Suggestion for database, data supply
-
Did you refersh the pack what have been uploaded previously? It is very strange that some missiles in stock dat files follows the rule what you posted and some not.
Yes refresh , added Aim-120 to testpack.
A few more updated: -
Will you do the drag tweak at least for basic / most common AA missiles?
-
One more question towards the devs. Is the g’lock model controlled and defined by only the exe?
-
Will you do the drag tweak at least for basic / most common AA missiles?
Please bring a list of “basic / most common” AA missiles?
I like to do it, but a lot of time is spent on testing, in addition, need to adjust the maximum Mach number for each missile according to the known data.
-
AIM-9s (L/M, P, X, J, H)
AIM-7s
AIM-120 / MICA ER / MICA IRR-3S/R-13M/R-3R
R-40
R-60
R-73
R-23
R-27
R-33
R-77R.530
R.550Python 3 / PL-8
Python 4AGM-88
AGM-45
AGM-78/SM-1AGM-84 / BGM-109
AGM-65s (all) / AS-14 (Kh-29)
Kh-25 (AS-10/12)
AS-11 (Kh-58 )
AS-17 (Kh-31)MiM-23 Hawk
SA-7
SA-14/16/Stinger/MistralSA-2
SA-3
SA-4
SA-5
SA-6/SA-11/17
SA-8 / SA-9 / SA-13
SA-10/MiM-104 PatriotOf course some of these missile can get the same FM table because in RL likely they have very similar aero. coefficients. I used / mark where can be used the same coeffs from my asepct, but likely AIM-9s and all similar size IR missile can have the same data.
-
I now modelled AGM-88 in C++ code. I used the 280 lb engine weight for the AGM-88 from the “Hazard classification” document you posted earlier. Based on this I assumed that that total engine impulse for AGM-88 is 280/135 times greater than for AIM-7F based on 135 lb engine weight from same document. I changed the burn time for the AGM-88 so that it would reach the same peak speed and then used the remaining impulse for longer sustain. No idea how long real burn time is but I can update if I get new input on this.
The aerodynamic drag data I simply assumed that this is proportional to cross section area and consequently simply scaled from the assumed drag area for AIM-7F. Maybe too conservative but I don’t have any better to go on……
Since there is no results available to compare with I’m not sure how close this is to IRL performance and I was a bit surprised to see that the AIM-7F seems to have longer kinematic range. However, maybe this is not so strange?: First of all the “wing loading” is higher on AGM-88 and secondly, the weight/cross section area is higher for AIM-7F so based on this it should fly further. Still, strange seeing that AGM-88 has so much more impulse…
I the model, the trend is that missiles fly well until aoa starts to build up.Then they rapidly decelerate and stall out. You can see trend in the speed/time figure: In the end the missile bleeds speed very quickly.
-
AIM-9s (L/M, P, X, J, H)
AIM-7s
AIM-120 / MICA ER / MICA IRR-3S/R-13M/R-3R
R-40
R-60
R-73
R-23
R-27
R-33
R-77R.530
R.550Python 3 / PL-8
Python 4AGM-88
AGM-45
AGM-78/SM-1AGM-84 / BGM-109
AGM-65s (all) / AS-14 (Kh-29)
Kh-25 (AS-10/12)
AS-11 (Kh-58 )
AS-17 (Kh-31)MiM-23 Hawk
SA-7
SA-14/16/Stinger/MistralSA-2
SA-3
SA-4
SA-5
SA-6/SA-11/17
SA-8 / SA-9 / SA-13
SA-10/MiM-104 PatriotOf course some of these missile can get the same FM table because in RL likely they have very similar aero. coefficients. I used / mark where can be used the same coeffs from my asepct, but likely AIM-9s and all similar size IR missile can have the same data.
This is the drag I assume in C++ model: I used the SAC data on AIM-7F to get kinematic range 52 Nm at 40000 ft to reverse engineer drag. Then I simply take this base value and proportionally adjust for other missiles based on cross section area. Not very high tech but I don’t have any better for now
(Edit: Drag area in figure is value to multiply by dynamic pressure q, i.e. Cdo x ref area.)
-
Yes refresh , added Aim-120 to testpack.
A few more updated:I tested AIM-9M. The eng. zone is very close to data what I have posted. Against F-111 which flew on 10k with 500 knots at 2.1 nm distance the impact speed was about 700 kts while target performed 6G turn. I will apply the FM table rest of short range IR missile to check how it works. Seems to much better as original FM where drag decresases as AoA incresing.
-
I tested AIM-9M. The eng. zone is very close to data what I have posted. Against F-111 which flew on 10k with 500 knots at 2.1 nm distance the impact speed was about 700 kts while target performed 6G turn. I will apply the FM table rest of short range IR missile to check how it works. Seems to much better as original FM where drag decresases as AoA incresing.
Testing in approximate terms. Fixed drag coefficients.
Aim-9M Max MACH limited to ~2.8 for all altitudes.
Aim-9P MACH limited to ~2.4Impact speed 707 kts.
-
SpbGoro, very good, keep it up
-
F-15A
fuelFlowFactorNormal 0.69
fuelFlowFactorAb 2.17F-16A Block 15
fuelFlowFactorNormal 0.95
fuelFlowFactorAb 2.3In RL both has the same F100 variant. Yes, their thrust are not the same because of different inlet - this is represented in thrust data in Falcon - but I cannot find and logical reason what cause about 30% (!) difference is specific fuel consumption on max. mil. thurst…
What I’m missing? Because fuel flow modifier does not work in dat files.
-
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.pngI tried the same with F-15’s drop tank but the ECM flag does not work. Strange.
-
I tried the same with F-15’s drop tank but the ECM flag does not work. Strange.
F-15 have - internal electronic warfare (flag) , ATO considers this item.
For F-15 and other who have internal electronic warfare , there is another way - slightly increase the value of fuel rate in F4Browse (also for Fighter and squad pages), like as here:
http://f2.foto.rambler.ru/original/516a5d5a-1b34-b709-f420-ae21ef168add/15.png
and see for what values ATO will suspend fuel tanks in campaign page. -
Upgraded missiles coefficients.
And Max speed has no hard limit for all alt, is about as described here: -
F-15 have - internal electronic warfare (flag) , ATO considers this item.
For F-15 and other who have internal electronic warfare , there is another way - slightly increase the value of fuel rate in F4Browse (also for Fighter and squad pages), like as here:
http://f2.foto.rambler.ru/original/516a5d5a-1b34-b709-f420-ae21ef168add/15.png
and see for what values ATO will suspend fuel tanks in campaign page.Yes, I know this way only problem applying this change will result not real fuel consumption in 2D world. I have to increase so much the consumption in 2D world which result 0 benefit or make the case even worse as default. The lower consumption and flying without drop tank is still better.
-
F-15A
fuelFlowFactorNormal 0.69
fuelFlowFactorAb 2.17You can see at partial powers that SFC is much higher in any case tham 0.69. What is your opinion? What should be set?
–-----------------------------------------------------------------
–-----------------------------------------------------------------About MiG-21s and MiG-23s.
MiG-21 data in BMS4.
fuelFlowFactorNormal 0.68
fuelFlowFactorAb 1.8RL data R-25-300 (MiG-21bis)
–-----------------------------------------------------------------
–-----------------------------------------------------------------MiG-23 in BMS4.
fuelFlowFactorNormal 0.961
fuelFlowFactorAb 1.961RL data, this is the ideal thrust data and SFC but the SFC should not be so different in non ideal case.
-
Yes, I know this way only problem applying this change will result not real fuel consumption in 2D world. I have to increase so much the consumption in 2D world which result 0 benefit or make the case even worse as default. The lower consumption and flying without drop tank is still better.
Somehow increase the patrol time (like as Havcap) , may cause hang tanks.
http://f4.foto.rambler.ru/original/516a786f-28a6-c287-f420-79b7dc84ff53/3.pngYou can see at partial powers that SFC is much higher in any case tham 0.69. What is your opinion? What should be set?
in this issue, better tell OSD:
https://www.benchmarksims.org/forum/showthread.php?7259-Changes-in-the-flight-model&p=199016&viewfull=1#post199016 -
Upgraded missiles coefficients.
And Max speed has no hard limit for all alt, is about as described here:http://f3.foto.rambler.ru/preview/r/305x241/516a6029-67ca-8192-f420-a49e93e8bc46/9.png
I found this in your dat file. Why did you set this value?
sustainguideGnav
6.00000
-
I found this in your dat file. Why did you set this value?
sustainguideGnav
6.00000
It has been described here (more aggressive maneuver dynamics in the initial part of the flight):
https://www.benchmarksims.org/forum/showthread.php?8230-Suggestion-for-database-data-supply&p=176426&viewfull=1#post176426Value of 6 was optimal for this missile.
When shooting at wide angle a target flying straight (no maneuver) head to head. -
Is this real behavior? Does the missile capable in RL? What about rest of missiles…?