BMS Other Fighters Mafia (BMSOFM) Journal
-
As Hudson would say “It’s a Bug Hunt!” We have the second new OFM theater(Nevada) done, but are holding it while we work on 2 issues. The first is regarding the Aim-120 D against certain jets. That’s a weird one, but we think we have it figured out. More on that later.
The second is that some people are having more then normal ctd’s. We think we know what is happening and are working on the why it’s happening.
It’s been a rough week for bugs but as we like to say “Forgetta 'bout it” The good news is, once we work the bugs out we can do the other Theaters quickly.
Anyway, how the experiment using Mega links is working? Are you seeing faster downloads then the Mediafire links? -
Good Day, All. We have solved the Aim-120D “guidance” issue but the solution somehow made the HUD look like you were shooting a Sparrow! We’re working on it.
We also think we have a plan to fix the intermittent ctd problem. It’s inconsistancy is strange. I’ve run the same mission 4 times and only ctd’s once. -
Good Day, All. There has been discussion in a couple of threads about the AIM-120 D missile we have presented. I though this was the appropriate place to respond
"@Mav-jp said in OFMKTO 1.6 for BMS 4.37:Guys i understand that this mod is made with Passion and dedication ,
i’s good to have
But you cannot do things like this, i can’t speak for the BMS team, but personnaly i can’t agree to see BMS moded like this.
PLease ask questions , and listen to the guys who know , that’s the best way to learn "
Apparently, the AIM-120D Project has sparked some controversy. That’s good, that’s how things get improved.
Let me give the Group some back round on Project Slammer D. We saw situations in 1v.1’a where we were getting shot and weren’t even in our range . We saw situations where transport AC were outrunning missiles. We don’t think that is realistic ,either. Apparently, we are not the only people to see such things. So, as we like to do, we gave the BMS membership a choice.
We have made it very plain that it’s not perfect, or a completed project. The goal was to make a missile whose in-action performance matches what we’ve found in real world documentation. As we do not, as you know, have hard code access, we work with what we can. So, we are very aware that some data values are off.
For the sake of our conversation on this subject I reached out to the person who did the actual technical work on the Project(who is unfortunately no longer with BMS). His response to you was " You can suggest to MavJP to review the use of MissileDATCOM (and massage the engine data, and seeker performance of the missile) to arrive at the public source performance data for the 120D . . . Which has been stated at over 100 nmi". However, Mav, I would not presume to question your knowledge of the subject, nor is that the main issue for me at the moment.
You ask that we “ask questions and listen”. I am troubled by the impression that may give to the Membership . We have reached out. Menawhile, as above, we do what we can with what we have.
But, please do not take the above statement as adversarial. The BMS Dev’s, including you, are not our enemies, nor are we yours. We are all united by our passion for BMS.
I’ve written this many times and here’s one more .If you, or anyone, wants to help us make this missile( or anything else ) better, you will see just how well we listen. -
-
-
@drtbkj said in BMS Other Fighters Mafia (BMSOFM) Journal:
Good Day, All. There has been discussion in a couple of threads about the AIM-120 D missile we have presented. I though this was the appropriate place to respond
to arrive at the public source performance data for the 120D . . . Which has been stated at over 100 nmi".Guys,
you DO iunderstand that this statement means absolutly NOTHING , do you ?
Then
PHYSICS RULES ! you can’t justify modeling a fuel that is >40% efficient than the real one. -
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)
113.00Motor Impulse (lb-sec)
29358BRNTIME
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 -
PLEASE : you reall need to ask questions before changing data !
*maxspeed 0
You need to set up this value to the top value MDM will give you else you screw the DZL computation
“deployableWingsTime 1”
didnt know the AIM120D had wings ?
“miniaerorange 0”
With this value set to 0 , the dynamic DZL computatation is wrong
"loftTableFilename "
The file name beeing empty, the AIM120 Loft data is not loaded at all
SmallFighterPitbull 20
FighterPitbull 22
BomberPitbull 25
HighAspectSmallFighterHusky 24
HighAspectFighterHusky 27
HighAspectBomberHusky 32WTF ??? pitbull range at 22 NM ??? HUSKY @ 27 NM are your kidding ? where did you find those information ?
are you aware that the AIM120 radar as defined in the DB is likely unable to catch the targets with a RCS1 at those distances ?
-
OkAy
Another important thing :
DZL data tables must be computed by MDM , this is the only way to compute them.
Everytime you modify the aero or thrust parameters, you must run MDM again to compute the DZL tables.
Keep in mind that those tables are set up for a STATIC target (and therefore cannot be estimated in game).
Please find here what i would do if i had to guestimate AIM120D
https://mega.nz/file/jhkS2IBI#BXFP2dnRUs7XZCbXZHepmBJQgebiLs4fe9br0ezpk90
-
@Mav-jp
Thanks for your input. The MDM is a BMS internal development tool that you use? Could it be shared? -
@Scorpion82 said in BMS Other Fighters Mafia (BMSOFM) Journal:
@Mav-jp
Thanks for your input. The MDM is a BMS internal development tool that you use? Could it be shared?to be asked to Falcas
@Falcas -
Good Day, All. Firstly, Mav, many thanks for the data. We are looking at that as we speak, and also testing the .dat you sent.
This is what we like to see…We get a project as close as we can then release as a WIP .The more people looking at it, the better we’ll make it. That, my friends, is Mafia 101
The first thing we see is that “our” missile is too fast. Super Slammer . -
Good Day, All. Today’s update is about the AIM-120D and ctd’s.
Thanks to the input we’ve gotten and Brothers Scorpion, Sammy Skycraft, and Musurca joining the 120DProject, we’re making headway. Mav’s dat solved the GO STT showing up on the HUD and the lack of a “M” from incoming missiles. It’s guiding well, too We have adjusted the missile’s burntime to 20 seconds(it was about 90 sec. before-yikes) ACMI tests are now showing a realistic Mach 4 top speed.
The seat-of-the-pants testing is looking better, too. At Rmax(55 miles against fighters) the J-20’s I was testing against could sometimes evade it. The missile tracked, it just ran out of energy. That seems realistic. As previously stated, the goal was never to make a Magic Bullet. Another aspect is the DLZ display. Rmax may be close, we’re wondering about Rnez.
At the same time we continue to work on the OFMKTO campaign occasional ctd issue. Last night we flew 2 missions without a ctd, so we feel progress is being made
The plan remains to hold our other Theaters until we are sure this issue is resolved… -
@drtbkj said in BMS Other Fighters Mafia (BMSOFM) Journal:
Good Day, All. Today’s update is about the AIM-120D and ctd’s.
Thanks to the input we’ve gotten and Brothers Scorpion, Sammy Skycraft, and Musurca joining the 120DProject, we’re making headway. Mav’s dat solved the GO STT showing up on the HUD and the lack of a “M” from incoming missiles. It’s guiding well, too We have adjusted the missile’s burntime to 20 seconds(it was about 90 sec. before-yikes) ACMI tests are now showing a realistic Mach 4 top speed.
The seat-of-the-pants testing is looking better, too. At Rmax(55 miles against fighters) the J-20’s I was testing against could sometimes evade it. The missile tracked, it just ran out of energy. That seems realistic. As previously stated, the goal was never to make a Magic Bullet. Another aspect is the DLZ display. Rmax may be close, we’re wondering about Rnez.
At the same time we continue to work on the OFMKTO campaign occasional ctd issue. Last night we flew 2 missions without a ctd, so we feel progress is being made
The plan remains to hold our other Theaters until we are sure this issue is resolved…you cant keep an Isp above 265
-
Good Day, All,
Firstly, Mav, as we are now working off your provided misdat file We should be good on that. We’re double checking the values, anyway.
All… Today has been spent testing the sporadic ctd fix. We’ve done multiple missions without ctd’s. We’re going to test some more before release, just to make sure.
This happens just in time for U2 to come out! So far we have not found any U2/OFMKTO compatibility issues -
@Mav-jp
hi mav i realy like the things you said and referenced about Aim 120D fuel,impulse and other stuff…
but I’ve downloaded and copied Aim120.dat file you offered and well… dude this aim 120d sucks! no offense but it’s just like aim 120c with a little extra 5 nmi range?! or so
the speed changed from 3.4 mach in c varient to 3.6 in your d varient! 🫡
i mean if this is realistic then why the heck us airforce and navy just keep buying that? they better use the cheaper aim120c varient…
btw I didn’t run the dzl table and mdm stuff you said before because I don’t know what are these tables and how to run it…
maybe it’s the reason that your aim 120d.dat file has very similar profile to aim 120c varient…
honestly I don’t know.
but thanks for the good info you provided about missiles -
@drtbkj
hi drtbkj!
I’m still waiting for the new OFMKTO hotfix 3 that will fix the crashing issue in campaigns…🫡🫠 -
@farazparsa said in BMS Other Fighters Mafia (BMSOFM) Journal:
@drtbkj
hi drtbkj!
I’m still waiting for the new OFMKTO hotfix 3 that will fix the crashing issue in campaigns…🫡🫠Hey, Dude, good news-It’s fixed.
All, very soon we will be releasing OFMKTO 1.7. It has the ctd fix plus other goodies. Plus, here’s a teaser for you…We’re going to do an experiment with Membership Participation. -
@drtbkj
thank you so much
you guys did outstanding job all of you.
can’t wait to play OFM campaigns.️🇺🇲 -
Good Day, All. Were are happy to present OFMKTO 1.7 for your enjoyment.
https://forum.falcon-bms.com/topic/24811/korea-ofmkto-1-7
A day or so ago, in the OFM 1.6 thread I believe, I had given you a little teaser about our experiment in Member Participation. We realize our released AIM-120D has been a bit controversial. We released OFM 1.7 with what we felt was the best compromise. However, we want to try to accomplish the impossible and please everybody. So, we are opening the discussion to include you. If you look in x/4.37/data/Add-On OFMKTO/Sim/misdata . There you will find ALL our current Aim-120D “candidates”. You just need to backup the “Aim-120D” and rename what you would want to test to Aim-120D We invite your input.
Beyond that, our development of the 120D will continue. Plus, we never stop looking at flight model refinement of various jets
The plan now is to take a couple of days off , then get into the other theaters. I believe Nevada will be next… -
I have created the mod which you requested.
It is in my New Thread (Not that one; the other one).
Seems I was a little late for this release…?
You have permission to include it in the next release.
.
MafiaGORN.
-
@Aragorn said in BMS Other Fighters Mafia (BMSOFM) Journal:
I have created the mod which you requested.
It is in my New Thread (Not that one; the other one).
Seems I was a little late for this release…?
You have permission to include it in the next release.
.
MafiaGORN.
…And it shall be incorporated everywhere in Mafia World…