Stores GW and DI
-
stores DI shall not be touched (at least for F16 ones, they have been carefully checked with real data, good compromise is in there)
OK, no problem… I’ll play around this values at my own risk. Thou where to edit them?
of course AFM is affected if you change GW or DI.
But will AFM behave correctly if I change for ex: 370gal tank’s DI to 76 (as seen in some internet souces…)?
What about GW…? also? -
Bumping.
Please, someone…- Where to adjust stores GW and DI?
- How these adjustments will affect AFM?
Thanks.
-
Hi again.
Been doing some research about this subject.
Used some internet websites (like: http://www.voodoo-world.cz/falcon/armament.html ) among some other.
Also used these docments:- Navy_Cherry_Point_FEIS_Vol_1_Appendix_E.pdf
- Weapons File 2003-2004.pdf
- tacRef2-0.pdf
- 1F-16C-1.PDF
(Sorry no links for now, thou can post them later on)
In my conclusions, have taken into account as much as could, GW and DI for the store and it’s pylon/TER/rack informations.
Values indicated are for one station only, be it one store/weapon, 2 weapons or 3 weapons at same station.
Same information was retrieved from BMS for comparing.Please find in attachment a resume of my conclusions about differences to BMS.
-
Hi again.
Been doing some research about this subject.
Used some internet websites (like: http://www.voodoo-world.cz/falcon/armament.html ) among some other.
Also used these docments:- Navy_Cherry_Point_FEIS_Vol_1_Appendix_E.pdf
- Weapons File 2003-2004.pdf
- tacRef2-0.pdf
- 1F-16C-1.PDF
(Sorry no links for now, thou can post them later on)
In my conclusions, have taken into account as much as could, GW and DI for the store and it’s pylon/TER/rack informations.
Values indicated are for one station only, be it one store/weapon, 2 weapons or 3 weapons at same station.
Same information was retrieved from BMS for comparing.Please find in attachment a resume of my conclusions about differences to BMS.
Your conclusions are somehow incorrect as they don’t take into account the interaction between stations whereas bmS DI do. The fact that you don’t include this indicates me that you don’t work with the correct reference document (see PM)
HFFM DI are the best balance you could find with current code limitations. No change shall be done here.
Most important point is tht DI of weapon is dependent of other proximity weapons and the code can not handle that. We have the full documentation about that …
You are not the first to make this exercise and each time demonstration is made that DI shall not be changed. To be honest I am a bit lazy to demonstrate it again for you .Of course changing DI will ruin AFM accuracy
As far as GW is concerned I am not specialist at all in that area so I can’t tell. Sure the most accurate they are the better. AFM will react correctly to GW changes as the slots locations are correctHowever a lot of people have worked on that already with all full real data, I wonder how you could have different conclusions (of course there can be mistakes ) are you sure you are interpreting the topic of pylon correctly ?
-
Additionaly … if DI are changed … the entire aircraft and squadron database must be rebuild concerning fuel rate and max range.
-
Your conclusions are somehow incorrect as they don’t take into account the interaction between stations whereas bmS DI do. The fact that you don’t include this indicates me that you don’t work with the correct reference document (see PM)
HFFM DI are the best balance you could find with current code limitations. No change shall be done here.
Most important point is tht DI of weapon is dependent of other proximity weapons and the code can not handle that. We have the full documentation about that …
You are not the first to make this exercise and each time demonstration is made that DI shall not be changed. To be honest I am a bit lazy to demonstrate it again for you .Of course changing DI will ruin AFM accuracy
As far as GW is concerned I am not specialist at all in that area so I can’t tell. Sure the most accurate they are the better. AFM will react correctly to GW changes as the slots locations are correctHowever a lot of people have worked on that already with all full real data, I wonder how you could have different conclusions (of course there can be mistakes ) are you sure you are interpreting the topic of pylon correctly ?
It seems now got your attention…
And… palease, don’t take my intervention as any kind of bad criticism or “do it now” statement. I’m on the top of OF/BMS fan club, since frugals (which 90% of nowadays BMS simmers don’t even know what am talking about) , when it was too much evident that this sim was under building… I was one of most believers since.
For me and squad mates we are using BMS values in our tables and calculations, till any (eventual) corrections.@Mav
OK, not saying that my figures are absolutely correct. They are as much correct as I could find them - mostly from the 1F-16C-1, which am sure you know about it.
Also am well aware of DI interactions, thou not having any documentation, for now, about it (excluding 300gal and 370gal Tanks, which could find it to be between 23 and 26/35).
Now if you tell me all this calculations were well retrieved and taken into account, am glad for you and all falconners flying BMS.
About that demonstration, ok will forgive your lazyness :D, if you point me some links to this demonstration you might did to anyone else? Coz am really interested to understand why DI changes, messes up so much with AFM…
GWs were also mostly taken from the 1F-16C-1, where you can find alot of information about it, be it stores, weapons, pylons, racks or ters.@Dee-Jay
Mate, again, am all forward with realism in this wonderful sim - only. Nothing more than that.
All I want is to be sure/ understand that this sim is as much realistic as possible in all it’s vectors.
So if DI should be changed into realistic values (assuming any incorrectness), that would be a huge amount of work (I know) but in my opinion something that should be done, regarding campaigns dynamics or what ever that it messes with. Not now, maybe in future releases…Thanks for your attention.
-
@Dee-Jay
Mate, again, am all forward with realism in this wonderful sim - only. Nothing more than that.
All I want is to be sure/ understand that this sim is as much realistic as possible in all it’s vectors.
So if DI should be changed into realistic values (assuming any incorrectness), that would be a huge amount of work (I know) but in my opinion something that should be done, regarding campaigns dynamics or what ever that it messes with. Not now, maybe in future releases…Thanks for your attention.
Fuel rate establishment based on new code took me around 300h of work … and impact directly the dynamic bingo, fuel load computation etc…
We can of course redo all that stuff … but that could take about one years … (only for my part) … that will also change .vcd & .ucd files then all theatres using their own DB will have to be updated and then, database rebuild…
Are DI values “so important” and are changes “so huge” to justify such an investment in time?
Could you explain me please what does it will really change? (I don’t really know except having (maybe) a little bit closer fuel consummation values depending on weapon load) -
Hi again.
Been doing some research about this subject.
Used some internet websites (like: http://www.voodoo-world.cz/falcon/armament.html ) among some other.
Also used these docments:- Navy_Cherry_Point_FEIS_Vol_1_Appendix_E.pdf
- Weapons File 2003-2004.pdf
- tacRef2-0.pdf
- 1F-16C-1.PDF
(Sorry no links for now, thou can post them later on)
In my conclusions, have taken into account as much as could, GW and DI for the store and it’s pylon/TER/rack informations.
Values indicated are for one station only, be it one store/weapon, 2 weapons or 3 weapons at same station.
Same information was retrieved from BMS for comparing.Please find in attachment a resume of my conclusions about differences to BMS.
comparing with our database, seems to me you forgot the Suspension drag Index table
for exemple:
AGM65A = 13 on a TER so 3 X 13 = 39
LAU 88 A = 29Total DI = 68 , BMS = 70
AGM65 A = 8 on SINGLE
LAU 88 A/A = 24DI = 32 , BMS = 45
here you see the limitation of the code where the DI can NOT be different for a single weapon depending on its configuration…
that was jsut an exemple
-
Fuel rate establishment based on new code took me around 300h of work … and impact directly the dynamic bingo, fuel load computation etc…
We can of course redo all that stuff … but that could take about one years … (only for my part) … that will also change .vcd & .ucd files then all theatres using their own DB will have to be updated and then, database rebuild…
Are DI values “so important” and are changes “so huge” to justify such an investment in time?
Could you explain me please what does it will really change? (I don’t really know except having (maybe) a little bit closer fuel consummation values depending on weapon load)DJ, BMS DI are correct unless i made some mistakes (sure there can be !! ) in some of them 6 years ago i didnt check GW at that time…contact me plz
-
All I want is to be sure/ understand that this sim is as much realistic as possible in all it’s vectors.
Forgot to precise … In BMS (unfortunately) EVERYTHING is a question of compromises…
That’s the deal, and believe me, I’m one of the 1st to be sad about that…
-
comparing with our database, seems to me you forgot the Suspension drag Index table
for exemple:
AGM65A = 13 on a TER so 3 X 13 = 39
LAU 88 A = 29Total DI = 68 , BMS = 70
AGM65 A = 8 on SINGLE
LAU 88 A/A = 24DI = 32 , BMS = 45
here you see the limitation of the code where the DI can NOT be different for a single weapon depending on its configuration…
that was jsut an exemple
Gentlemen, please, don’t get worried about all this now.
Everybody can make mistakes, hey… including me… haaaahahahah, of course.
Got my hands on some new findings and will review my calculations and update my tables.
Now regarding Mav’s examples, man, you’ve picked up some nice examples;- Total DI= 68, BMS= 70 and mine= 67
- Total DI= 32, BMS= 45 and mine= 27
Well, maybe am being too much of a perfectionist here… :drink:
One other question… have been taken into account suspensions jettisonable GWs for the case of emergencies jettisons?
Taking the chance here… TGP/HTS GW and DI should appear reflected on loadout screen GW/DI total values of airplane…
Also, tanks empty weight could also appear in “Munitions” GW field… (cof, cof, no to mentions this field should be called “Stores” in case of showing not only munitions GWs)
Cheers.
God bless your work guys. -
Gentlemen, please, don’t get worried about all this now.
Everybody can make mistakes, hey… including me… haaaahahahah, of course.
Got my hands on some new findings and will review my calculations and update my tables.
Now regarding Mav’s examples, man, you’ve picked up some nice examples;- Total DI= 68, BMS= 70 and mine= 67
- Total DI= 32, BMS= 45 and mine= 27
Well, maybe am being too much of a perfectionist here… :drink:
One other question… have been taken into account suspensions jettisonable GWs for the case of emergencies jettisons?
Taking the chance here… TGP/HTS GW and DI should appear reflected on loadout screen GW/DI total values of airplane…
Also, tanks empty weight could also appear in “Munitions” GW field… (cof, cof, no to mentions this field should be called “Stores” in case of showing not only munitions GWs)
Cheers.
God bless your work guys.mmm … okay …
But for info, fuel consummation is changed by 33% each 100 DI points … so means that for a difference of about 13 (32-45) it is equal to 4% …
4%! not a big deal
But if Jp want to change it, for a such small difference, no need to update Fuel Rate … it will be okay!
-
Yep, I see.
Corrections are up to you guys… Thou didn’t find differences that magnitude (100) in DI, not even close.
Also didn’t get clear if DI can be changed in this case of more than one weapon in the ter… or if it can be changed in any case… GW had bigger differences. Again found some more recent figures and ASAP will check my values and be back here.Cheers.
-
Yep, I see.
Corrections are up to you guys… Thou didn’t find differences that magnitude (100) in DI, not even close.
Also didn’t get clear if DI can be changed in this case of more than one weapon in the ter… or if it can be changed in any case… GW had bigger differences. Again found some more recent figures and ASAP will check my values and be back here.Cheers.
to be clear you can not have a different DI for the same weapon depending on its configuration. This is where compromise must be done and that is why you may find big differences between BMW and real sometimes.
IIRC the launcher for aim9 and aim120 are the same in BMS which also explains some of the DI for aim9
I confess I never checked the GW at that time (2004) because OFM was not very sensitive to weight.
please could you make the same comparison table between BMS (check in game as well) and the new docs you have
For tanks just compare empty weights
Thanks for your support -
Yep Mav, will do that.
Thanks for clarifying that. It’ll be reflected in new calculations.PS: My BMS values for comparison were all taken from the loadout screen.
Thanks again.
-
Dear all,
Have the data derived by flyway been introduced in BMS433u1?I checked some GW and DI in load-out page. I found a discrepancy with one described in HAF-F16-supplement.
As I put Mk82 three times, i found their GWs and DIs.DI GW(munitions) clean 1 0 Pylon, 1xMk82 24 820 Pylon, Ter, 2xMk82 57 1689 Pylon, Ter, 3xMk82 66 2189
From the upper data, we can extract individual data as followings and compare them with HAF-F16-Supplement data
BMS HAF-F16-Supplement ------------------------- ------------------------------- DI GW DI GW Pylon 14 320 15 281 [b]Ter 24 369 9 117[/b] Mk82 9 500 9 510 ```Pylon and Mk82 data are not bad, but Ter is overweight and overdragged. Thanks,