Suggestion for database, data supply
-
The success part cover which issues from the followings?
The RP is a problem with the code. But, bringing in line the bomb release altitude in the FM’s with the mission.dat files mission profile altitudes has made the AI better in their ability to drop bombs, if you know what I’m talking about.
A while back, I did some extensive testing and it was looking pretty good. I continued the testing last month and things look good still, but at this time, things are going slow with life and all that crap.
I’ll continue here pretty soon and when I have something solid, I’ll let you know.
The SAM stuff is part of the process and I only started that a while back and will have to take a closer look.
Brian
-
The SAM stuff is part of the process and I only started that a while back and will have to take a closer look.
What does this mean exactly? What do you improve for SAMs?
-
Good discussion here! Don’t stop!
Like the Falcon itself, I began with aerial combat but started shifting to enjoy a-g. An improving IP-onwards environment will be appreciated!
-
How did you figure out this?
Added to Combat Class 6 (aka Mig27) - # “Num intercepts” and “Intercept Types” vs various Fighter class - from 0 to 3, like as some other Combat Class aircraft. in mnvrdata.dat.
Can you find what controls the bomb dropping for AI? It is very painful how stupid the AI in AG mode. I have never seens such a weak performance in any previous Falcon version. The AI select very idiotic approach, release too few bombs, etc.
I have not tried, will hope - in RAM22 will fix it.
-
How can be forced ATO to put drop tanks on a certain aircraft? Regardless longer mission on some AC ATO never put drop tanks.
-
How can be forced ATO to put drop tanks on a certain aircraft? Regardless longer mission on some AC ATO never put drop tanks.
Alas, spent many experiment, (Even fully substituted brains from the F-15 and other drop-tanks without any problems.) that the F-16 does not want to drop tanks, likely the cause somewhere in “exe” file.
P.S. File updated (A-10 Class AI- more evil)
-
Is the update file which make more agressive attack/strike AC with IR missiles?
The drop tank is important for MiG-21s and MiG-23s if you set RL fuel qty. and consumption.
-
Is the update file which make more agressive attack/strike AC with IR missiles?
A-A IIR in the close combat - struggle for survival. (become somewhat more vigorously)
The drop tank is important for MiG-21s and MiG-23s if you set RL fuel qty. and consumption.
In ~90 percent of cases for Migs -21,23, F-15 and other, AI can - perfectly capable to drop tanks, as a reaction to the threat. Problem only with F-16. (engages in air-battle without dropping fuel tanks (in CAT-1)
-
The problem is not dropping the tanks. ATO should put drop tanks on AC but does not do it. During TE AI put drop tanks automatically - likely ATO does the same in campaigns - if the total flight path is longer than 500 nm and DCA mission is set. Only problem that I limited the range in DB to 400 nm to prevent running out fuel AI controlled jets.
-
Maybe not quite understand what you mean.
If you need to ATO always hung fuel tanks on the aircraft, there are ways:
On those machines. where there is no internal electronic warfare, Add flags (only for centrefuselage tanks)
Like as here: http://f3.foto.rambler.ru/original/514f0642-da5f-cbda-f420-1b312e7df60e/ptb.png -
Thx. I will try.
-
It works!
Another qestion. For fixed wing AC more or less I understand how are defined HP positions in DB (via LE). I tried to modify F-111F but it did not work, likely because it has variable-sweep wings. I wish to add the rear HP position for ALQ-131 pod. How can be done with LE? If the HP slot have been created I can do the rest of work in DB and dat file.
-
I discovered long time ago an issue, but so far I have never posted. It is very strange to me that nobody noticed it. AGM-88 and almost or all AGM act almost as gliding bombs.
ACMI about test.
http://www.mediafire.com/?vthzut04dsh9d
Here are the distance total energy plots.
In RL shape of AIM-7M and AGM-88 is quite similar, burnout weight is not so different that can be justify the huge difference between the gradients of total mech. energy. If you check ACMIs you can see that AIM-7 desc. rate is bigger and even this fact the energy drain is much bigger.
I have to say AGM missiles have literally unlimited range, they just fly slow. The only limiting factor is the “Final Time” values in dat files. I launched at very low the AGM-88 but total flight distance was above 40 km. From hi alt I can imagine how big can be the total flight path.
-
I discovered long time ago an issue, but so far I have never posted. It is very strange to me that nobody noticed it. AGM-88 and almost or all AGM act almost as gliding bombs.
ACMI about test.
http://www.mediafire.com/?vthzut04dsh9d
Here are the distance total energy plots.
http://kepkezelo.com/images/h48yrv271rz49yy08b.jpg
http://kepkezelo.com/images/6lczik7u9kxruscj55ma.jpg
In RL shape of AIM-7M and AGM-88 is quite similar, burnout weight is not so different that can be justify the huge difference between the gradients of total mech. energy. If you check ACMIs you can see that AIM-7 desc. rate is bigger and even this fact the energy drain is much bigger.
I have to say AGM missiles have literally unlimited range, they just fly slow. The only limiting factor is the “Final Time” values in dat files. I launched at very low the AGM-88 but total flight distance was above 40 km. From hi alt I can imagine how big can be the total flight path.
Yes, the HARM flight profile certainly looks strange. I have attached simulation results for AIM-7F from C++ missile flight model I have made based on SAC data and BMS model look to be reasonably close to this. However, BMS seems to model 7F with poorer performance than I get, at least at low level.
I don’t have HARM rocket motor data but if you have that then I can update my C++ model to include HARM modelling. Burn time/thrust data would of course be best but failing that either total impulse or rocket motor fuel weight. Do you have any such data for HARM?
-
I do not have thrust data about HARM.
-
I simply use the FM data AIM-7 for of AGM-88. AGM-45 has the same aero coeff. as AIM-7. It is clearly visible how similar the AGM-88 and AGM-45, IMHO their cd and cl coeff. should be almost the same in RL. Of course their weight and diamater is different, therefore their kinematics are not the same.
Other issues the AGM-65 and similar missiles. Because of their shape and huge diameter their drag is huge, but if you check their kinematics is quite similar to AGM-88…
-
Using SAC data you posted earlier for AIM-7F (thanks for that!)
AIM-7F Engine weight 210 lb start and 75 lb at burnout gives fuelweight 135 lb, i.e. Fuel fraction 135/510100=26% and Impulse I=57504.5+1018*11=37073 lbs
Assuming AGM-88 fuel fraction the same as for AIM-7F, i.e. 26% this would give fuelweight 0.26*780= 206lb
Then assuming the same specific impulse for AGM-88 fuel as for AIM-7F fuel:
I=206/135*37073=56571 lbs
Maybe this is good enough for ballpark figure but it would be better to have actual impulse data or at very least fuel weight for AGM-88 before modelling.
On aerodynamic drag data I do not have any but one idea is to simply scale up reverse engineered AIM-7F data based on cross section area.
-
Yes, I set more or less the same burnout/total weight was AIM-7F had. I did not touched the thurst and impulse data. I have no data that AGM-88 has dual thrust engine or not.
-
I have no data that AGM-88 has dual thrust engine or not.
AGM-88 missile is powered by a Thikol SR113-TC-1 dual-thrust (boost/ sustain)
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-88.html -
I know, I also found that dual thrust. I do not have better idea for thrust than using similar characteristics as AIM-7M has and scaling up the total impulse. I check the _Hazard Classification Of United States Military Explosives And Munition_s what somebody posted earlier.