pappachuck

Just passing to start a conversation on one of my favorite Late Cold War Aircraft The Eurocopter AS332 Super Puma. I absolutey its history as European Nations were pressed to develop a multi-role, all-weather, extremely capable Helicopter that also was to be introduced in many different european countries in the attempt of creating an entirely European aircraft with no ties with USA, and all of its supply chain in Europe. I am sure there are more knowledgeable people on this community to drop more information on it. I really hope one day this become a module in DCS. The AS332 is cooler than its newer brother EC725 Reference: https://weaponsandwarfare.com/2021/06/26/puma-helicopter/

But will the set_value work ? So at each tick it will verify for a packet to set_value ? and would this work for a continuous input such as joystick and throttle ?

My idea is to use all my FPGAs and hardware laying around to control things through a middleware. Is there a way to Script it ? I see I can get data out of the game at runtime, but can I get Player inputs into the game at runtime ?

16 atakas on the middle pylons on the short wing version of the P. Cypriot National Guard Mi-35P aka export version of the Mi-24P Note the short wing Edit 1: To carry more missiles there is a small modification on the weapon selector that is the addition of a button that allows the control and wiring of more missiles. Honestly it is such small modification that I dont see harm in modelling it, giving us the option. Also the stub wings option, and fixed landing gear. The ammount of effort modeling it so we can choose in the mission editor is so small and give us the ability to compose such awesome life like scenarios. After all, we do have the Cyprus island.

For Example, there are transcoding capable A.I such OpenAI Codex that can translate code, debug, test, and deploy. I think now is the time to transform DCS into a modern game. Scripting is limited and inneficient. Also, going into C++ expands the horizon on possibilities from Graphical upgrades, audio, better models, better physics, .... Codex also can help you guys code with new toys like Vulkan. I absolutely love DCS and would love more than anything see it evolve and come around as the most modern Flight Sim with the best engine in market. Quick programming language translation using OpenAI Codex https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUCUxFHtJvw&t=128s

Actually the way DCS FM is made is the hard way since it does not use standarized engineering methods and processes.

Its relatively easy to get the mathematical model of the aircraft, its purely academic research. What is hard is getting data from the game to build a comparative model. So far the best I can say is that its off by a little, thus the current Flight model does not represent an accurate version of the real thing. Maybe one day I can extract data from the game and build a comparative model and determine by how much and where. RB have their Flight model and could easily compare to the Data from NASA VSRA program. I would if I had a way to get data out of the game, that would be a good practice for academic purposes. Obs.: Flight model include the flight controls which on the Harrier case are software, response times on reaction control, thrust curve response time, and many other stuff that is not even debated on the manuals given to the military.

Evolving into the topic, the state space model of the flight model does not correspond to the in-game model by a slight deviance that is above 10%. I need time to build the MATLAB model and put side by side with DCS. RB would help if they let us have their FM for mathematical comparison. NASA did all the testing and they have good resources about this topic. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19900012460/downloads/19900012460.pdf

That is the challenge, getting the Langley test results or any flight model created afterwards. I only found academic reference on those. The FM is slightly off, its just incredibly hard to find academic information in something so old. How I know it is off. Well, RCS bleed flow curves are not factored among lots of other things, I would guess they dont have a fancy model and scripted most behaviors. Below I present a series of examples of modelling aircraft, very useful for very complicated models such the harrier and vectored thrust and high maneuverable aircrafts. For example:

It is possible, and we wont know unless we can see their Flight model. VSTOL is extremely complex to model and I think RB missed lots of aspects by just using the USMC manuals. One of these probably is the engine power and Cd.

I am a mechanical engineer and just like to spend my free time messing with simulations. To summarize: a flight model for VSTOL aircraft is a extremely complex topic and reverse engineer the aircraft from performance charts given to pilots is not ideal. This is a brief book on the Aerodynamics of VSTOL aircrafts from the time the Harrier was developed, it gives a glimpse about the topic. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD0688921.pdf There are lots of Books and publications specially on AIAAA and recently formed a VTOL journal. It is a complex topic and It is not that RB or the people is reading the graphics wrong, you are not exposed to the complete picture. It is necessary to dig some performance engine tests and apply that to the right Flight Model equations in order to derive a precise model of the Harrier. Currently RB team did the best they could with the USMC manual which is pretty good for a videogame but it is not quite yet good model for a simulation. The best way is to find Academic information.

There is the Hardware which is the Aircraft and there is the software which has slight changes between nations, but the ATAS is almost plug and play. Hardware wise there is very little changes and there is even a mount fabricated for it. The USA did not opt for it. Romeo hellfire's are not compatible with the AH64D and that is understandable, I was not asking for that. APKWS is totally acceptable since there are still AH64D block 2 today flying around that could be using them given a doctrine change. All modern missiles have INS, I think you are debating semantics however that's how they are engineered, it is part of their flight control unit it might need the SAL or any other seeker to effectively hit the target but it does not change the fact it does have INS inside of it. What I think you believe I am referring is that AGM-114 K,L,M are little JDAMs which they are not. I found a jewel from 1983: The current countries that operate AH64Ds same aircraft as the United States, some have software upgrades: Egypt Greece Israel Japan Kuwait Netherlands Saudi Arabia Singapore South Korea Taiwan United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States

The evidence is on the NFM-000 and NFM-400. I agree the older Flight Model was too off, however this one is aprox. 15% underpowered. There are other aspects to the graphics that is not listed, they are assuming 95% of the total engine output as safety margin. So even if the currently model was for the engine F402--RR--408 (Pegasus11-61) it would need to be slightly above of what the manual states to match what the aircraft would output. You can confirm on figures: Maximum Corrected Hover Capability, Remarks engine: F402--RR--408 on Figure 3-8 Hover Capability Dry, Remarks engine: F402--RR--408 on Figure 3-10 Vertical Takeoff Capability, Remarks engine: F402--RR--408 on Figure 3-12 Remember that the engine F402--RR--408 (Pegasus11-61) is capable of aprox. 22,200 lbs of static thrust running dry in optimum ICAO conditions. There are engineering tables which states how much loss of thrust according to the Reaction Control System required flow rates, and varying conditions (temperature, air pressure, ....). From those tables they derive (with a safety margin) what is given to the pilots and what you can see on NFM-000 and NFM-400. My personal opinion is that RB misunderstood the tables and made the engines slightly closer to the F402--RR--406 rather than the F402--RR--408. The only way to tell for sure is if someone help me extract their code and run on MATLAB.

Well, that is incorrect. The AV-8B N/A also fields an updated version of the Rolls-Royce Pegasus 11-61 (F402-RR-408) vectored-thrust turbofan engine. It is also on the module description: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/shop/modules/av8bna/ The AV8B N/A is the version they modelled which is after 2010 and has the Pegasus 11-61. AV-8B N/A + also has the pegasus 11-61 and is basically the same airframe but the nose.

The NFM-400 states that the Pegasus 11-61 produces 22,200 pounds without water injection. Exactly my point. The engine they modelled it is the Pegasus 11-21. I searched a lot as matter of fact.