Suggestion for database, data supply
-
Becuase stuff always updated if I upload today something it will be outdated in after next update.
Here is the pack.
http://www.mediafire.com/?rvu3mhzxirrrpt6why not use dropbox, then you can share your files and update them on the fly in the dropbox cloud (2gb) free
-
SA-2. (S-75 Volhov)
20DSzU V-755 missle performance
On X axis you can see the time after launch. On Y axis you can see two data. Distance from launch point - my guess calculated flight path distance from speed - and speed. For one test launch you can see two paramtric curves, one for speed and one for distance. The paramteri is Epsilon. Epslion means the constant angle which was hold by the missile during the measurement.
So, the test was conducted by this way. Missile was launched a certain angle and during the whole measured flight path missile hold this angle.
On the last diagram you can see the “available G”, it hould be mixed with upper diagrams to see in which speed range and alt how big G is possible more the missile.
–------------------------------------------------------Missile data
Weight of 1st stage: 1008 kg (2380 lb)
Weight of 2st stage: 1390 kg (3060 lb)
Weight of propellant in 2nd stage: 169,5 + 545 kg (1580 lb) TG02 fuel + AK-20 oxidyzerThe 1st (booster) stage accelerates the missle about 520-550 m/s regardless of circumstances.
1st stage burn time is 3 seconds.
2nd stage have two different program for engine thurst.
1. If Epsilon is small than 24° in the moment of launch the thrust is 3500 kg (~7720 lbs) for 45 seconds.
2. If Epsilon ε>=24 in the moment of launch thrust is 3500 kg (~7720 lbs) to 24 second then 2000 kg (~5510 lbs) to 55 seconds.
–------------------------------------------------------Modeling issues
Because Falcon is able to simulate only one thrust characterisic we have to select one. I will make a table with ranges and altitudes to determine which is the more typical Epsilon in Falcon’s world. This mean for validation only fro one Epsilon range can be correct… (Bigger 24 or smaller than 24 degrees.)
Other issue is the booster stage. Falcon cannot model the weight loss of 1st stage. Therefore missile weight have to be set only for 2nd stage and thrust of booster stage have to be set as way to get the ~550 m/s speed after 3 second. The more accurate modeling of second stage is the goal.
Epsilon depending on distance (land, projected distrance) and altitude.
Valu is 1 if Epsilon bigger than 24 degrees.
Epsilon typically is smaller than 24 degrees therefore 1st thrust model should be adopted.
Here is the table that I used.
http://www.mediafire.com/?akn2rnr69d3c6on–------------------------------------------------------
Plan for verification
What is the problem? Even for thest I have to make changes in SA-2’s dat file - to get the consant fligt path -to test its performance, I have to reproduce somehow the RL test. I have some ideas how can be done.
After these only patience skills are required to measure the effect of changes.
-
we are going to a MolnyBMS which is supercool!!!
you are the man m8…QT
-
and just like a noob…where should i unrar those qute .dat files??
QT
-
Thanks Molny! I am too lazy and uninformed to research myself, but I trust you on those items, especially liked the missile drop behaviour you showed. Will check ingame.
-
FYI the missile dropping before igniting is not always missile-specific. For example the AIM-120 does not drop when launched from an F-16, but it will drop when launched from the belly of an F-15. I think there was a thread on F-16.net about this.
-
Thank you! I also like to check how AIM-7s will behave.
Cheers
-
yeah same goes for the RAPTOR also…
QT
-
FYI the missile dropping before igniting is not always missile-specific. For example the AIM-120 does not drop when launched from an F-16, but it will drop when launched from the belly of an F-15. I think there was a thread on F-16.net about this.
This is why I did not touch the AIM-120s. I cannot reacoll any AC which useas AIM-7s as rail method.
Second reason that I do not like AMRAAM era. -
@qt:
and just like a noob…where should i unrar those qute .dat files??
QT
Missile dat files to \data\sim\mistada.
Aircraft dat file to \data\sim\acdata(It was mentioned in #42, but the ‘data’ text missed from path, I fixed.)
-
I cannot reacoll any AC which useas AIM-7s as rail method.
The F-16 does.
Again, its dependent on the launching platform, not the missile. Missiles do not need to drop from the F-16 because there is space to launch them straight off the rail.
-
The F-16 does.
Again, its dependent on the launching platform, not the missile. Missiles do not need to drop from the F-16 because there is space to launch them straight off the rail.
Olny F-16ANGs could use, but from Falcon 4.0 aspect this does not count. In campaigns no one of F-16Cs carry AIM-7s in any scenario. I mean this way my commment. As I can remember ANG variant in DB but in campaign - for me - is useless.
-
Simple Solution:
Add Copy in F4Browse,add weapon,add missile pointer,update .lst,add Rack.dat info,add weapon to AC,update ACdata and a few hundred other’s I forgot to mention……LOL
Doable…yes…if you take the time to do it right.
demer
-
Simple Solution:
Add Copy in F4Browse,add weapon,add missile pointer,update .lst,add Rack.dat info,add weapon to AC,update ACdata and a few hundred other’s I forgot to mention……LOL
Doable…yes…if you take the time to do it right.
demer
I know. It can be defined different AIM-7s for different launch method. Only question how many entried (weapons) can be sacrificed for this purpose… I did exactly this with MolnyFalcon to get different versions of R-73 and got AIM-9S, AIM-9L and AIM-9M. Only a small LOD edit is required, the rest of stuff DB and text edit. With FF this edit is about 5 min.
-
I know. It can be defined different AIM-7s for different launch method. Only question how many entried (weapons) can be sacrificed for this purpose… I did exactly this with MolnyFalcon to get different versions of R-73 and got AIM-9S, AIM-9L and AIM-9M. Only a small LOD edit is required, the rest of stuff DB and text edit. With FF this edit is about 5 min.
Wonder how that happened ……LOL
There are many in this DB that are Struck out\unused that you could take over if you wish…
You are correct that it seem’s 600+ entry’s are a No-No ATM,but as stated there are still many unused.demer
-
EDIT: SA-2 data supply is more or less completed, test sould come.
-
Some result with original BMS4 model comparing with RL. I can upload the video about the test if you wish.
An overdraw table for easier reading.
RL measurement vs. BMS4 model. From RL data only the speed was copied, the distance were calculated by trpeziod formula. Very accurate comparing with old, scanned diagram.
Launch distance was only 12 nm, target alt was 22k feet. This is close to epsilon = 17 degrees test.
You can see the problem. In BMS data engine burnout time is 27 seconds from 0 time, comparing with RL, that after 3+45 sec. As long as engine is runnung the difference is not too big. But this was a very short range test. In RL the max. engagement distance against a closing target is about 40 km (22 nm) at 22k feet. You can see that speed is still increasing until 48 sec. This mans huge range and speed difference as the target distance is bigger.
Two more diagrams.
Even if you set big eng. distance because of radar modeling values it will be meaningless. Radar range and ECM modifier reduces the range to a very, very small value.Current values are ~276 k fee range, and 0.15 for ECM. The ECM modifier should be much hihger, 0.25-0.3. You can reach the minimal engagement distance without any conteraction if you have ECM. (With standard ECM strength value!)
-
Devs, pls. help me. I tried everything to change the engagement rage for SAMs but no one of method worked. Did you change someting since OF4.x in code? I tried the same as in FF. I tried with radar dat files and range table of sa2.dat without sucess.
The twaked data of SA-2 comes soon. You will see so close result that is hard to imagine.
-
Result of test in Excel tables, there are two tabs in the file.
http://www.mediafire.com/?c251659bn3fxukj
For the test I modified the guidance of missile to get more constant epsilon paramter. Flight path is almost a straight line.
Result of test with two different epsilon value.
New thrust.
Thrust is a bit smaller in RL (7700 vs 7200 lbs). Because of drag coefficient, the result is not perfect but it is much closer to RL than current thrust-weight model.
The minimal eng. alt of the missile is 100 meter (330 feet), min. eng distanace is ~7 km (~23’000 feet). Because in RL available G is dependent on aero force it would required too much work to set as force coefficient to get the RL values. Because in typical range (H < 10 km) it is simplier to set the limit to 6.8G.
I fixed the engine flame position.
sa2.dat
Available here.
http://www.mediafire.com/?vbd4g3d9g7b47x0Original data
_5041.97 # Weight of Missile (lbs)
2500 # Weight of propellant (lbs)
10 # Number of Time Breaks
#BURN TIMES
0 0.025 4.5 5
5.2 10 18 26 26.5
27#ENGINE THRUST (LBS)
#THRUST
0 35000 35000 0
19500 16000 14500 12000 800
0maxGTerminal 11.5
maxGNormal 11.5
MinEngagementRange 19680
MinEngagementAlt 2234_New data
**1480 # Weight of Missile (lbs)
1580 # Weight of propellant (lbs)8 # Number of Time Breaks
#BURN TIMES
0 0.05 3.05 3.1
3.25 3.75 49 50#ENGINE THRUST (LBS)
#THRUST
0 30000 30000 0
0 7200 7200 0maxGTerminal 6.8
maxGNormal 6.8
EngLocation 0.1 0 -0.1
MinEngagementRange 23000
MinEngagementAlt 330**edit:
One more note. The blast radius should be slighty bigger then original 222 feet. In RL sometimes ~ 100 lethal radius was experianced. ~300-330 feet maybe would better. It had huge warhead, almost 200 kg.
-
tweaking Engine burn times (and missile FM in general) is relatively easy in Falcon. but it requires data.
primarily engine data (thrust profile). that would feed in the correct data into the simulation correctly.in addition,
the “range data” in the table does not affect the actual flight envelope, but rather the range the AI handles the weapon. As far as I know, this only affects air launched weapons. SAMs are handled differently based on the AI code.I would however be very happy if you could send me all the data you do have, I’ll try and play around with it and se what I can do.
EDIT -
Thrust profile looks much more reasonable now,
But as for the numbers, I’m not sure doing such course estimate is something I this should be avoided if possible.I’m trying to get some RL data on the missile engine (if it would be possible that is - i.e. not classified)