Suggestion for database, data supply
-
Simple Solution:
Add Copy in F4Browse,add weapon,add missile pointer,update .lst,add Rack.dat info,add weapon to AC,update ACdata and a few hundred other’s I forgot to mention……LOL
Doable…yes…if you take the time to do it right.
demer
-
Simple Solution:
Add Copy in F4Browse,add weapon,add missile pointer,update .lst,add Rack.dat info,add weapon to AC,update ACdata and a few hundred other’s I forgot to mention……LOL
Doable…yes…if you take the time to do it right.
demer
I know. It can be defined different AIM-7s for different launch method. Only question how many entried (weapons) can be sacrificed for this purpose… I did exactly this with MolnyFalcon to get different versions of R-73 and got AIM-9S, AIM-9L and AIM-9M. Only a small LOD edit is required, the rest of stuff DB and text edit. With FF this edit is about 5 min.
-
I know. It can be defined different AIM-7s for different launch method. Only question how many entried (weapons) can be sacrificed for this purpose… I did exactly this with MolnyFalcon to get different versions of R-73 and got AIM-9S, AIM-9L and AIM-9M. Only a small LOD edit is required, the rest of stuff DB and text edit. With FF this edit is about 5 min.
Wonder how that happened ……LOL
There are many in this DB that are Struck out\unused that you could take over if you wish…
You are correct that it seem’s 600+ entry’s are a No-No ATM,but as stated there are still many unused.demer
-
EDIT: SA-2 data supply is more or less completed, test sould come.
-
Some result with original BMS4 model comparing with RL. I can upload the video about the test if you wish.
An overdraw table for easier reading.
RL measurement vs. BMS4 model. From RL data only the speed was copied, the distance were calculated by trpeziod formula. Very accurate comparing with old, scanned diagram.
Launch distance was only 12 nm, target alt was 22k feet. This is close to epsilon = 17 degrees test.
You can see the problem. In BMS data engine burnout time is 27 seconds from 0 time, comparing with RL, that after 3+45 sec. As long as engine is runnung the difference is not too big. But this was a very short range test. In RL the max. engagement distance against a closing target is about 40 km (22 nm) at 22k feet. You can see that speed is still increasing until 48 sec. This mans huge range and speed difference as the target distance is bigger.
Two more diagrams.
Even if you set big eng. distance because of radar modeling values it will be meaningless. Radar range and ECM modifier reduces the range to a very, very small value.Current values are ~276 k fee range, and 0.15 for ECM. The ECM modifier should be much hihger, 0.25-0.3. You can reach the minimal engagement distance without any conteraction if you have ECM. (With standard ECM strength value!)
-
Devs, pls. help me. I tried everything to change the engagement rage for SAMs but no one of method worked. Did you change someting since OF4.x in code? I tried the same as in FF. I tried with radar dat files and range table of sa2.dat without sucess.
The twaked data of SA-2 comes soon. You will see so close result that is hard to imagine.
-
Result of test in Excel tables, there are two tabs in the file.
http://www.mediafire.com/?c251659bn3fxukj
For the test I modified the guidance of missile to get more constant epsilon paramter. Flight path is almost a straight line.
Result of test with two different epsilon value.
New thrust.
Thrust is a bit smaller in RL (7700 vs 7200 lbs). Because of drag coefficient, the result is not perfect but it is much closer to RL than current thrust-weight model.
The minimal eng. alt of the missile is 100 meter (330 feet), min. eng distanace is ~7 km (~23’000 feet). Because in RL available G is dependent on aero force it would required too much work to set as force coefficient to get the RL values. Because in typical range (H < 10 km) it is simplier to set the limit to 6.8G.
I fixed the engine flame position.
sa2.dat
Available here.
http://www.mediafire.com/?vbd4g3d9g7b47x0Original data
_5041.97 # Weight of Missile (lbs)
2500 # Weight of propellant (lbs)
10 # Number of Time Breaks
#BURN TIMES
0 0.025 4.5 5
5.2 10 18 26 26.5
27#ENGINE THRUST (LBS)
#THRUST
0 35000 35000 0
19500 16000 14500 12000 800
0maxGTerminal 11.5
maxGNormal 11.5
MinEngagementRange 19680
MinEngagementAlt 2234_New data
**1480 # Weight of Missile (lbs)
1580 # Weight of propellant (lbs)8 # Number of Time Breaks
#BURN TIMES
0 0.05 3.05 3.1
3.25 3.75 49 50#ENGINE THRUST (LBS)
#THRUST
0 30000 30000 0
0 7200 7200 0maxGTerminal 6.8
maxGNormal 6.8
EngLocation 0.1 0 -0.1
MinEngagementRange 23000
MinEngagementAlt 330**edit:
One more note. The blast radius should be slighty bigger then original 222 feet. In RL sometimes ~ 100 lethal radius was experianced. ~300-330 feet maybe would better. It had huge warhead, almost 200 kg.
-
tweaking Engine burn times (and missile FM in general) is relatively easy in Falcon. but it requires data.
primarily engine data (thrust profile). that would feed in the correct data into the simulation correctly.in addition,
the “range data” in the table does not affect the actual flight envelope, but rather the range the AI handles the weapon. As far as I know, this only affects air launched weapons. SAMs are handled differently based on the AI code.I would however be very happy if you could send me all the data you do have, I’ll try and play around with it and se what I can do.
EDIT -
Thrust profile looks much more reasonable now,
But as for the numbers, I’m not sure doing such course estimate is something I this should be avoided if possible.I’m trying to get some RL data on the missile engine (if it would be possible that is - i.e. not classified)
-
Dat file is available, previous post is updated.
In FreeFalcon worked for AA missiles and SAMs either manipulating the range value then update, recalculate the vehicle and battalion data with F4Browse. -
I’m trying to get some RL data on the missile engine (if it would be possible that is - i.e. not classified)
I posted the RL engine data in comment #60. You do not have to get anything. I have the data.
(I just noticed that I post twice one of the RL test diagram, I uploaded the another one.) -
I posted the RL engine data in comment #60. You do not have to get anything. I have the data.
Yes,
It’s range and weight data, not thrust Vs time.
you have put some good estimation, I would however prefer the RL data (assuming I can get it) -
Whic part did not understand that I got RL data from ex. crew of Hungarian SAM operators…?
Because I cannot speak and read Russian I asked exact data for modeling after I have explained what data is useful for Falcon.
Here.http://forum.index.hu/Article/showArticle?na_start=0&na_step=500&t=9120320&na_order=
This is a Hungarian forum about Russian and non Russian SAMs. Long time ago it was started as just discuss SAMs in Hungary, but as time passed, the topic was growing.
Again the data.
_Weight of 1st stage: 1008 kg (2380 lb)
Weight of 2st stage: 1390 kg (3060 lb)
Weight of propellant in 2nd stage: 169,5 + 545 kg (1580 lb) TG02 fuel + AK-20 oxidyzerThe 1st (booster) stage accelerates the missle about 520-550 m/s regardless of circumstances.
1st stage burn time is 3 seconds.
2nd stage have two different program for engine thurst.
1. If Epsilon is small than 24° in the moment of launch the thrust is 3500 kg (~7720 lbs) for 45 seconds.
2. If Epsilon ε>=24 in the moment of launch thrust is 3500 kg (~7720 lbs) to 24 second then 2000 kg (~5510 lbs) to 55 seconds._Here you can find stuff.
http://historykpvo.narod2.ru/ -
-
Don’t get me wrong, The work you have done is amazing.
you got us from 6 to 9.5 in missile thrust profile.
But your thrust inputs, from what I can understand, are extrapolated from missile speed vs time. if we can get the THRUST vs time data, that would be EXACTLY what falcon requires. And it would be as accurate as we could get the missile.Same goes to SA-3, 6 and 8. I assume those have the data available in the open as the system are relatively out of date and the information might be already been declassified in most of the world.
-
But your thrust inputs, from what I can understand, are extrapolated from missile speed vs time.
No.
1. If Epsilon is small than 24° in the moment of launch the thrust is 3500 kg (~7720 lbs) for 45 seconds.
2. If Epsilon ε>=24 in the moment of launch thrust is 3500 kg (~7720 lbs) to 24 second then 2000 kg (~5510 lbs) to 55 seconds.These two options are RL life data, not extrapolation. This is THE THRUST vs TIME which you seek. I do not understand you…
I did a small correction in thrust, I scaled down 7700 lbs to 7200 lbs to get the closer result in speed vs time and speed vs distant curves in both cases. Why? Because Cl and Cd values likely not match with real values. You won’t find even the stuff that you can download. For field operators it is not important these coefficents. They are not engineers… Instead playing with Cd I set a bit smaller thrust.
if we can get the THRUST vs time data, that would be EXACTLY what falcon requires. And it would be as accurate as we could get the missile.
As I see you do not understand even the problem. We have the thrust char. What have to be calculated or experimented? The Cd (for drag) and Cl for available G. But you have to understndd what is worth and what is not. My tweaks are very close to RL measurements as you can see even the big difference in target altitude. (Strong effect of air density.) Of course if you have plenty of free time you can set up Cl and Cd curves. You can set these curves that you do not have to scale down the thrust, but you will get back the good time vs dist. and time vs. speed comparin with RL data. Only question, does it worth to spend hundreds of hours to get only a ~3-4% better model…?
Regardless how you master of modeling you can’t avoid that Falcon data structure prevents model the different settings of RL system. I think here the epsilon dependency of applied thrust control, different pursuit methods. This is just the two main issues concerning on the specific system. You can’t model the different fuel consumption for different thrust char - epsilon dependency, you can’t model the separation of booster stage and changed Cl, Cd, you can’t model the small effect on thrust of amibent tem. and pressure, Ect.
In short. You can sped lost of time to refine the model, but IMHO you can’t do much better model concerning on time vs speed and time vs distance. These are the most important paramteres combining with warhead modeling, and available Gs and guidance (pursuit method.) You can make a better model for available G modeling but in Falcon’s world - as in RL - but how frquent event to evading a SAM about +10 km altitude? Literally 0. —> 6.8 maximum G, in 99,9% of cases this will be good. Of course the effect on drag by control surfaces are not modeled - AoA is litarally always 0 in Falcon for missiles - but you cannot find exact RL data. You can see only the oputput, what I have show. What is available. It is not important why.
Is is clear now?
-
Was clear the first time… I guess I’m too tired to even understand what I’m reading… guess I’m WAAAAY past my bedtime
Check you PM
-
I made an additional test against and escaping target. Because of small eng range, I cannot perform by the same way as I did. On ~20k alt SA-2 launched a missile from ~17 nm. I turn back and I set a very slight climb profile to simulate the nearly constant Epsilon.
Result.
You can see that deacceleration profile can be “attached” to previous test.
1. Peak speed is small than in RL.
2. Deacceleration is bigger then in RL at peak speed.Cd likelyl too big above M2.3-2.5.
-
TONS of original releted materials here.
I suggest that you should contact the developer of SAM Simulator - he had done a tremendous job of going through the original materials and interpreting them into a working flight model. (though not in 3d world)
http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3202301/SAM_Simulator.html
EDIT
I just saw you already did that.
My bad. -
SA-3. First of all, some ACMI files that shows serious problems.
http://www.mediafire.com/?wqpj91n2bpp2i
What are the main problems?
- Engagement range is very small comparing with RL value. RL value is 25 km.
- Because of small engagement range and default guidance values even a non maneuvering and slow target is impossible in some situation. Three missiles required to shoot down an An-2 (!).
- Aganist the F-16 the result is slightly different, 2nd missile hit the non maneuvering target. 2nd missile worked because the different relative position of launch position and target.
- In a simple dive any fighter is impossible target.
- I uploaded an ACMI with tweaked guidance value using An-2 and F-16 either. Only problem that I cannot test the effect of different guidance with longer range against maneuvering target.
My conclusion. As long as engagement distance is so undermodeled SA-3 is useless. It is not a real threat. Even thrust and weight values are tweakable they cannot be tested and verified. I have to skip SA-3 and work on another missile.
-
Molny this is excellent work. I certainly hope to see your changes in the DB one day.