I love the BMS flight model
-
@frapes45 said in I love the BMS flight model:
@Mav-jp said in I love the BMS flight model:
what you need to look at is PSI angle which reveals the heading motions :
I am sorry but that statement is totaly incorrect.
Ψ angle when banked at 70 degrees doesnt show heading change at most. It mostly shows you are heading either towards the sky or the ground.
It seems you have difficulty understanding the dynamic of the euler angles. When banked 90 degrees θ will show you if yοu change heading not ψ
You also seem to base your theory on the hud feeding g sensor which is seperate and different in location than the one FLCS uses.
i feel ashame for you now , sorry.
have a good time
-
@Mav-jp cmon man. No need to fight.
Instead, i suggest we focus on getting to the bottom of this.
Perhaps I can setup a way to measure the angles and save them to a text file so I would be able to chart them and see how close to the diagrams bms is.
I need to study tp1538 more to know all the exact parameters.
I will keep looking.
-
said in
Pay attention that during this period FLongN is a bit positive which means the pilot still gives some input therefore the analysis will be biaised
During this time, the PSI angle (heading) has built up to 50 degrees deviation,
you can also see that the pitch rate (q) is also building up while rolling, which is due to both FLCS commanding pitch , pilot input AND inertia coupling
As a matter of fact, this test has been performed in order to test the Roll limiters systems (A , B, C ) and to measure their resistance on the inertia coupling during those manoeuvers
So , your “proof” is actually only a proof that you misinterpreted the meaning of theta angle.
as this test is performed with pilot stick input, we cannot demonstrate really anything on the matter.
the only thing we know is that the FLCS commands 1G pitch up all the time, and particularly when rolled at 90 deg, which provokes heading deviation
I have been further studying tp1538…
I have reached some conclusions.
First of all, Do you even realize that TP1538 uses aerodynamic data derived from a wind tunnel testing of a scaled down model?’
To add to this, the report is dated from 1979, so old that from then till today there have been numerous updates to F16 FLCS in different blocks. Not to mention that the study uses three different control systems we are not even sure if they are actually exactly the same as the ones used by the real aircraft ( we only assume that control system A mentioned might be the type that the Viper uses) the report is also only valid to mach 0.6 and the alpha is limited but that is of little concern.
That means we are actually discussing approximations…
However, if we put all this aside. we can still perhaps reach some possible conclusions.
Concerning Bank to Bank task mentioned in the document.
You support that Flong is positive (data is biased)
I partly agree, but that means that he actually pulls the stick not that he pushes. Also if you look at the key moments of interest, for example at the 8-10 sec, the exact moment test reaches 70 degrees of bank Flong is near 0… ( Figure 56, Page 198 or 202 in PDF’s numbering)
What is also more important is δhor which doesn’t seem to change very much besides negligible fluctuations of little importance. That means FLCS is actually still keeping the plane stable and is partly ignoring Pilot input
Now, if you understand that θ (Thi) is the true indication of heading change when an aircraft is banked, I am sure you will arrive at a revelation…
As a matter of fact, I am in the process of making a BMS evaluation data chart recording, to compare the results.
It is difficult though as TacView has limited telemetry data and I am still at the process of figuring this out.I ignore all the insults you have mentioned, for the scope of perhaps achieving a better flight model. Actually I have learned a lot from this and I actually thank you
PS: next week I will have again the chance to visit the Lockheed Martin simulator. I am sure I can make a video of myself attempting knife edge. Are you interested at all?
-
@frapes45 said in I love the BMS flight model:
@Mav-jp said in I love the BMS flight model:
Pay attention that during this period FLongN is a bit positive which means the pilot still gives some input therefore the analysis will be biaised
During this time, the PSI angle (heading) has built up to 50 degrees deviation,
you can also see that the pitch rate (q) is also building up while rolling, which is due to both FLCS commanding pitch , pilot input AND inertia coupling
As a matter of fact, this test has been performed in order to test the Roll limiters systems (A , B, C ) and to measure their resistance on the inertia coupling during those manoeuvers
So , your “proof” is actually only a proof that you misinterpreted the meaning of theta angle.
as this test is performed with pilot stick input, we cannot demonstrate really anything on the matter.
the only thing we know is that the FLCS commands 1G pitch up all the time, and particularly when rolled at 90 deg, which provokes heading deviation
I have been further studying tp1538…
I have reached some conclusions.
First of all, Do you even realize that TP1538 uses aerodynamic data derived from a wind tunnel testing of a scaled down model?’
To add to this, the report is dated from 1979, so old that from then till today there have been numerous updates to F16 FLCS in different blocks. Not to mention that the study uses three different control systems we are not even sure if they are actually exactly the same as the ones used by the real aircraft ( we only assume that control system A mentioned might be the type that the Viper uses) the report is also only valid to mach 0.6 and the alpha is limited but that is of little concern.
That means we are actually discussing approximations…
However, if we put all this aside. we can still perhaps reach some possible conclusions.
Concerning Bank to Bank task mentioned in the document.
You support that Flat is positive (data is biased)
I partly agree, but that means that he actually pulls the stick not that he pushes. Also if you look at the key moments of interest, for example at the 8-10 sec, the exact moment test reaches 70 degrees of bank Flat is near 0… ( Figure 56, Page 198 or 202 in PDF’s numbering)
What is also more important is δhor which doesn’t seem to change very much besides negligible fluctuations of little importance. That means FLCS is actually still keeping the plane stable and is partly ignoring Pilot input
Now, if you understand that θ (Thi) is the true indication of heading change when an aircraft is banked, I am sure you will arrive at a revelation…
As a matter of fact, I am in the process of making a BMS evaluation data chart recording, to compare the results.
It is difficult though as TacView has limited telemetry data and I am still at the process of figuring this out.I ignore all the insults you have mentioned, for the scope of perhaps achieving a better flight model. Actually I have learned a lot from this and I actually thank you!@Mav-jp
PS: next week I will have again the chance to visit the Lockheed Martin simulator. I am sure I can make a video of myself attempting knife edge. Are you interested at all?
First : BMs does not use tp1538 flcs but the real loockeed Martin one . Should you read my articles you would know .
Second : your interpretation of Euler angles is wrong therefore all your so called “analysis” are wrong.
Psi represents heading from a fixed referential (earth) . Phi angle does not change the convention because aerospace Euler convention uses 3-2-1 convention as explained here
So Nasa document uses 3-2-1 convention , Psi always represents the azimuth of the aircraft therefore during bank to bank the heading variation is around 50 degrés
You are confusing bank , elevation , azimuth used in Nasa document a with roll , pitch , yaw
That’s a fact , period
The FlongN is significant during the manoeuver because the pilot has been instructed to keep level flight as demonstrated by theta staying null.
Because the lift cos (phi) not compensating the gravity anymore he had to pull to maintain altitude
Deltah variation is small because at those speeds only a few degrees are necessary to act effictiently. At those speeds you can’t therefore analysis deltah to draw conclusion especially when deltah is commanded by muliple input including pilots input , normal force feedback , aoa feedback and aoa limiter
Now i understand I can’t convince you about your mistakes so there is no need to continue discussion.
As I know my temper pretty well and for the sake of politeness toward you and the other readers , I’m blocking you so I don’t have to read you again.
Thank you for your understanding
-
@Mav-jp Sorry pal,
Even If my euler angle understanding is wrong… which is not,
the bank to bank data you keep bringing as proof isnt even a knife edge maneuver… to begin with.I am offering to make a video recording of me flying the real sim next week. I will attempt knife edge without any pitch input and bring this as proof.
Personally, I know what the correct behavior is and what is not as I have witnessed it myself…
-
said in
bank to bank the heading variation is around 50 degrés
Wow do you really believe this?
I mean 50 degrees 50
no plane on earth changes 50 degrees of heading when banking 70 degrees on a matter of 3 sec… with stick longitudinal input virtually being near 0
-
@frapes45 We’ve got air forces with active F-16 pilots using BMS, we have dozens of pilots feedbacks and very knowledgeable people in the team.
I think we’re pretty okay with more than 10 years on feedbacks and improvements for the flight model…
You’re basically coming out of nowhere with 0 justification but just “I tried” an F-16 sim and you’re still arguing…
We’re happy to take feedback but only when you’ve got enough evidence to justify your claims…
-
@frapes45
After an analysis of all his lines and posts, I find no other reason to think that it is some kind of trolling or attempt to anger some colleagues here and when I say colleague I mean the same people responsible for what we have today. As the. best domestic military aviation simulator, I only see time and again an attempt on your part to get a somewhat exalted response from some developers who already have decades of experience in personnel management like you, but seeing the refusal from you part and the continuous discredit of those who have expressed themselves in mathematics about our simulator as something as complicated as the FCLS, then I have no other alternative as another user and pilot of this wonderful community to give you a unique and precious DISLIKE, of which I have in the drawer of contempt.
If you think you can make a better FCLS than the current one, we invite you to develop it. I really want to see it and criticize it with my axes.Health and luck
-
Here comes the cavalry…
Sure I am a troll and the f16 changes 50 degrees of heading when banking 70 degrees with virtually no stick input…
Dislike as much as you want
-
As far as I know, airforces use also DCS F16 and Prepar 3d yet the flight model is a joke or under still development…
They also use such programms for the scope of initial familiarization and not for advanced training.
I am also aware of airforces using CAE simulators and airforces that even have build their own simulators and software for proffesional training…
Throw as much filth as you want…
Even if I bring you proof which I am actually willing to do by making a recording like I said. I am sure you will do 0 effort to improve the flight model.
-
We’re good, thank you.
-
@frapes45 This is unfortunately going nowhere…
Bring proof from an actual F-16 footage and we’ll see (even Mil grade sims are not perfect).
Until then, case closed.
-
-
@frapes45 said in I love the BMS flight model:
As far as I know, airforces use also DCS F16 and Prepar 3d yet the flight model is a joke or under still development…
They also use such programms for the scope of initial familiarization and not for advanced training.
I am also aware of airforces using CAE simulators and airforces that even have build their own simulators and software for proffesional training…
Throw as much filth as you want…
Even if I bring you proof which I am actually willing to do by making a recording like I said. I am sure you will do 0 effort to improve the flight model.
Look , despite the fact I have NO doubt about the answer and the accurate modeling we have ( it’s not even a modeling this is a copy paste from real flcs ) I have real footage recorded inside a f16 after we discussed that in order to prove you are plain wrong
So thank you for your advice and please enjoy your real life simulator
-
the manoeuver is 90 deg bank and hands off
Pay attention to the Gmeter that stabilizes at 1.0G in the bank, and of course you can see that the aircraft is turning left during the manoeuver
As expected, the FLCS continues to target 1.0G in bank as i described in the Thread
Should the aircraft flight straight in a 90 deg Bank , it would display 0.0G in the hud and you wont see the aircraft turning
As you can see BMS similar with the real in the manoeuver , similoar G behavior, similar rate of turn , similar nose pitch down
-
-
Now that is undisputed proof. BMS putting the money where its mouth is.
-
Hi frapes45!
@frapes45 said in I love the BMS flight model:
As far as I know, airforces use also DCS F16 and Prepar 3d yet the flight model is a joke or under still development…
Not on the purpose of teaching/training pilots to fly the jet. FM is not important for such tools.
Purposes are is way different than a FFS and trainers are more to practices scripted scenarios in order to drill some procedures (Brevity, SA, tactical comm’s, threat reaction*)*Which is not dodging incoming missile.
I can understand that it can be hard to understand, but what makes DCS and professional trainers some good tools for RL pilots training is exactly what makes it less realistic, less accurate and less entertaining for “simmers”.
And I tell you this as someone who is using such tools (DCS and professional FFS simulators and trainers)…
Regards.
-
@Mav-jp nice … even in the original airshow demo video above, I noticed there are moments where pilot appears* to make no inputs, and you can see the flcs controlling for 1.0 G
12:22 - 12:32
*ofc that’s impossible to know … but at that moment he’s high and far from the crowd, turning back down… the movements seem to go very quiet for about 5 sec, probably he’s adjusting his mask or visor or smthn
-
My older brother has several hundred hours of F-16 time. He tells me that that with no pitch input the FLCS tries to maintain 1.0G of load on the jet no matter the attitude, exactly as we see in BMS.
Anybody who says otherwise has a fundamental misunderstanding of how the F-16 flies.
-
@SOBO-87 Or a troll. Yummy !
-
@LorikEolmin Yep!