JanHas Models & Skin Thread -Compatible with 4.36
-
Ugggh
-
Hey Jan, has the wing-tip rail been adjusted to point downwards (2.5 degrees washout), as discussed here?
Hello Jan.
Your F-16 is a really great aircraft. I have a little suggestion to make the your aircraft even more beautiful.: I showed you in the image below. The missiles and pylons on the wing tips of real F-16s do not stand parallel to ground. They are leaning forward. If you could reflect this on your models, the plane would be more beautiful and perfect. Of course the final decision is yours.
Thank you again millions for this perfect aircraft.
With my best regards.
http://www.hizliresimyukle.com/images/2017/05/15/missile1.jpg
-
I’m not satisfied…
Yeah. We all kinda’ get that.
And - I’m sure that if you just keep repeating yourself over and over and over, then - everybody else will just change their level of satisfaction to match yours.
Or… no. Maybe not.
-
Hey Jan, has the wing-tip rail been adjusted to point downwards (2.5 degrees washout), as discussed here?
For the GE models & RMAF, yes. I rotated it another degree and it’s now 2.5 degrees. I wish the code issue with the human flight landing gear extending (dof 58 ) while it should retract (while the AI gear moves into the correct direction) will be fixed someday so I can drop the nose some more. For now the gear extending/retracting while driving over bumps is a big compromise in order to let the gear end up in the correct place when it’s retracted after take off.
-
I wish the code issue with the human flight landing gear extending (dof 58 ) while it should retract (while the AI gear moves into the correct direction) will be fixed someday so I can drop the nose some more.
I don’t know if this helps, but there is a line in the dat file that can reverse the DOF travel. My guess is that you would set it to “1”
animGearInverted 0
-
I don’t know if this helps, but there is a line in the dat file that can reverse the DOF travel. My guess is that you would set it to “1”
animGearInverted 0
I did try that but that only made it worse (compressing the wrong way when riding over bumps) and did/does not solve the issue of the human flight gear moving the wrong way while the AI is moving the right way. Human: extending/extending movement while the AI is correctly extending/retracting while riding the bumps.
-
I did try that but that only made it worse (compressing the wrong way when riding over bumps) and did/does not solve the issue of the human flight gear moving the wrong way while the AI is moving the right way. Human: extending/extending movement while the AI is correctly extending/retracting while riding the bumps.
first
AI does not ride bumps, there is no bump for AI.
Second:
have a look at F16 or Mirage2000, their gear is working as expected for humans
Third:
Yes all of this is improved in next iteration to be more flexible with comprehensive setup guide for developper
-
first
AI does not ride bumps, there is no bump for AI.
Second:
have a look at F16 or Mirage2000, their gear is working as expected for humans
Third:
Yes all of this is improved in next iteration to be more flexible with comprehensive setup guide for developper
First, correct.
Second: no. The value of the animGearMaxComp in the fm file moves the gear for the human flight down. The AI uses the same animGearMaxComp distance value but moves it correctly up. You can see this with the F-16 front gear extended a lot more compared to the AI F-16. I think there must be some small error in how the human flight uses that animGearMaxComp value. It took quite some trial and error/testing effort to figure out why the gear behaves like it does. The problem is also very visible with the standard BMS F-16 model (human front gear extended a lot more compared to AI).
Third: nice!
-
First, correct.
Second: no. The value of the animGearMaxComp in the fm file moves the gear for the human flight down. The AI uses the same animGearMaxComp distance value but moves it correctly up. You can see this with the F-16 front gear extended a lot more compared to the AI F-16. I think thereanim must be some small error in how the human flight uses that animGearMaxComp value. It took quite some trial and error/testing effort to figure out why the gear behaves like it does. The problem is also very visible with the standard BMS F-16 model (human front gear extended a lot more compared to AI).
http://www.janhas.net/Images/gear_issue.jpgThird: nice!
the problem is elsewhere
the difference between the human and AI is not a problem of graphics only (GearMaxComp is only gfx stuff)
The difference comes from the fact that the positionning (in Z and pitch) of the AI is faked (OFM) compared with the poisitionning of the human (AFM) that is real depending on weight and GC positionning and gear stifnesses
You are thinking gfx only while you should think FM AND GFX … for instance in the AFM , if you want to make the compression more, just reduce the stifness of the front gear in AFM file this is NOT gfx related here
This is very complex to make both AFM and OFM work OK with the same model set up , but this is feasible , it requires some work in the OFM and AFM in the same time
To be honnest , i changed the norm after 4.33 with adding the possibility for OFM to be pitched, so i dont remember very well how 4.33 work now
-
try this :
FIRST RULE:
NEVER CHANGE AFM BEFORE OFM IS CORRECTLY SET UP
ONCE OFM IS DONE NEVER TOUCH IT AGAIN, ADJUST AFM ONLY
set up your DOF so that is zero when supposed to be wow. (this is where i have a doubt for 4.33 , 4.33 norm MAY be that your DOF is zero when gear is fully extended, check on the f16 or M2K model in 4.33)
make sure your DOF value gear extended and max extension in OFM auxaerodata file match
same. for compression
from there in OFM file adjust the Z position of the gears so that the gear is indeed correctly on ground.
AFM should then adjust automatically in contact with ground, if not that means the z posit of gear extended in AFM should be adjusted.
If in AFM , the gear moves up and down incorrectly with bumps , you need to adjust the ANGLE value of the GEar in AFM file
before touching stifness of gear in AFM, remember that the difference in compression between AI and Player comes from the fact that OFM is faked physically.
so dont break correct physics of gear just to match an incorrect model but if you consider the nose should be more down on ground to match real picture, just reduce front gear stifness K1, be careful though about the K2 factor
Obviously this would require a change in OFM / AFM files, which is not very good especially in MP with the anticheat code activated
but believe me, there is no bug in the code, the adjustment of GEAR, GFX and physics is just very tricky due to the duality of OFM and AFM working in the same time
take the standard 4.33 F16 model, i think it has been adjusted fine
-
Am I wrong or the AI use the old OFM vs the AFM for humans?
If there is an issue indeed it might be somewhere there; , just thinking loud.
https://www.benchmarksims.org/forum/content.php?121-Flight-Model-(FM)-Developer-s-Notes-Part-2
“Choosing this avenue, I was able to make two different code modules coexist – the original MPS one (that I will call “OFM” for Old Flight Model) for aircraft that don’t have the new data file format, but also for every AI controlled aircraft; and the new one (that I will call “AFM” for Advanced Flight Model) for the human controlled aircraft having a dedicated new data file format. The final code is even able to switch from OFM to AFM and back when necessary without any discontinuity (for instance when a player switches to combat autopilot, the AI takes control with OFM).”
-
Thanks for the explanation Mav-JP! I did tweak the AFM K1 but it’s not really a solution. Standard AFM physics is behaving well.
This might be the issue at play here: “4.33 norm MAY be that your DOF is zero when gear is fully extended”. Is this the case with both AI and human? Looking at how both behave I have the idea that it is not the same here… The BMS F-16 AI model has the correct gear extension when on the ground (looking at fuel, pilot, armament). The human flight gear is extended very much even when fully loaded. You can adjust the model but then you move the problem from the human to the AI model. If there is indeed an issue with what AI/Human see as DOF is zero when fully extended you will end up with a compromise to avoid gear punching through body or other wheel well parts. I will tinker some more…
-
Thanks for the explanation Mav-JP! I did tweak the AFM K1 but it’s not really a solution. Standard AFM physics is behaving well.
This might be the issue at play here: “4.33 norm MAY be that your DOF is zero when gear is fully extended”. Is this the case with both AI and human? Looking at how both behave I have the idea that it is not the same here… The BMS F-16 AI model has the correct gear extension when on the ground (looking at fuel, pilot, armament). The human flight gear is extended very much even when fully loaded. You can adjust the model but then you move the problem from the human to the AI model. If there is indeed an issue with what AI/Human see as DOF is zero when fully extended you will end up with a compromise to avoid gear punching through body or other wheel well parts. I will tinker some more…
the model is the same for AI or PLAYER !! so the norm for setting up the DOF is obviously the sam (look at the original 4.33 F16 to be sure of the correct 4.33 norm)
if the gear of player is OK when normally loaded and extended too much (you mean the tire is still in contact normally or the wheels is buried in ground ? ) that means that the Defzone2 is set too low and that the gear is in K2 range too early
if during bumps, the wheel is jumping and looses contact with ground, that means the GEAR ANGLE needs adjustment
again, be careful to check with real F16, do not compare with OFM / AI that is totally faked with load
there is no black magic here, everything is pure math and there is no bug. the difficulty it to set up everything correctly in the proper order, if you change everything all the time, you will not get it.
Proceeed with rigor
first OFM set up , then AFM
-
I have a problem with textures. On the blovk 40 and also 42 some sets are ok, others are screwed up.
I don’t understand what’s wrong. I copied all the dds files in the correct folder and NOT in the Hi_Res textures folder. Checked that those file numbers are not there also.
In LE, the number of texture sets seems correct (same as in your installation screenshots).
Any ideas? -
I have a problem with textures. On the blovk 40 and also 42 some sets are ok, others are screwed up.
I don’t understand what’s wrong. I copied all the dds files in the correct folder and NOT in the Hi_Res textures folder. Checked that those file numbers are not there also.
In LE, the number of texture sets seems correct (same as in your installation screenshots).
Any ideas?Update ^ : problem was there were still some old textures in the Hires folder.
-
Will do. BTW, I checked in OGGLOD, and all texture sets show correctly… strange
-
Will do. BTW, I checked in OGGLOD, and all texture sets show correctly… strange
OGGLOD doesn’t show HiRes tex.
-
All solved after a brief email exchange with Jan
-
Hi Jan,
Yesterday I flawed Blk50 and Buner fires in front of the nose.
As seen in the picture it even occurs in close formation range.We also tried applying Blk52’s dat file to blk50’s then the anomaly has disappeared.
-
I have finished the ALQ-184 model. It’s optimized for the ALW package center line pylon model. You can download the package via this link. http://www.launchvipers.com/Files/ALQ-184.ZIP. I will add it to the ALW package too. Same install procedure as with the LV3 F-16, so use the replace function in LE’s parent screen.
![](http://www.janhas.net/Images/Pump_up_the_ jam1.jpg)
![](http://www.janhas.net/Images/Pump_up_the_ jam2.jpg)Due to personal life changes in a month or two with probably less time to work on models I have decided to skip the AGSR model for now and start building the F-16I as a basis for the two seat models.