OFMKTO 1.6 for BMS 4.37
-
Good Day, All. If you check post #1 you’ll see a link for today’s OFMKTO 1.6 Hotfix2, replacing the older Hotfix.
We did things a little different this time, exploring the use of Mega Links. So, let us know how you like them -
@drtbkj Thank you for updating the legacy!️ I’m gonna install this new hotfix and check if it crashes again i will report back to you.
-
@drtbkj hello again Mate.
i installed the new hotfix2 for OFM KTO and it still crashes playing about 20 minutes in every campaign.
where can i get the crash logs? -
@Scorpion82 mate this new EF Cockpit and model looks insane! thanks️
-
@drtbkj Great many thanks for this, I was really looking forward for OFM release
-
@farazparsa said in OFMKTO 1.6 for BMS 4.37:
@drtbkj Thank you for updating the legacy!️ I’m gonna install this new hotfix and check if it crashes again i will report back to you.
Hi, Faraparsa. We are indeed looking into this issue.
-
@drtbkj
hi mate
there is also a new visual bug added to OFMKTO after hotfix2…
AIM120D lock on shows GO STT ON HUD! like it’s a fox1 missile… -
@farazparsa Hi. Yes , we’ve seen that in testing, too. We solved the 120D “guidance” problem, but the solution brought this with it! We’re looking at it… The good news is that even though the HUD looks like you’re shooting a Sparrow, the missile does act as a Slammer
-
@drtbkj
keep up the good work.
there is only one issue to fix and that is crashing in campaigns after about 30 minutes of gameplay as navy squadron on carrier.
i noticed something new about this issue and that is even if you don’t go for Takeoff and watch the campaign going on the map if you set time to 64X forward after about 20 minutes of campaign going on bms will crash. -
@farazparsa said in OFMKTO 1.6 for BMS 4.37:
@drtbkj
keep up the good work.
there is only one issue to fix and that is crashing in campaigns after about 30 minutes of gameplay as navy squadron on carrier.
i noticed something new about this issue and that is even if you don’t go for Takeoff and watch the campaign going on the map if you set time to 64X forward after about 20 minutes of campaign going on bms will crash.We think we have that licked
-
thks a lot!!!
-
@farazparsa in general 16x is the recommended maximum for BMS campaign time compression. That may or may not be the source of the crash but even if it doesn’t crash BMS, the calculations will not be done properly.
-
@Snake122 it’s not about time compression actually if you even take off and go for a mission on carrier bms will crash after about 20 or 30 minutes of gameplay.
i just advised skipping the time for testing cause even if you don’t go for take off and watch the campaign going on the map it will definitely crash after 30 minutes… -
@drtbkj outstanding!
what was the problem? -
@farazparsa said in OFMKTO 1.6 for BMS 4.37:
@drtbkj outstanding!
what was the problem?I’m not the Tech Brain of the Mafia , but as it was explained to me we think there may be 2 factors. There may be certain object(s)(we suspect the F-35B ) that if you get in that object’s bubble( that being a certain distance from the object) is causes a fault. Those faults accumulate as the game progresses causing the ctd.
Anyway, I’ve been afk for a few days, but hopefully will learn more tomorrow
-
Nice work guys.
I see a LOT of Your’s hard work and appreciate it very much
Ive just started playing and testing it and found many great things but also what i found is little bit strange
I mean on every other theater there are wingtip contrails on most of planes but here they disappeared.
It is a bug or it was intentional? -
@pgk007 they probably got rid of it because of the difference between wingspan in new models.
just a guess -
@farazparsa said in OFMKTO 1.6 for BMS 4.37:
@pgk007 they probably got rid of it because of the difference between wingspan in new models.
just a guessUnfortunately, it happens in every model - even with stock as the F16 C Block 50 or Eurofighter
-
okay i downloaded OFMKTO , and looked at the AIM120D data .
I’m sorry guys but i think you are in the wrong direction here
FIRST :
When you change the motor data, you absolutly need to compute the integrated impulse data and set it up in the fileTHEN:
Let’s now talk about your modelingThe AIM120B impulse data is 23800 Lbs -sec.
The AIM120C impulse data is 26842 Lbs -sec.
Your AIM120D impulse data i 49684 Lbs - sec.
You realize that with the same weight of propelant , you just found one that provides 85% more energy ? i would be surprise to know how ?
For me this is totally unrealistic impulse data, with this kind of properlant weight and missile size, the AIM120 CANNOT get this kind of impulse, that’s absolutly impossible, no matter what marketing manager says
In everything you do, please place PHYSICS before Marketing
-
So, Let’s do a bit of physics here
for the AIM120C :
Please refer to this document :
https://zaretto.com/sites/zaretto.com/files/missile-aerodynamic-data/AIM120C5-Performance-Assessment-rev2.pdfThis analysis is very good.
The guy, based on the shape of the missile and the known top speed has estimatedWeight Propellant : 50Kg
Isp : 265
Burn Time : 7.75sEjectedMassperSecond = 50 / 7.75 = 6.45
ThrustPerSec = Gravity * ISP * EjectedMassPerSecond
This gives a thrust per second of (in SI units)ThrustPerSec = 9.8 * 265 * 6.45 = 16750 N/sec
Total THRUST = 16750 * 7.75 = 129 917 N = 29207 Lbs
Actually the guy said he found in
Hazard of Classification of Unite States Military Explosives ans Munitions Revision 14 2009
the real mass beeing 51.26 KgWhich would make in his model :
total THRUST = 133 122 N = 29 928 Lbs
BMS AIM120 Modeling:
Weight : 113 Lbs = 51.25567 Kg
Isp = 238
Burn Time : 7.4875 stotal THRUST = 119 393 N
so that means that BMS model is 12% less impulse than this guys model, however, that does not mean performance is different as comparison of Drag between the missiles needs to be done
All of this is however in the range of th ephysically reasonnable
Now let’s go to your missile:
Weight : 113 Lbs = 51.25567
BurnTime = 99.975
EjectedMassperSecond = 51.25567 / 99.975 = 0.51268total THRUST = 49687 Lbs = 221 008 N
that means your ISP = (221 008 / ( 99.975 * 9.8 * 0.51268)) = 440
You just modeled a fuel that is 51% more efficient that the fuel know for those kind of application , read
Rocket Propulsion Elements George, P, Sutton 2001
this is NO GO
And this is where you realize that without changing drastically the shape of the missile, which means the weight of properllant it can carry, you can’t reach the performances of the marketing guys
i would suggest for the AIM120D to take those values:
Weight : 113 Lbs = 51.25567 Kg
Isp = 260
Burn Time : 7.4875 swhich would mean
Weight of propellant (lbs)
113.00
Motor Impulse (lb-sec)
29358
BRNTIME
5
+0.000000 +0.100000 +0.125000
+7.600000 +7.625000#-----------------------------------------------------
ENGINE THRUST (LBS)
#-----------------------------------------------------
+0.000000 +0.000000 +3921.000000 +3921.000000 +0.000000
Then recalculate with MDM the corresponding DZL tables