OFMKTO 1.6 for BMS 4.37
-
@farazparsa
I hope someone from OMF will read it and check -
Good Day, All. As the Aim-120D discussion has occurred in a couple of threads, I felt The Mafia Journal thread was a good place to respond.
So, you are invited to https://forum.falcon-bms.com/topic/19270/bms-other-fighters-mafia-bmsofm-journal/760 -
@drtbkj
Then maybe You guys will be able to find few seconds to find who stole wingtip contrails from yours nice theater? -
@Mav-jp said in OFMKTO 1.6 for BMS 4.37:
The guy, based on the shape of the missile and the known top speed has estimated
Weight Propellant : 50Kg
Isp : 265
Burn Time : 7.75s
EjectedMassperSecond = 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 Kg
Which would make in his model :
total THRUST = 133 122 N = 29 928 Lbsasis
Isp = 265, which he took as a basis, very optimistic.
According to information from available sources, for different fuels, the range (Isp) will be something like this:
(For reduced smoke engines, the average ISP be ~255)
Also, for example, the ratio of the engine impulse and time, depending on the type of rocket engine (forms of fuel charge and the laws of their combustion).
@Mav-jp said in OFMKTO 1.6 for BMS 4.37:
Actually the guy said he found in
Hazard of Classification of Unite States Military Explosives ans Munitions Revision 14 2009A good document, about 10 years ago, thanks to this document, it was possible to put in relative order what was happening with the missiles in the ED DСS (Lockon).
True, it turned out at the same time that if we substitute the missiles from the ED, the impulse of the engines and the drag and lift coefficients are close to the real one. then everything becomes very bad with rockets, but, it was rather already connected with game modeling of the density of the atmosphere (external environment) in which these rockets flew.
-
@pgk007 Hi, I’m not sure I get your meaning
-
@SpbGoro said in OFMKTO 1.6 for BMS 4.37:
@Mav-jp said in OFMKTO 1.6 for BMS 4.37:
The guy, based on the shape of the missile and the known top speed has estimated
Weight Propellant : 50Kg
Isp : 265
Burn Time : 7.75s
EjectedMassperSecond = 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 Kg
Which would make in his model :
total THRUST = 133 122 N = 29 928 Lbsasis
Isp = 265, which he took as a basis, very optimistic.
According to information from available sources, for different fuels, the range (Isp) will be something like this:
(For reduced smoke engines, the average ISP be ~255)
Also, for example, the ratio of the engine impulse and time, depending on the type of rocket engine (forms of fuel charge and the laws of their combustion).
@Mav-jp said in OFMKTO 1.6 for BMS 4.37:
Actually the guy said he found in
Hazard of Classification of Unite States Military Explosives ans Munitions Revision 14 2009A good document, about 10 years ago, thanks to this document, it was possible to put in relative order what was happening with the missiles in the ED DСS (Lockon).
True, it turned out at the same time that if we substitute the missiles from the ED, the impulse of the engines and the drag and lift coefficients are close to the real one. then everything becomes very bad with rockets, but, it was rather already connected with game modeling of the density of the atmosphere (external environment) in which these rockets flew.
Yeh we took 238 in BMs modeling
-
@Mav-jp Hey mav, i am extremely interested to see your estimations on the S-400. I have a hard time buying how a missile not particularly larger than that of the SA-10 and SA-20 can have those insane advertised ranges. Public info for sa-10 = 50nm, sa-20 = 100nm, sa-21 = 200nm. Thoughts? Sure, electronics got lighter since the 80’s, making the weapon lighter. Sure, rocket fuel might have gotten a bit better (has it?) But 300% increase in max range from sa-10 to sa-21??
-
@Master-Yoda I think you should have stopped at “advertised”… People lie to sell…
-
@MaxWaldorf True. Still, i wanna see a more scientific estimation from a knowledgeable person, ballpark figures are good enough for us civies.
-
@Master-Yoda hi yoda
is Sa21 or sa20 modeled in bms? or in one of the theaters i missed? i realy want experience s400 or s300pmu2 in bms -
@farazparsa I was referring to the real world systems. Vanilla BMS doesn’t have 20’s and 21’s but i think this theater does?
-
@Master-Yoda
unfortunately no…
the most advanced air defenses in this theater are mim 104 patriot and s300p -
Sorry for the delay in replying but I’m having some family issues (with health) but I finally found some time
@drtbkj said in OFMKTO 1.6 for BMS 4.37:
@pgk007 Hi, I’m not sure I get your meaning
I mean this:
There are wingtip contrails on default KTO theater
And its how it looks on OFM KTO:
And im wonder what happend
-
@pgk007 OFM theaters are the only theaters that doesn’t have wikgtip contrails i realy like to know why just like you…
-
Good Day, Pg and Farasparsa. We’re seeing the wingtip vapes in the F-18E, etc, so it’s not an overall OFM Theater issue. We’ll take a look at this jet
All, very soon we will be releasing OFMKTO 1.7 . It has a bug-fix and other goodies. -
@drtbkj
Well most planes have vapor effect on wings but ive tested some models incliuding F-18 family and there wasnt wingtip contrails at all.@drtbkj said in OFMKTO 1.6 for BMS 4.37:
All, very soon we will be releasing OFMKTO 1.7 . It has a bug-fix and other goodies.
Im very happy to know it because maybe finally ill be able to start my own project
-
@pgk007 said in OFMKTO 1.6 for BMS 4.37:
@drtbkj
Well most planes have vapor effect on wings but ive tested some models incliuding F-18 family and there wasnt wingtip contrails at all.@drtbkj said in OFMKTO 1.6 for BMS 4.37:
All, very soon we will be releasing OFMKTO 1.7 . It has a bug-fix and other goodies.
Im very happy to know it because maybe finally ill be able to start my own project
It probably has to do with the vapour data in the respective FM.dat. will take a look at the EF.
-
Ok, I have checked out the FM.dat and the problem doesn’t lie there. I have made an FM swap between stock KTO and OFMKTO and it works in the stock version, with my Flight Model and the default FM. In the OFMKTO it doesn’t work with both FM. So it either is an issue with the 3D model, which I doubt, or there must be another file where the contrails are defined.
-
check ParticleSys.ini file
-
@kouzi said in OFMKTO 1.6 for BMS 4.37:
check ParticleSys.ini file
I replaced the OFM Particlesys.ini with the original ones.
Same result…