Ff you could have one thing in the next update it would be…
-
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!
-
A Desert Storm theater could be quite versatile and could spawn a multitude of different campaigns.
There’s of course the historic Desert Storm campaign in which the F-16 was the most numerous aircraft, I believe there were 249 Vipers deployed to the Gulf region.
I cannot remember if any of the Guard units deployed with A models, or if they were all Block 25 C/Ds and up. This could be extended with Northern + Southern Watch campaigns which also saw plenty of air combat action.Then there is the Iraqi invasion of 2003 - no air threats, but still plenty of SAMs and CAS, although I’m not sure how interesting that would be. However, a fictitious twist with a revamped, re-equipped Iraqi Air Force could work quite well.
Or even a deployed Iranian Air Force to support the Iraqi’s (the enemy of my enemy is also my enemy, that sort of thing) could be really interesting. Fighting Iranian F-4Es, F-5Es and F-14s over Baghdad.
(That’s actually not too far fetched as the Iranian Air Force deployed SU-25s to Iraq to help combat ISIS).In particular now that we have carrier ops working, this could really add another dimension to the theater, both for the historic Desert Storm and fictitious campaigns, with Iran being dragged into a fictitious campaign at a later point in time?
-
IRCC the ANG deployed block 10s and there is a great story of a SEAD mission carried out by the SCANG.
-
Ability to task AI in other flights in package, e.g., vector escort to known threats, etc.
-
Fixing the typo in this thread’s title.
-
Maybe not a big thing but sometimes it feel like when communicating with AWACS, Tower etc. it feels like I should be verbally acknowledging things they tell me. Maybe add a option for responses such as, (Viper1 Copy, etc) and if you don’t respond they keep repeating. Yes maybe it would drive you nuts but in real world situations, the person transmitting information always looks to hear a response that you acknowledge their transmission of information. Similar to your wing man responses when you give them a command, most of the time you get an acknowledgement they heard and are complying with your command. (Flight Lead:" 2 Close it up"/ Wingman: "2, Closing up). Of course this is alot easier using voice command programs thats why I mention it could be a option in the config settings.
-
Limited realism though, they wouldn’t repeat it ad lib.
-
Maybe not a big thing but sometimes it feel like when communicating with AWACS, Tower etc. it feels like I should be verbally acknowledging things they tell me. Maybe add a option for responses such as, (Viper1 Copy, etc) and if you don’t respond they keep repeating. Yes maybe it would drive you nuts but in real world situations, the person transmitting information always looks to hear a response that you acknowledge their transmission of information. Similar to your wing man responses when you give them a command, most of the time you get an acknowledgement they heard and are complying with your command. (Flight Lead:" 2 Close it up"/ Wingman: "2, Closing up). Of course this is alot easier using voice command programs thats why I mention it could be a option in the config settings.
Not a bad idea … I like it. But before that, it would be better to see AI acting AFTER having received an order (after the message has been actually played) … but we have a real problem : Chatter overcrowded … and your idea will even make it worse (especially in MP).
What would be good, is to separate the Ground, the Tower, the Approach, the Check In and the Tactical frequencies to “reduce” the amount of messages … or … to be able to play them in a more realistic way.
In any cases, we still have to face one of the biggest issue about radio implementation in Flacon4 => we have only ONE voice channel at a time. It is in fact impossible to play two messages on both UHF and VHF at the same time giving queue issues and AFAIK, this is not gonna be solved anytime soon. -
This post is deleted! -
By the way, does “Traffic in sight” have a consequence?
-
Technical/Code limitation or just nobody wants to work on it?
Rather because everybody is working something different at present time.
By the way, does “Traffic in sight” have a consequence?
Yes.
Oh, and because it hasn’t been mentioned in a while… Link 16–ahaha
As my friend says :