Leaderboard

Дело было позавчера, т.е. 30-го апреля, на 504-ом Air2Air. Запись ТС, как и трэк, реальная. Никакой постановки. Саундтрек Apocalyptica plays Metallica "Fight Fire With Fire". Художественная ценность невысокая. Хочу отдельно отметить высокое мастерство вирпила LtBratschnik. Его сбила только 8-ая ракета. Размер 40 MB. Ссылки: dump.ru, sendspace.com и rapidshare.com.

Some answers... ggg87, These pic's were taken on early stages of plug - in development. Miss - type has been fixed since then. mountainguy, The plug - in is specifically made for this 4X20 LCD screen. if you managed to get a PALM or anything on you mind that would mimic this screen - YOU'RE ON ! You may also try to experience a bit with LCD smartie and its configuration. Try the screen Emulator before you hook up any equiptment. If it work on the emulator - most odds it would work on the real stuff... Thank for everyone for their supporting feedback ! Cheers !

Thank you, I'm sure the community greatly appreciates this decision!

Yo-Yo, Thanks for being opened-minded about changing "your baby" of all these years to reflect reality. You're willingness to change your opinion speaks volumes about ED and where you're heading. Thanks! @ Kula: Just to visually point out what "slightly" looks like Here's a graph. I just got around to plotting the data vs the Dash1: This is a chart of Distance (in NM) vs Altitude (Ft) comparing the Dash1 data (expected performance) vs LOMAC's F-15 at MIL power and 40,000Lbs, clean aircraft. The lines should mirror each other if the simulation meets expected Dash1 performance. It's a better way to show where the discrepancies lie. As you can see, performance begins to diverge at 10,000ft (+/-1500ft) and the LOMAC aircraft becomes quite underpowered. The other area of concern is below 5000ft. This area appears underpowered as well, which mirrors my qualitative analysis that in the pattern, the aircraft doesn't perform as it should either.

The keyword is 'Slightly'!

SK, first of all - ground effect was modelled in LO even in SFM. It increases CL and L/D by decreasing induced drag. Second. The flaps do help regardless of GE. The main effect is that L/D ratio at high CL is better for lowered flaps. The third. dHe/dt is a time derivative of He = H + V^2/2g and it is very convenient to use it. And finally: if you follow the profile from the DAsh 1 you have no use to compare distant to climb and fuel to climb to determine whether the model is under- or overpowered. The time can be the only one parameter to compare. Fuel consumption can be benchmarked from the level flight charts more accurately. And finally.... I must say that Rhen is right - after I perform the detailed investigation I've found F-15 at MIL is slightly overpowered at low alt and slightly underpowered at 40000 and higher. So I promise to fix these items.

Glad that Nir started this thread! :) Tomorrow I start this at Russian forum. We have done a nice part of work together :) Pics are very big, so I changed it to less sizes: Soon this util and manual "how to build your own LCD" will be also released in lockonfiles.com

This is quite odd... I have played Lomac on a 6800nu, 7800gt, and now an 8800gts and I have never experienced these problems... on top of that I consider myself a driver junky and change them constantly. I think I would have experienced them by now... Some questions... are you reinstalling a clean set? ... Use Driver Cleaner Pro (i think it's still free somewhere... be sure to read the directions) and report back You even stated "Lots of problems during this install"... best of luck RedRiver

I don't see how LOMAC even gets close to the Dash-1 in performance. It's off in it's climb capability in MIL power. This is a little experiment I've been running comparing the -1 to LOMAC's F-15 in a 40,000Lb aircraft, clean (except the unremovable pylons), standard day. Takeoff Procedure: YOU MUST USE FLAPS FOR TAKEOFF. Run Engines up to 80%, while holding brakes, release brakes, throttles to MIL, rotate @ 120KCAS to 10degrees, Gear/Flaps up when airborne, hold to capture 350KCAS in climb, maintain until M0.9, then climb @ M0.9. I've also included statistical analysis for the numbers. The flight was flown 5 times, averaged, and compared to the Dash-1 numbers, to include deviation. If the Dash-1 number falls within the 95% Confidence interval, then there's only a 1 in 20 chance of the number being out of that range (p<0.05) which would be a statistically significant deviation from the Dash-1. NOTES: 1. Time is from brake release to indicated altitude, Distance is from brake release, Fuel is from 350KCAS. 2. Fuel under Dash-1 is fuel from 350KCAS, fuel depicted below that includes, run-up, takeoff, and climb to 350KCAS, thus the apparent discrepancy. 3. If the Dash 1 number falls between the numbers, then there's no statistically significant difference between LOMAC and the Dash-1. If it doesn't... well then, obviously there's only a 1 in 20 chance that LOMAC is correct. Finally, the real F-15 is capable of reaching 45,000ft at 40,000 Lbs. The LOMAC F-15 is incapable of reaching this altitude in MIL power at M0.9. It reaches it's combat ceiling at 43,600ft and it's absolute ceiling at 44,250ft. Conclusion: To reject the null hypothesis that the LOMAC F-15 conforms to the F-15 Dash-1, The numbers derived from the Dash-1 should be between the numbers below the 95% Conf column. It does this at 25,000ft with respect to time to climb to this altitude. But as you can see, the LOMAC F-15 actually outperforms the Dash-1 below about 12,000ft then significantly slows/flattens it's climb profile. The slope rapidly decreases to nearly tangential at 45,000ft, which explains the large variations in leveloff time and distance. With respect to distance, the LOMAC F-15 flys a flatter slope than the Dash-1 says the F-15 flys, above 12,000ft. The numbers begin to diverge significantly enough to notice, then become quite large in it's variance from that expected from the Dash-1. This also conforms to the large variance in time to climb to the higher altitudes. With respect to fuel flow, the LOMAC F-15 appears to use less JP-8 than the real thing. The final conclusion is that the LOMAC F-15 at 40,000Lbs in MIL power does NOT conform to the Dash-1. It significantly underperforms the Dash-1 at moderate to high altitudes, and outperforms the F-15 at low to medium altitude. Finally, any errors in experimental technique are caused by two major areas. Pilot variations in manipulating the aircraft for the climb profile might cause small variations in time and distance to climb, expecially at the beginnning and end of the profile. Again, this is due to the underpowering of the LOMAC F-15 and the proximity of the combat, service, and absolute service ceiling of the LOMAC F-15 to 40,000 ft. Secondly, throttle setting could possibly be off and not fully in MIL power. Care was taken to maintain the closest throttle position without going into afterburner. The other major source of error is in reading the tables in the Dash-1. This error is significant because some parameters must be approximated, such as drag corrections, and approximating positions on the chart near the low altitude portion of the charts. Other sources of error are in assumptions about the atmospheric modeling of LOMAC. Is there an adiabatic lapse rate? Does it affect the engine thrust? How is engine thrust determined from altitude, speed, temperature? This experiment will be repeated with a 30,000Lb aircraft, and a 50,000Lb aircraft to determine if the same results are obtained. I wanted to include the track I flew, but it's too large since it ends at the absolute ceiling.