BMS Other Fighters Mafia (BMSOFM) Journal
-
the problem is that you can’t develop a reliable rhino without code change because the G vs GW curve is hardcoded for the HORNET
so the work your are doing on a FLCS that is incorrect might need to be redo again.
First, update me with the Rhino FLCS
You should join us at the Discord Channel
-
This post is deleted! -
Most of the BMS team is on the falcon lounge…
You should probably reach them there…
-
@TGW:
Our latest C-model and appropriate data . . . .
…making this my new desktop wallpaper!
-
This post is deleted! -
…making this my new desktop wallpaper!
I have a higher res one, if you want that instead. PM me!
-
Good Day, All,
I haven’t posted an update for awhile, so here goes…
The work mentioned in post 394 is on going. The Growler Project is still on track. As for the flight modeling, Brother TGW has been evaluating different computational fluid dynamics (CFD) programs and we seem to have settled on one. We’re hoping to "get some numbers " soon! -
Good Day, All,
I haven’t posted an update for awhile, so here goes…
The work mentioned in post 394 is on going. The Growler Project is still on track. As for the flight modeling, Brother TGW has been evaluating different computational fluid dynamics (CFD) programs and we seem to have settled on one. We’re hoping to "get some numbers " soon!good news
-
The Growler Project is still on track. As for the flight modeling, Brother TGW has been evaluating different computational fluid dynamics (CFD) programs and we seem to have settled on one. We’re hoping to "get some numbers " soon!
Can you expand on this a bit – for those of us who haven’t been peeking in on the discord.
It looks/sounds a lot like … you guys are taking virtual 3D models and running them through CFD simulation software, with a goal of generating the “numbers” needed to populate an ‘afm.dat’ flight model for BMS.
If so, that is unbelievably cool – it should win some kind of award for innovation! (Or is this just how flight sims are built, these days… I suppose it’s how modern planes are modelled and flight-tested, before ever being constructed.)
But I’m just connecting dots here. Is that what is happening? Is it an approach that can scale, to generate AFMs for other, non-fbw planes, like F-15 or Mig-29 etc? (Given a bit of knowledge/guesstimate about center-of-gravity, and relative position of onboard fuel tanks etc?)
-
Can you expand on this a bit – for those of us who haven’t been peeking in on the discord.
It looks/sounds a lot like … you guys are taking virtual 3D models and running them through CFD simulation software, with a goal of generating the “numbers” needed to populate an ‘afm.dat’ flight model for BMS.
If so, that is unbelievably cool – it should win some kind of award for innovation! (Or is this just how flight sims are built, these days… I suppose it’s how modern planes are modelled and flight-tested, before ever being constructed.)
But I’m just connecting dots here. Is that what is happening? Is it an approach that can scale, to generate AFMs for other, non-fbw planes, like F-15 or Mig-29 etc? (Given a bit of knowledge/guesstimate about center-of-gravity, and relative position of onboard fuel tanks etc?)
Indeed that sounds very promising. Having developed CFD code myself some while ago, the problem is that there are still quite some parameters to choose to get a match with reality (dependent on the actual method, for instance, the surface roughness or “stickiness” of the materials). So you typically need some kind of calibration to extract the effective flight model that matches reality best. You could use the F16 flight model as golden standard, calibrate your free parameters such that you recover the F16 flight model and from there you go to the airplanes of interest. Though this only works in case they are similar enough,… Just thinking loud since this sounds really interesting
-
CFD in 4 mins!
-
Can you expand on this a bit – for those of us who haven’t been peeking in on the discord.
It looks/sounds a lot like … you guys are taking virtual 3D models and running them through CFD simulation software, with a goal of generating the “numbers” needed to populate an ‘afm.dat’ flight model for BMS.
If so, that is unbelievably cool – it should win some kind of award for innovation! (Or is this just how flight sims are built, these days… I suppose it’s how modern planes are modelled and flight-tested, before ever being constructed.)
But I’m just connecting dots here. Is that what is happening? Is it an approach that can scale, to generate AFMs for other, non-fbw planes, like F-15 or Mig-29 etc? (Given a bit of knowledge/guesstimate about center-of-gravity, and relative position of onboard fuel tanks etc?)
Hi, Airtex,
The Mafia’s mission hasn’t changed a bit- Build on the foundation the Dev’s have given us to enhance the “Other Jets” of BMS. We are doing that in 3 areas. Brother TGW is heading up the CFD aspect, and yes, the goal is as you describe. The second aspect is 3D modeling. Brother Kaos, through his Growler Project, is heading that. The third aspect is cockpit modeling. Brother Musurca has provided a very useful tool to work with cockpit hotspots. So, the goal is to see how functional we can make “stock” cockpits, for those who don’t want the Viper or Hornet pit in their jet of choice. And, meanwhile, Brother Eddie is doing the 1001 things that make our stuff work in BMS.
I think of our current phase as “building infrastructure”. We’re learning how to do what we want to do, and we are making progress… -
I hate to break it to you guys, but the Super Hornet and Growler flight models should be nearly - if not - identical. Where any differences in FQ arise are solely attributable to mass/inertia effects.
C/D and E/F are very different - and again, even those differences are most apparent as a combination of thrust inertial differences.
-
This post is deleted! -
Indeed that sounds very promising. Having developed CFD code myself some while ago, the problem is that there are still quite some parameters to choose to get a match with reality (dependent on the actual method, for instance, the surface roughness or “stickiness” of the materials). So you typically need some kind of calibration to extract the effective flight model that matches reality best. You could use the F16 flight model as golden standard, calibrate your free parameters such that you recover the F16 flight model and from there you go to the airplanes of interest. Though this only works in case they are similar enough,… Just thinking loud since this sounds really interesting
Yes, you are correct! I do have NASA data as a baseline for correlative purpose to a known condition. Once we can produce in 95-97% accuracy there then we move to unknown configs and watch for weird ‘gremlin like’ anomalies to be squashed. Stay tuned!
PS: I am using a Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes computation (RANS) with ‘smart’ (self-aware, lol) turbulence model. Yes, ‘should’ be fun!
-
I hate to break it to you guys, but the Super Hornet and Growler flight models should be nearly - if not - identical. Where any differences in FQ arise are solely attributable to mass/inertia effects.
C/D and E/F are very different - and again, even those differences are most apparent as a combination of thrust inertial differences.
WE KNOW, THAT’S WHY WE ARE WORKING ON IT
-
If one is able to build a flight model from flow simulation results, it would be a great news for the whole aerospace industry guys…
What you are trying to do is not so far from deserving a Nobel price !
I wish you to succeed… -
C/D and E/F are very different - and again, even those differences are most apparent as a combination of thrust inertial differences.
Well Stevie, you missed a few important (significant) others like: parasitic drag, induced drag, roll rate, wing loading, corner speed, landing speed, total gross weight, drag indexes (when stores are present) are just to name a few which are not directly related to ‘thrust inertial differences’, but thank you for your concern . . .
-
Good Day, All,
Just popping in for a quick update…
Work on the flight models is continuing. Right now we are helping a FOM (Friend of Mafia) with a project. Once that’s done, and I’m told that will be soon, we’ll be getting back into the Hornet FM. Then the Rhino, Growler, and then other jets. As mentioned before, what we’re really doing is laying the foundation to do what we want to do.
While I’m here, let me mention that the Mafia will be available to help with problems you may have , during the upcoming Forum downtime. Just check us out on our Discord- https://discord.gg/kQQT7WgwhH -
-
Good Day, All.
I recently got the F18 stick for the Warthog (a review is over in that section). I was asked to share my HOTAS setup, so here goes. Please refer to the image…
Button number/unshifted function/shifted function/notes
1 and 6-First and second trigger
2- pickle/none
3-DX-FOV/none/Other options are TMS-down here as “undesignate”,Dx-FOV on throttle pinky, and auto-throttle as 5(shifted)
4-paddle/none
5-NWS-AR/none
7-10-TMS / 7-DMS up,8 Rdr AG Mode,9 Rdr Snowplow,10 Rdr AA mode/ I have tried DMS left,right , down as shifted functions here
11-DMS left/none
12-DMS Down/none
13 DMS Right/None
14-Rdr Azimuth scan/none
15- MRM(“AIM-120 select”)/none
16-MRM/DFT cancel/none
17- DFT (" AIM-9 select")/none
18-next AG Wpn select/none
To complete the setup,
Throttle Boat Switch-fore-CMS up (“chaff”)/CMS down
-aft-CMS Left (“flare”)/CMS Right.
China Hat switch-fore-Cursor Enable/Cursor Zero
-aft- Uncage
Throttle pinky-Auto throttle/time accel. 4x
Obviously, personal preference has a lot to do with this. My desire was to make it as Hornet-like as possible, while compromising with Viper avionics. Plus, I have evolved into using shifted functions as little as possible. However, for the purpose of the stick review, I put the CMS functions on the WSS, and MRM/DFT on the Boat switch, and it all worked fine. For that matter, reversing my Boat and China Hat functions is very doable. -
-