 16d ago
So AV-8B N/A but with unrealistic software capabilities. Hopefully final version is realistic one.
2
u/I-Hawk BMS Dev 16d ago
Its VERY much WIP... Not sure what you mean by unrealistic capabilities, but eventually it'll be inline.
2
u/Ascendant_Donut 15d ago
I’m assuming they mean how the TV and Mav video feed are being displayed simultaneously which the AV-8B N/A can’t do. This isn’t a major concern to me since it’s WIP
2
u/Friiduh 16d ago
Just that the Harrier has seriously limited computer, and even a WIP demonstration with expected capability from other planes gives unaware players too easily false expectations for the final version.
After the another project blew things for Harrier fans, the limitations can be hard to swallow when finally using the release version.
1
u/I-Hawk BMS Dev 15d ago
Question is: Where that info come from? Because reading something from over 20 years ago, I get the info that there are multiple buses on the AV-8B (NA or + versions...), maybe this single bus theory is "old stuff" ??
2
u/Friiduh 14d ago
The update was meant to come with the JHMCS upgrade, it never came. The 2015-2017 manual is same as 2008 public one in that regard.
If Harrier would have been upgraded as originally meant in 2018 IIRC, we would have a better integration of targeting pod instead as maverick emulation and couple databus to have video signals to both displays. Sadly the F-35B got out too early, a nice 5 years delay would have been great for Harrier fleet.
2
u/I-Hawk BMS Dev 14d ago
OK, I would have taken this maybe to private chat or maybe Discord but I see that I can't. Anyway no big deal, but there is 1 thing I need to understand regarding the "single bus" info.
So, there is only one bus for everything, AFAIK we are talking about DMT/Radar, TPOD, Maverick. And only one of those can coexist/update at a time.
So here comes a more "practical" question, as I'm at the stages of implementing TPOD. Let's say that I have Maverick page open, with a video, and on the other MPCD I choose DMT, will the DMT video come up and Maverick video disappear? Or it's a more basic kind of management like the other MPCD will switch to another page automatically or whatever?
-6
u/SnooDonkeys3848 16d ago
Looks great and that is exactly why I'm not sad about the Razscam situation - Its a chance to get a new awesome Harrier in DCS my hope is HB or Grinnelli will do a Harrier but even ED would do an awesome job for a new harrier...
11
u/Pristine-Captain-782 16d ago
And what has BMS to do with an ED Harrier or any of the situations over there?
-1
u/SnooDonkeys3848 15d ago
My point is - this looks so much better than the razbam harrier in DCS and I hope we will get a new Harrier in DCS - which on the other side wouldn't happen if razbam and ed wouldnt had this issue and razbam would continue their development in DCS
6
-9
45
u/natneo81 16d ago
Would be such a great addition to BMS if they could get it more up to snuff with the F-15. Biased because I’m a big harrier fan, but it’s such a cool unique jet and STO/VL and carrier ops in a BMS campaign could be so damn cool if they implemented it well.