Suggestion for database, data supply
-
Love all the collaboration here and hard work being put into updating the db.
Can’t think of a reason this stuff shouldn’t be updated for 4.33 official release! Here’s hoping!
-
Anothe issue. What can be the total impulse difference between AIM-54A, C and R-33?
We have data only about R-33 which is ~85’000 lb*s. I set the same total impuse with ~27 sec burn time for AIM-54C, which means about only 3500 lb thrust for ~24s + a small transient for modeling the inital slow launch.
R-33 = 52073 = 37960 = (83687 lb)
R-33E = 49073 = 35770 = 78860 (lb) (Probably R33E has a slightly different “available power” coefficient)“Difference between AIM-54” : I think - the “total impulse” of the R-33 a little less, because - it has a slightly shorter range.
These missiles have different engines, and different ways on the available energy.
For example Aim-54 spends energy (with ~ 45 degrees preprogrammed loft angle) to the climb at + >10000 meters relative to the altitude at which the run , then swoops down.
R-33 is increasingly supported by sustainer, (with ~ 35 degrees preprogrammed loft angle) climb at + >6000 meters relative to the altitude at which the run , then swoops down.The following data on the dual-mode engine P-33
time accelerator = 6.0 sec
time sustainer = 25.0 secWe can produce in a rocket experiment calculator.
Lauch alt = 10000 meters, speed = 0.9 M,
Target alt =10000 meters, speed = 0.8 MAdjusted data by weight of fuel and engine operating time for these missiles.
R-33 Weight of propellant = 570 (lbs) 260. (kg), time accelerator = 6.0 sec, time sustainer = 25.0 seс. (total = 31 sec), boost/sustain thrust ratio ~3 (like as R-27ER)
MXU-637/B - AIM-54A PHOENIX Weight of propellant = 459.000 (lbs) 208.199 (kg), boost time 27 sec.
You can download this tool and conduct experiments for different conditions.
http://www.ecf.utoronto.ca/~pavacic/missiles/minizap.zipBy default, there for some missiles - outdated inaccurate data (fuel, the engine running time) that can be manual fixed.
@molnibalage:looks very realistic!
I want to ask. Is information on the time of booster and sustainer rocket engines Aim-120?
-
The following data on the dual-mode engine P-33
time accelerator = 6.0 sec
time sustainer = 25.0 secIs this RL data?
Is information on the time of booster and sustainer rocket engines Aim-120?
I cannot understand the question. I do not have any intel about AIM-120 except that I can confirm the dual thrust capability and about the 8-9 sec burn time. Nothing else. I do not have total imulse and the thrust-time characteristics. OSD posted a value and it seems to be acceptable counting the size and weight of AMRAAM. Big question the difference between B and C-5 variant, the latest C variants have longer engine section.
-
Is this RL data?
Data from Eagle Dynamics, on this issue they have a good consultant from the MiG Design Bureau.
In the public domain there is no documentation on this missileI cannot understand the question. I do not have any intel about AIM-120 except that I can confirm the dual thrust capability and about the 8-9 sec burn time. Nothing else. I do not have total imulse and the thrust-time characteristics. OSD posted a value and it seems to be acceptable counting the size and weight of AMRAAM. Big question the difference between B and C-5 variant, the latest C variants have longer engine section.
Question about the allocation of time between booster and sustainer. We known total time = 8 sec.
for example, for Aim-7 missile, time allocation is as:
Accelerator (booster time) = 4.5 sec
Sustainer = 11 sec .
(total motor time = 15,5 sec)Big question the difference between B and C-5 variant, the latest C variants have longer engine section.
engine section. WPU-6/B - for AIM-120 variants B/C/C-4 Weight of propellant = 102.600 (lbs) 46.5386 (kg), similar to the data published by OSD: aim-120 ~ 30 500 lb-s
engine section. WPU-16/B - for AIM-120 variants C-5/C-6 Weight of propellant = 113.000 (lbs) 51.2559 (kg), similar to the data published by OSD: aim-120C-5 ~ 34 500 lb-s
(more fuel= more “available energy” )P,S
Last ED data: Aim-120B = Accelerator (booster time) = 3.0 sec, Sustainer = 5 sec . total motor time = 8 sec
Aim-120С-5 = Accelerator (booster time) = 3.0 sec, Sustainer = 6 sec . total motor time = 9 sec, aka (Longer engine section= +11 lb of fuel and + 1 sec sustainer )Average fuel consumption:
WPU-6/B : 102lb/8sec = 12 lbs per second
WPU-16/B: 113lb/9sec = 12 lbs per second
Another interesting data:
-
Another little work, a small modification of the missile engines (single-dual motors ) and thrust history according to the total impulse.
Based on the thrust history Aim-9
Sinle-mode thrust
R-73
3618.0 + 2 518.0 + 2 350.0 + 2 429.0 + 2 443.0 + 2 454.0 + 1 318.0 = 17 130 (Lbs)R-27R
5 850.0 + 4 880.0 + 5 000.0 + 5 100.0 + 5 150.0 + 5 200.0 + 2 300.0 + 1100 = 34 580 (Lbs)R-77
5 800.0 + 4 970.0 + 5 100.0 + 5 200.0 + 5 270.0 + 3 235.0 + 1 235.0 = 30 810 (lbs)Dual-mode thrust
R-27E
Lauch delay 0.5 sec + Accelerator (booster time) = 5.0 sec, Sustainer = 6 sec . total motor time = 11 sec
9500 + 7900 + 8000 + 8200 + 8100 + 7100 + 5200 + 3200 + 3300 + 3200 + 3300 + 3300 + 2200 = 72 500 (lbs)Aim120B/C-5
120B (WPU-6/B with 102lb fuel )Accelerator (booster time) = 3.0 sec, Sustainer = 5 sec . total motor time = 8 sec
5400.0 + 5000.0+5100.0+4100.0 + 2600.0 + 2200.0 + 2300.0 + 2400.0 + 1400.0 = 30 500 (Lbs)120С-5 (WPU-16/B with 113lb fuel) Accelerator (booster time) = 3.0 sec, Sustainer = 6 sec . total motor time = 9 sec
5400 + 5000 + 5100 + 3900 + 2600 + 2200 + 2200 + 2300 + 2300 + 2300 + 1200.0 = 34 500 (Lbs)Lauch Ranges, set around the tables on the previous page.
Acmi http://www.mediafire.com/?orjqashbhkduhoe
AA-10A/B dat updated.
Added AA-7R with 33890 lb. for single 5 sec boorst
AA-7T with 32920 lb. for single 5 sec boorst
R-60M with 5500 lb for single 2.9 sec boorst
+
New coefficients - Resistance increases as a function of angle of attack, and not vice versa as it is by default
Link
http://www.mediafire.com/?ttflrfssdbr11c1 -
I find it very disappointing that none of these suggestions are listed in the U4 changelog as having been implemented.
I can only HOPE that is corrected with 4.33 as it would be very hard to defend not doing so.
-
SpbGoro, what is this application show in your posts?
-
A.S, the link is in post 402 above: http://www.ecf.utoronto.ca/~pavacic/missiles/minizap.zip
-
Molni, could you please elaborate what is the current hitrate with your AGM tweaks? I am particularly interested in AGM-65 and 88. Thanks a lot.
-
Love all the collaboration here and hard work being put into updating the db.
Can’t think of a reason this stuff shouldn’t be updated for 4.33 official release! Here’s hoping!
main reason is that all those data are from real and missile FM code is buggged.
Puting real values in it would result in less accurate missile FM.
best method :
- fix code
- redo all missiles
or :
Introduce a new variable in missile dat file to use new code or old code in order to change the missile DB slowly
-
Molni, could you please elaborate what is the current hitrate with your AGM tweaks? I am particularly interested in AGM-65 and 88. Thanks a lot.
You cannot define a certain hitrate. AG missiles simply have some kind of natural inaccuracy.
-
main reason is that all those data are from real and missile FM code is buggged.
Puting real values in it would result in less accurate missile FM.
best method :
- fix code
- redo all missiles
or :
Introduce a new variable in missile dat file to use new code or old code in order to change the missile DB slowly
What about other changes…? Dispenser tweaks are another topic, as well as many other isuess…
The current code maybe a buggy, but you could see how close is the result with Russian SAMs if you set RL weight and thrust and mixed with minor drag tweak. After the code changes you cannot get more data, therefore I cannot see the point why sould use the current and very bad vaules, which BTW shared, because many missiles use same or almost the same aero data as the main weapon of that certain “class”. I think here about AIM-9/AIM-120/AIM-7 modeling values.
I have to say the time has come to make short range missile to really short range, and at least the baisc missiles got accurate weight and thrust…
-
You cannot define a certain hitrate. AG missiles simply have some kind of natural inaccuracy.
Well, just approximately, I suppose you’ve had some idea when you tweaked sensorprecision for those weapons from 2.8 to 22. I’ve just feared that it is maybe too much (?)
-
What about other changes…? Dispenser tweaks are another topic, as well as many other isuess…
The current code maybe a buggy, but you could see how close is the result with Russian SAMs if you set RL weight and thrust and mixed with minor drag tweak. After the code changes you cannot get more data, therefore I cannot see the point why sould use the current and very bad vaules, which BTW shared, because many missiles use same or almost the same aero data as the main weapon of that certain “class”. I think here about AIM-9/AIM-120/AIM-7 modeling values.
I have to say the time has come to make short range missile to really short range, and at least the baisc missiles got accurate weight and thrust…
AFAIK the problem relies in Weight , i think btw that i coded already this aditionnal data a few years ago to be able to use both incorrect and correct code
let me find it
i am not concerned in other DB changes (i am not a data guy )
-
Well, just approximately, I suppose you’ve had some idea when you tweaked sensorprecision for those weapons from 2.8 to 22. I’ve just feared that it is maybe too much (?)
I performend hundreds of missile launch to get an avarage hitrate againt certain tagets. Problem is the launch altitude, because of FM and exe. AGM-65D from 3k or higher likley (+50%) will hit and destroy even a tank, older Mavericks are less accurate. Because of random effects even AGM-65B can reach 75% hit (not destroyed) agains small moving targets, but it is very unlikely. As I can remember with D model form 4 salvoe 75% is the general, 50% is rare, below 50% is very, very rare against small targets.
Falcon DB + dat + exe have too many limitations, you cannot model uniqe features, and many issues, for ex. the effect of shaped charge…
-
AFAIK the problem relies in Weight , i think btw that i coded already this aditionnal data a few years ago to be able to use both incorrect and correct code
let me find it
i am not concerned in other DB changes (i am not a data guy )
Dispenser data are in dat files - except the availability, which is important for ex. for Su-17/22 - for me DB means what you can find \terrdata\objects dir.
-
What about other changes…? Dispenser tweaks are another topic, as well as many other isuess…
Hey Molni, I think that regarding dispensers, racks, weapons loads etc etc, you should IMHO make a list of all necessary changes (which I guess can be backed-up by RL imfo, very important to justify I think), then simply contact someone from BMS which is a data guy, let him know of all changes you think that should happen and the both of you should discuss in case of questions or unclear stuff.
IMHO missiles hit chances are something that shouldn’t be changed in order to keep balance. we are in 21st century, some AA missiles are already pure LOAL capable in RL, so IMHO underchancing some (AIM-9M?) will be a big mistake. Flare chances is also IMHO a very sensitive point which even if ATM doesn’t work right, should probably get some code level fix/rewrite rather than just increase chances for avoidance via data edits. Also in real not always what’s count is the number of flares or the “chance” of the missile to track a given single flare.
-
Hayab made new racks for MiG-23, maybe I should wait when they will be finised. I can make changelog for better racks, but for best result maybe rack.dat tweaks are also needed.
About decoys. The current code for ARH missile from my point is view is usless. The additional modifiers from missiles - which is mentioned in RP5 - for ARH missile is such idiotic, that makes impossible to defeat them.
Old stuff maybe too vulnerable, latest stuff are too advanced. There is no “middle” category in Falcon or in just an idiotic way*. Since I have known how can be modified the DB I do not fly with original modeling values because not fun and not real.
This video is worth than thousand words. Agains IR missiles of late '80s (AIM-9M & R-73) flares are just ornaments, same case chaff against too many systems…
We have been sooooooooo many times on this road, that I cannot count…
*For ex. AIM-9H - late '60s early '70s stuff have almost the same seeker range as AIM-9M (!), but have the same flare chance as R-3S (AA-2A). There is no any logic in Sidewinder as for many IR missiles modeling values. I’m not joking, ANY…
-
Lol, molni please share you latest database edit , those stock flares are useless …
-
They work against IR SAMs.