Suggestion for database, data supply
-
The limitation curves are meaningless as long as FM is not close to real. With new FM + thrust should provide more accurate performance enevelope curve with 1g, this also means better acceleration model in level and climbing too. This should be the base of new FM. If aero force are far from real the limiters work that speed and AoA range where they sould not…
-
https://www.benchmarksims.org/forum/showthread.php?8230-Suggestion-for-database-data-supply/page13
Figure 4, steady-state overload bends, the plane with two 2hR-73 xp-27, with 50% residual
Fuel from the normal charging, the standard conditions of temperature regime
raooty POLHy FORSAZh engines (for other mass nuF = nYou ust.vir., 20000)
MF
Done…
-
Sorry m8 I forgot the thread and just responded to this one…
LOL we reinvented the wheel…Mav-jp is our man… Start licking him…
Please please…
We have f-16.
I’m sure M2k guys must be pushing for their FM… Also Mav is French so I’m sure he has something on the works… lol
F-18 is on the works if and a SU-27 will be close to real than we don’t want anything else… we can die in peace…
Of course Mav will die first after all those works… But I’m sure that he will give us the finger if u know what I mean… lol:D:D:D
Still a lot of work ahead…
BMS great simulator with a very good AMF F-16
if all else will be at the level just fine -
Translate
the main points in the graphs and tables
…
1 picture
Sustained turns (g)
Military thrust
Airplane configuration
2R-73+2R-27
Weight 20000kg (44092 lb)
for the weights are different from the above
Gnew=(Gon the chart20000)/New weight(kg)2 picture
the same
but the thrust = MAX (full afterburner)3 picture
limit of stability and controllability
for airplane with A-A missals or without
speed Mach number 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 2.0
indicator, of angle of attack (deg) 24 23 22 20 19 18 8with A-G (bombs, rocket launchers)
speed Mach number 0.6 0.7 0.85
indicator, of angle of attack (deg) 20 18 15the minimum speed horizontal flight (1g) - 200 kph (maximum fuel loading, with A-A missiles, believe me )
4 picture
At angles of attack α> 28 ° up to the stall, controllability of the aircraft is missingThe available angular velocity of the roll by increasing the angle of attack decreases, but remains sufficient to α (see previous table). (20 ° / sec). The effectiveness of lateral control in horizontal flight provides the angular velocity of roll ωh ≥ 1,5 ° / sec.
α доп. - angle of attack Limited by FLCS possible are exceeding, but there are additional features in the control
су доп. - LIFT COEFFICIENT (CL)
φмакс - maximum angle at which the stabilizer is deflected
Ny эмакс - the maximum operating load for the current weight -
@OSD:
I was just funny the current situation, when I uploaded the modified FM https://www.benchmarksims.org/forum/showthread.php?7259-Changes-in-the-flight-model nobody was looking, and charts on which changes were made, too, no one was looking.
could you upload your su27 FM again? the file link is gone.
-
Ps = Thrust (lbs) - Drag
Sustained turn => Ps=0 => Thrust (lbs) = Drag
we have the CL(α,M), Trust(M, altitude)
how to find the Cd(α,M) will tell you MAV- JPThis is not the final version
it does not match the real 1:1, for obvious reasons
there are some features, even in the trajectory model, which are not reflected in the graphs in the Airplane Flight Manual
but I can not tell you about them
database contains incorrect weight suspensions and pylons as well as drag index
New version available FM… -
1 picture
Sustained turns (g)
Military thrust
Airplane configuration
2R-73+2R-27
Weight 20000kg (44092 lb)
for the weights are different from the above
Gnew=(Gon the chart20000)/New weight(kg)2 picture
the same
but the thrust = MAX (full afterburner)These are the only data that I can use for verification. I think FM is your work therefore you should do the comparsion.
-
SA-5B test video is available on youtube.
The dat file is available in the uploaded directory, but here is the dircect link.
http://www.mediafire.com/?3iuguuntm8pc92h
RL engagement zones.
http://www.mediafire.com/?n6ff9wtnbn44ri9
Original data
_6172.94 # Weight of Missile (lbs)
3800 # Weight of propellant (lbs)5 # boost guide lead
5 # sustain guide lead
5 # terminal guide lead2 # Num MACH
0 4AXIAL FORCE COEFFICIENTS (CX)
0.35 # AXIAL MULTIPLIER
Mach 0.00
-1.12 -1.04 -0.96 -0.88 -0.8 -0.72
-0.64Mach 4.00
-1.55 -1.4 -1.3 -1.22 -1.15 -1.05
BURN TIME BREAKPOINTS
10 # Number of Time Breaks
#BURN TIMES
0 0.025 5.6 5.8
6 15 30 36 36.5
37ENGINE THRUST (LBS)
#THRUST
0 50000 50000 0
25500 21000 17500 12000 1000
0maxGTerminal 10.5
maxGNormal 10.5
MinEngagementRange 32800
MinEngagementAlt 6204_New data
**3600 # Weight of Missile (lbs)
5000 # Weight of propellant (lbs)2 # boost guide lead
2 # sustain guide lead
1 # terminal guide lead2 # Num MACH
0 6AXIAL FORCE COEFFICIENTS (CX)
0.60 # AXIAL MULTIPLIER
Mach 0.00
-1.12 -1.04 -0.96 -0.88 -0.8 -0.72
-0.64Mach 6.00
-2.55 -2.4 -2.3 -2.22 -2.15 -2.05
-1.9MISSILE MOTOR DATA
BURN TIME BREAKPOINTS
9 # Number of Time Breaks
#BURN TIMES
0 0.1 4.1 4.2 4.6
4.7 70 100 101ENGINE THRUST (LBS)
#THRUST
0 90000 90000 0 0
18500 7200 7200 0EngLocation -5.0 0.0 -0.1
maxGTerminal 10
maxGNormal 10
MinEngagementRange 55000
MinEngagementAlt 980** -
Great work molni, keep it up! I just installed your Sa-5.dat file.
Any way to fix Sa-3 bit?
-
Yes, I have good news. I figured out what was the problem, it seems to me that I can increase the launch distance. The dat files of radar are the problem, the following lines.
Rangetoacuire [value]
Rangetoguide [value]I will post some long range engagement result of SA-2 and SA-5 where you can see the huge difference between old and tweaked models, + I try to set different high speed drag to SA-2 to get more close result about M2.0.
-
Yes, I have good news. I figured out what was the problem, it seems to me that I can increase the launch distance. The dat files of radar are the problem, the following lines.
Rangetoacuire [value]
Rangetoguide [value]I will post some long range engagement result of SA-2 and SA-5 where you can see the huge difference between old and tweaked models, + I try to set different high speed drag to SA-2 to get more close result about M2.0.
That nice to hear, i think that thise fixes will make campaings way better because now red side has least working sam’s !
-
ACMI, just a quick teste with bigger bubble and different radar behavior.
http://www.mediafire.com/?zfthw4c7woh5cot
At impact point the speed was above M2.0 even I set the low alt thrust profile. If you wish I can show what happen with high alt thrust profile.
Engagament range was 90 km.
Of course if I prefer the other thrust char. the low-med. alt eng. range will be smaller. Even with this eng. range can lead situations where AI launch missile outside of effective rage. My guess if my alt was only 10-12 I was outside of effective range.
-
Two more ACMIs available with program 105.
http://www.mediafire.com/?cbftd9sqk8038
Speed is reach M6.0 If would be a target where missile can follow the RL profile speed can reach the RL max., M6.5-7.0 zone.
-
@OSD:
it does not match the real 1:1, for obvious reasons
there are some features, even in the trajectory model, which are not reflected in the graphs in the Airplane Flight Manual
but I can not tell you about them
database contains incorrect weight suspensions and pylons as well as drag indexi just checked new su27fm.
when flying around 200-300kt, max AoA is 27 deg and controllable.
i can easily aim my ac nose at F-16 in this speed range. -
i just checked new su27fm.
when flying around 200-300kt, max AoA is 27 deg and controllable.
i can easily aim my ac nose at F-16 in this speed range.I know, let’s move the discussion of the Su-27 here https://www.benchmarksims.org/forum/showthread.php?7259-Changes-in-the-flight-model/page5
-
Yes, I have good news. I figured out what was the problem, it seems to me that I can increase the launch distance. The dat files of radar are the problem, the following lines.
Rangetoacuire [value]
Rangetoguide [value]I will post some long range engagement result of SA-2 and SA-5 where you can see the huge difference between old and tweaked models, + I try to set different high speed drag to SA-2 to get more close result about M2.0.
Hm… Even I set strongly the data of SA-2, the effect of change is much less as for SA-2 or SA-2. I was not able increase engagement range about 20nm regardless that I set very big missile range, radar range and dig values is dat files either. Only problem I do not know what can the result in 2D world and for AI if I set unnecessary big values… I will try to play a bit with FM to get more closer result to RL.
-
molnibalage,In summary what is the problem?
Ai does not want to attack the necessary distance
or the missile misses the target? -
Hi molni, i know that this is maybe too much to ask but can you make fix for SA-3? just like you did for SA-5 (it’s working fine btw.)
Red side need’s all those sam’s working and vanilla SA-3 is useless
-
@OSD:
molnibalage,In summary what is the problem?
Ai does not want to attack the necessary distance
or the missile misses the target?When I changed SA-5 and SA-2 radar and missile range paramters the engengement distance was literally exactly the same that I expected. I can type as much big radar range and missile range values eng. distance never will be bigger than 20nm for SA-2, it is ‘only’ ~38 km. Maybe this is not so bad because it means AI never will be engage targets outside kinematic range.
I was able to set as axial force coeffs, to get more real speed profile. For SA-2 and maybe other SAMs the problem the very poor modeling values. ECM is so effective against SA-2 that you approach to 9-10 nm without burning through the ECM. (ECM distance modififer is 0.15.) So, regardless of biggery eng. and kinematic range you can’t feel any difference. 9-10nm eng. rage is so small that 2nd missile launch is close to min. eng. range or 2nd missiles maybe never will be launched. In RL ECM is effective but not so much.
(During the ODS one F-15E was downed buy SA-2, subvariant never was marked in any soruce.)
Hi molni, i know that this is maybe too much to ask but can you make fix for SA-3? just like you did for SA-5 (it’s working fine btw.)
Do not worry, SA-3 will be the next, but there is a chance that dat file edit won’t be enough.
-
When I changed SA-5 and SA-2 radar and missile range paramters the engengement distance was literally exactly the same that I expected. I can type as much big radar range and missile range values eng. distance never will be bigger than 20nm for SA-2, it is ‘only’ ~38 km. Maybe this is not so bad because it means AI never will be engage targets outside kinematic range.
I was able to set as axial force coeffs, to get more real speed profile. For SA-2 and maybe other SAMs the problem the very poor modeling values. ECM is so effective against SA-2 that you approach to 9-10 nm without burning through the ECM. (ECM distance modififer is 0.15.) So, regardless of biggery eng. and kinematic range you can’t feel any difference. 9-10nm eng. rage is so small that 2nd missile launch is close to min. eng. range or 2nd missiles maybe never will be launched. In RL ECM is effective but not so much.
(During the ODS one F-15E was downed buy SA-2, subvariant never was marked in any soruce.)
Do not worry, SA-3 will be the next, but there is a chance that dat file edit won’t be enough.
Im happy what ever you can do to make it even bit better so keep it up and greetings from Finland
And can you make SA-2 to resist ecm bit more?
Btw…I was shot down last night…SA-10… no RWR launch alert…weird, i can swear that other sim’s you get launch warning