Suggestion for database, data supply
-
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.
-
AFAIK the problem relies in Weight
Weight of the missile is not a big problem.
The main problem in the coefficients. (apart from the engine thrust, engine operating time, the permitted range launches).A couple of examples.
Axial Force = - 1/2 ρ A Cx V2data from the original BMS
Missile AIM-7M
AXIAL FORCE COEFFICIENT
Mach 4
AOA = 0 degrees, AXIAL FORCE COEFFICIENT = -1.40
AOA = 28 degrees, AXIAL FORCE COEFFICIENT = - 0.73
This means that for the same flight conditions (altitude, speed) missile will be almost two times slower decelerated at angle of attack of 28 degrees, compared to the angle of attack 0 degrees. This is fantastic.Missile aim-120.
Mach 0.95
AXIAL FORCE COEFFICIENT = -0.860321518 at AOA = 2 degrees.
And at AOA =12 degrees AXIAL FORCE COEFFICIENT = - 0.443122826
AOA = 28 degrees AXIAL FORCE COEFFICIENT = - 0.063!
Missile almost does not lose speed at AOA=28.
So we’ll have to rewrite the coefficients for all missiles anyway -
So we’ll have to rewrite the coefficients for all missiles anyway
This is what is impossible, because lack of data. Even if you have exact data for one missile from a “class” I do not have better idea than apply for other missiles in the same “class”.
Regardless of exact data important upgrades can be done of many AA missiles and SAMs. Current modeling values are so inaccrate with DB that BASIC features of missiles are not modeled for many “firs line” items… I think here about dual thrust for AIM-7F/M, well set max. gimbal values, etc.
-
This is what is impossible, because lack of data. Even if you have exact data for one missile from a “class” I do not have better idea than apply for other missiles in the same “class”.
Regardless of exact data important upgrades can be done of many AA missiles and SAMs. Current modeling values are so inaccrate with DB that BASIC features of missiles are not modeled for many “firs line” items… I think here about dual thrust for AIM-7F/M, well set max. gimbal values, etc.
There are several specialized software for calculating the coefficients based on the geometric shape of missiles.
On the limitations of modeling in BMS I know enough, you can gradually converge to the fact that there really is. You can do nothing, but who need this “simulator”? Those who have no idea how things really are? BMS developers have a lot of work ahead if they want to make a good simulator -
For high AoA range…? What about max AoA of missiles? What about CL max? These are the key factors for max. G and kinematic defeat.
About racks and wepons stores. Regardless of available theoretical weapon config I cannot aviod to recoomend restricted confight because of ATO + campaigns. HP confighs in DB are partially subjective this is unavoidable.
-
I think re-doing the complete database is a tremendous worklaod, not to forget things have to be approved and justified.
Generally possible, yes, but practical? I dont know, maybe one step at a time within the evolution of BMS.
There is no point to have various data-base versions floating around if it is not implemented as established official realease within BMS itself.A smarter solution would be to improve the database theater-specific, meaning only the units, objectives etc etc…used in the theater released (i.e Redflag).
If other units or similar to be added later, database-work can be a nice extension of a campaign-built.
But again, it is very important not to violate the official version is certain areas as this would create a total new environment from the trainings-environment (i.e Missile perfomances).But i do agree, in order to utilize certain things at its best…things need(ed) to be improved.
Best thing to do is - as this thread says - suggest ideas… introduce solutions …and hope the DEV-team takes good ideas into consideration.
-
For high AoA range…? What about max AoA of missiles? What about CL max? These are the key factors for max. G and kinematic defeat.
do not understand the question.
What’s the difference for which band? Programs run by analogy with blowing in the wind tunnel.
@molnibalage:What about max AoA of missiles? What about CL max?
this depends on the structural and aerodynamic configuration of the missile, and not on the year of production and country of origin
-
Generally possible, yes, but practical?
1000% worth.
A smarter solution would be to improve the database theater-specific, meaning only the units, objectives etc etc…used in the theater released (i.e Redflag).
I have asked this. Does the core DB take care all sensor and 3D model + other upgrades…? If code will be changed how follow 3rd party theater the changes…? What is the point of view of BMS4 Team?
If anyone suggest the independent 3rd party DB without allowing the separated dat files as DB this is impossible to make a decent theater. I do not understand why exe does not support such a minor but likely the most important feature for 3rd party theater upgrade. If you wish to more detailed modeling, you need new DB entires, which requires new dat files, which require different lst files. —> As long as speatated \sim directories are not supported for each theater you have to swap \sim directory…
Do you want exact examples?
MiG-23MF, ML MLD, MiG-21PF, MF, bis requires separated DB entries for more accurate modeling as well as many other types. You can “sacrifice” some AC type for others. For ex. there are many F-111 varianst - why…? - but there is only one MiG-21. Where is the logic in DB? I cannot see any…
I do not undertsand why is so neglected the DB and dat files by the Team. Yes, exe is wonderful but DB is so outdated that prevents to grow up Falcon 4. Perfect example of one of PvP theter where AIM-9P had to be used to create a dogfight theater and many other “trick”. This clearly shows what the problems are…
The thread started one year ago, even the smallest tweaks have not been applied. I’m sad. Very sad.
-
@OSD:
do not understand the question.
What’s the difference for which band? Programs run by analogy with blowing in the wind tunnel.this depends on the structural and aerodynamic configuration of the missile, and not on the year of production and country of origin
Where you can download any app? This means fine element modeling for 0 speed to supersonic range.