Ff you could have one thing in the next update it would be…
-
Unrealistic effect.
Speaking of which, can this be disabled via Config, or removed from the next version?
They look nice when stationary and look good when falling on the ramp, etc., but above 10-15kts they probably shouldn’t be visible.
-
Speaking of which, can this be disabled via Config, or removed from the next version?
They look nice when stationary and look good when falling on the ramp, etc., but above 10-15kts they probably shouldn’t be visible.
Yes you can disable it under BMS Configurator.
Weather GFX effects are pretty inaccurate in BMS, the worse unrealistic effect being the snow falls.
-
This is why we are some RL crew to guide and give highlights to coder on how it is done IRL … We worked on dynamic bingo prior to 4.32 release which is more or less efficient (rather “more” than “less” now) then we worked on climb code during the 4.33 development because we had a lot of flaws here making AI unable to climb to their assigned FL due to AI logic which was to take the req speed (speed caret) even during a climb to comply with the next TOS giving an airspeed too low to alow the AI to climb and in some sever case, were even stalling …
Now we are still trying to make them flying a proper holding pattern but we still facing some troubles (bank, speed, pastern management) … next issue will probably be the way AI are managing time on steer-point (no proper routine to perform shortcut when late vs speed increase when applicable and possible) … etc … The coder working on this is also very busy on many other items and area including SAMs, Radar and IADS … so it takes time.
Tactics will maybe comes next … A lot of work here …Much appreciation goes to the coders working in background.
I seriously wish I am proficient in the area of coding so I offer could my quotas.I plan to start learning coding in my little way, perhaps I may become proficient enough to offer something.
. Kudos to you guys. -
Yes you can disable it under BMS Configurator.
Weather GFX effects are pretty inaccurate in BMS, the worse unrealistic effect being the snow falls.
I only want to disable the rings when they fall on a moving surface - those on the wings, etc. When stationary, they are fine IMHO.
In flight, the rain and snow effects just look too slow for me. it is possible to pan and at certain pan speeds they stop altogether, hang in mid-air. This is not so convincing
-
I only want to disable the rings when they fall on a moving surface - those on the wings, etc. When stationary, they are fine IMHO.
You can only set it ON or OFF at this time. We asked to make it disapear above a given speed, but the guy who are in charge of it is extremely busy on another (way more ambitious) project.
In flight, the rain and snow effects just look too slow for me. it is possible to pan and at certain pan speeds they stop altogether, hang in mid-air. This is not so convincing
Same than above … those effects needs love, since the 4.32.
-
I’d like to see the “pilot legs” mod included for all F-16 flavors, preferably with a functionality to toggle it on and off (maybe in the configurator?)
-
I’d like to see the “pilot legs” mod included for all F-16 flavors, preferably with a functionality to toggle it on and off (maybe in the configurator?)
Excellent suggestion, I hope we’ll find something similar in the next IKAROS theater update for a start.
All the best, Uwe
-
This post is deleted! -
I’d like to see the “pilot legs” mod included for all F-16 flavors, preferably with a functionality to toggle it on and off (maybe in the configurator?)
and perhaps the auto transfer of map with STP’s on one knee board and the flight data card on the other ??? that would be nice ;0)
-
Good post Mortesil … but is has also to work in 2D, and in 2D it is the binary database that is used (Fuel Rate).
Initial plan was to start from a basic fuel rate at move speed on a clean configuration, then using a factor given by the drag factor, adjusting this F/R to predict the actual fuel rate on final a/c configuration. But as said, “air task engine” generating the ATO is loading fuel before loading weapons and won’t be able to adjust the F/R according to the actual final DF. Additionally, airframe is selected for a given task and target depending on distance of target and database a/c’s Max Range value (which should depends on wing tank configuration)
I do not know how it would be possible to use the .dat for fuel consummation prediction for ATO (or ATE : Air Task Engine) … additionally … , after several weeks of tests in flight (empiric approach), I wasn’t able to find a relation between move speed of the binary database used for default speed mission planning and actual fuel consummation in 3D working for all airframes.
For the F-16, yep, I was able to find an average gradient (from a base FL at FL150) to apply a factor below and above this base FL. But this factor changes from one airframe to another.
Flight tests conditions : Same TE, same conditions, same hour, using Combat Autopilot on a straight line, altitude level, speed stabilized at 480kts GS. Standard atmosphere – (QNH 1013 Temperature: 15°C) No wind. DF = Drag Factor F/R = Fuel Rate (lbs/min) Results are F/R at FL10, FL150 and FL300 for each DF0, DF50 and DF99 (DF may vary a little DF depending on what is possible to load on the aircraft) Weight is not taken in account. But should not have a huge impact on F/R. We are considering that weight is linked to DF. Aim is to determine if altitude gradient and DF gradient are linear, and if those gradients are equivalent for all a/c. [b]F-16Blk52[/b] FL 10 DF 000 (000): 119 DF 050 (050): 135 DF 100 (101): 155 DF 150 (149): 166 DF 200 (201): 185 DF 250 (251): 200 DF 300 (298): 217 FL150 DF 000 (000): 83 DF 050 (050): 96 DF 100 (101): 107 DF 150 (149): 117 DF 200 (201): 128 DF 250 (251): 140 DF 300 (298): 151 FL300 DF 000 (000): 45 DF 050 (050): 58 DF 100 (101): 64 DF 150 (149): 72 DF 200 (201): 81 DF 250 (251): 93* DF 300 (298): 93* *Note that DF250 and DF300 have the same consummation figure (It has been tested three times) [b]-Exploitation:[/b] F/R vs Altitude Average gradient for altitude @ DF000: (38 + 36 / 2) = -37lbs/15000ft -> [color]-2.07%[/color] / 1000ft Average gradient for altitude @ DF050: (33 + 44 / 2) = -38.5lbs/15000ft -> [color]-1.90%[/color] / 1000ft Average gradient for altitude @ DF100: (43 + 48 / 2) = -45.5lbs/15000ft -> [color]-1.96%[/color] / 1000ft Average gradient for altitude @ DF150: (45 + 49 / 2) = -47lbs/15000ft -> [color]-1.89%[/color] / 1000ft Average gradient for altitude @ DF200: (47 + 57 / 2) = -52lbs / 15000ft -> [color]-1.87%[/color] / 1000ft Average gradient for altitude @ DF250: (47 + 60 / 2) = -53.5lbs / 15000ft -> [color]-1.78%[/color] / 1000ft Average gradient for altitude @ DF300: (58 + 66 / 2) = -62lbs / 15000ft -> [color]-1.90%[/color] / 1000ft F/R vs DF Average gradient for DF @ FL010: (16 + 20 + 11 + 19 + 15 + 17 / 6) = 16.3lbs/50 points of DF -> [color]+27.4%[/color] of consummation for each 100DF Average gradient for DF @ FL150: (13 + 11 + 10 + 11 + 12 + 11) / 6 = 11.3lbs/50 points of DF -> [color]+27.2%[/color] of consummation for each 100DF Average gradient for DF @ FL300: (13 + 6 + 8 + 9 + 12 + 0) / 6 = 8lbs/50 points of DF -> [color]+35.5%[/color] of consummation for each 100DF* *Note that systemic error may be increased at FL300 because of the low consummation and maybe due to the DF250 and DF300 fuel flow glitch. Additional tests showed that a/c’s weight has no (or insignificant) impact on fuel consummation. [b]- Conclusion for F-16Blk52 flight tests.[/b] - Drag Factor gradient: Average F/R augmentation each DF between sea level and FL300 is (27.4 + 27.2 + 35.5) / 3 = [color]+30% of clean configuration fuel rate for 100 point of DF[/color] If we are taking in account some possible measurements systemic error, we can admit that the curve is linear. - Altitude gradient: Average F/R diminution for each 1000ft is about -2% (clean configuration) We can see that gradient is not linear with the DF increasing! However, average gradient of [color]-2% / 1000ft[/color] can be used [u]IF altitude correction is applied BEFORE drag factor correction[/u]. [b]- Recommendations for required fuel & correction computation:[/b] (Assuming that a/c will perform navigation at its database move speed AND assuming a new F/R database based on a clean a/c (DF0) at FL150 flying its database move speed (in GS)) [b]In this order (Important!): 1 – Start from database fuel rate (clean a/c @ FL150 flying at move speed) 2 – Apply altitude correction (If possible, on each leg to make computation working for a high – low – high mission profile … otherwise, take ingress/egress altitude): + 2% / 1000ft below 15000ft - 2% / 1000ft above 15000ft 3 – Compute the trip + loiter + divert fuel required (not including taxi & take off) 3 – To the total fuel of all navigation legs (trip fuel + loiter + divert), apply the drag factor correction by adding 0.3% each point of DF. 4 – Then add Taxi & Takeoff fuel (10min of clean configuration F/R*), plus minimum fuel (10min of clean configuration F/R*), plus “reserve fuel” (xx min of corrected F/R at mission altitude) * Clean configuration F/R is simply the database’s F/R without corrections.[/b]
… but this has been totally invalidated with F-15, F-18, F-4 and Mig29 … so I stopped there and decided to take in account the maximum common (realistic configuration) drag factor for each airframes.
It was in 2010.
-
dj and morte…there are people who work at lockheed and boeing who don’t have a ****ing clue of how to do what you do.
you’re talent, devotion, and quality of work is amazing. I sometimes have to give pause to remember YOURE ALL HERE OF FREE WILL.
happy Tuesday!
-
note that
So if you know the immediate Drag, which is required for the AFM to work, then you know the required T(Effective), and we calculated the Ct for each specific aircraft/engine combination above, we can calculate both Max Endurance and Max Range with respect to immediate Drag. In other words we can find fuel flow as a function of drag:
AIs are not using AFM
Needed Fuel Rate is not at 100% mil thrust, but at “Move Speed” defined in the database (360, 420, 480, 540KTAS depending on a/c capabilities at common cruise level and max drag factor … or … the speed of the main flight of the package because escorting a/c or synced with the main package’s fight in most of the cases)
…
Goal is also not to rewrite the ENTIRE code … we otherwise we may break more things than we will actually fix … and this should not require years to achieve …
-
This post is deleted! -
1 & 2 - Can’t tell you. IMO it is something a bit different (could be specific to F-16 only ?)
3 - There is no such data available. The MAX DF is use is the one given when I create a test TE and load the a/c with a realistic high DF configuration … then I create an AI flight, go in 3D and measure the AI’s Fuel Rate at “Move Speed” at FL150 (wich is the around the middle of flight envelope for most of the aircraft)
4 - Can’t really tell you but I would say yes … database is mainly used for 2D and outside bubble (depending on what we are considering … we are talking about flight psychics here). “Has there ever been any thought to trying to make them match up correctly?” Of course … this is exactly what we are trying to do … but in .dat you have all the data table for any altidite/speed … etc … the database is only considering one speed (the default move speed) and one Fuel Rate tied to this move speed.
5 - ???The FR shouldn’t be linear with Altitude, it should be linear with Drag (Which is not linear with altitude), so I’m a little confused about your test results. Were you trying to find a specific gradient that showed FR changes with altitude, or comparing the change in drag to the change in FR and looking for a common gradient?
You can go for your own in-fight tests and report for results … Back to 2010, I didn’t had some debug stuff to display the instantaneous fuel flow for any a/c (including AI and human) … so I has to use the cockpit fuel flow indicator and then, could only evaluate AFM … remember AI are not using AFM so my results could be not exact for AIs.
just trying to learn. As you said there was no fuel management prior to .32 so this isn’t something I can look up in older code.
Back to this time, it was the same for us … What I am explain here is a part of the study to create the Dynamic Bingo code. So if you are dealing with SP4 code, you are roughly in the same conditions we were at this time.
-
M7.1 with an ATD!
-
This post is deleted! -
to have homestead air base in the game as an option. i cant find one.
-
to have homestead air base in the game as an option. i cant find one.
Well, if you’re referring to Homestead Air Base in South Florida, then that would definitely be cool.
I could fly there from my home (Broward County)!! :uham:
But I don’t know what theater they could make for us Floridians!! Battle for Cuba perhaps?? :roll: -
Ooooh Cuba would be awesome. It’s a pity that the Cuban Air Force is pretty much grounded these days, they had/have some of the most fantastic color schemes on their Migs.
…. Go Fighting Makos!
It would make for a great “What if” campaign.
Likewise, Vietnam could be a great theater as well - spanning Laos and Thailand and could be geared to several scenario’s. E.g. what if the Vietnam war would drag on into the 90s? With the Russian supplying them Su-27s and USAF F-16s operating out of Thailand and South Vietnam?
Or what if a new conflict would erupt between Thailand and Communist Vietnam? With Thai AF F-16s and deployed USAF F-16s?
A revamped Desert Storm theater would also be most welcome actually.
-
A revamped Desert Storm theater would also be most welcome actually.
merrica, **** yea!