jackmckay

the sounds.. the countermeasure soooouuunnnndddddsssss.. a little catrige boom @Mars Exulte is that envy?

Videogrammetry?

the track is attached. another test, fresh start. distance 220km/136mi. this one has different aiming line after first correction. So it looks like compensation worked after some shots, nr4. salvo x3. nr5 miss but close. then missile nr6 hit the target. except this time correction vector changed and also changed initial orientation of scuds too. 137 vs old 124. looks like its possible to correct manually. on eds side, code could be changed and aiming deflection fixed with some spread finetuned to within actual scud-b results. just a number. SCUD Target Correction.trk

Mod works without this code: GT.verticalDeviationCompensationPeriod = 10.0 GT.maxVerticalDeviationAngle = math.rad(5) and instead has: GT.turbine = false; It also changes missile declaration script: -- Missile R-17 Scud B local R17 = { category = CAT_MISSILES, name = "R_17", wsTypeOfWeapon = {wsType_Weapon,wsType_Missile,wsType_SS_Missile,WSTYPE_PLACEHOLDER}; Escort = 0, Head_Type = 5, sigma = {10, 10, 10},-- AMENDED THIS BUILD M = 2000.0,-- AMENDED THIS BUILD H_max = 230000.0,-- AMENDED THIS BUILD H_min = -1, Diam = 880.0,-- AMENDED THIS BUILD Cx_pil = 1, D_max = 595470.0,-- AMENDED THIS BUILD D_min = 12000.0,-- AMENDED THIS BUILD Head_Form = 1, Life_Time = 9200.0,-- AMENDED THIS BUILD Nr_max = 6.0,-- AMENDED THIS BUILD v_min = 370.0,-- AMENDED THIS BUILD v_mid = 1900.0,-- AMENDED THIS BUILD Mach_max = 5.00,-- AMENDED THIS BUILD t_b = 0.0, t_acc = 9.0,-- AMENDED THIS BUILD t_marsh = 172.0,-- AMENDED THIS BUILD Range_max = 595470.0,-- AMENDED THIS BUILD H_min_t = 0.0, Fi_start = 3.14152, Fi_rak = 3.14152, Fi_excort = 3.14152, Fi_search = 99.9, OmViz_max = 99.9, warhead = { mass = 985;-- AMENDED THIS BUILD expl_mass = 975;-- AMENDED THIS BUILD other_factors = {1, 1, 1}; obj_factors = {1, 1}; concrete_factors = {1, 1, 1}; cumulative_factor = 0; concrete_obj_factor = 0.5; cumulative_thickness = 0.6; piercing_mass = 987.0; caliber = 880, }, exhaust = {1,1,1,1}, X_back = -5.5, Y_back = 0.0, Z_back = 0.0, Reflection = 0.3967, KillDistance = 0.0, shape_table_data = { { name = "R_17"; file = "R-17"; life = 1; fire = { 0, 1}; username = "R_17"; index = WSTYPE_PLACEHOLDER; }, } }; declare_weapon(R17) Hope it helps for now.

I do have mission track, but its complex server setup. what I discovered that R17 has exact deflection offset. at one point it aims at other it hits. the difference in that setup from others is initial firing angle and single result. it looks like there's no wind influence on any other larger deflection from impact points. in conclusion: the deflection is exact angle offset.

Was firing from Maykop to Sukhumi. Made a CC there and tried several times until this happened: The bearing deflection on 220716m is 13.7kms east on 151 deg 219km measured: This was the first salvo hit: Direct hit:

it looks like you solved vertical offset? what about horizontal?

Yeah. Had same issues with SCUD. Wanted to integrate it into server just for immersion treat. Found out that the target point offset is really uncool besides having manual hydraulic pumps on human foot power for raising and lowering that forky ramp. Besides still cool but too long launch sequence default trajectory goes into high earth orbit. Who knows, maybe it really crosses some winds of distortion on the way up and down in RL. Anyway, would be cool if it has more random spread lookup around "actual" target point. The offset is too far and too precise in offset point after hitting with barge. Same spot all. Looks too weird. The only thing I found as solution is to find actual bearing offset propagation over distance - somehow, or try some scripts to fix it. i did, but this one doesn't support IC and in that mod it flies very smoothly and hits target like artillery which looks fine and moves eyes away from that problem. Yet, cool neat and mighty thing. Maybe is just OP?

i had 504 too. didnt change anything and got it working after a while. prob was server issue.

actually that is very cool graph. just watching. f16 is ahead.

hi guys. had some ssd issues and needed to reinstall. i can continue now. regarding test. I tried parabolic climb in j11 and managed to reach 15k alt even breaching mach BUT the mach indicator was on 0.8 somehow even sonic boom was apparent. also tried f16, all setups 1% fuel and that thing went straight up 15km at 45deg initially no need to parabolic and all subsonic i think. will try more runs with extact times.

this was empty weight without fuel and pilot. should go up by at least 2-3t by adding fuel and pilot. im on advantage here cos on less then 100kg fuel used and in total by DCS around 17t locked. should be close in t/w ratio if RL j11 engine data is used. all that work on polishing was about achieving extra 3% on previous record done by Strike Eagle, i assume ofc. ill try eagle too. that is what J11 is closer to by engine performance so closest thing to p-42 is J11 in RL in matter of wet thrust. it can be tweaked in lua file IF it has any affect. in default su27/j11 i wasn't able to go above 600kmh. was using 48deg climb as used on mig31 previous attempts and that should be optimal. i'll need few days to complete the scripting. some patience pls. i think its gonna be interesting to see the difference.

do you have some links pls. well i'm just trying to figure out exactly how much of acceleration is degraded. in last try I couldn't even reach 12km at 48deg climb. btw, i was testing clean 1%f f16 and reached 15km in 75secs(P-42 has this height on 70secs). modding script(crosscountryrace) to get time and log to test most modules i got. This is quite intriguing state here. J-11A.lua has thrust_sum_ab = 25000 but on wiki(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenyang_J-11) its 2x132 kN which is roughly 26400 but dont know which thrust unit is used tbh.

tnx for the tip. will try on J11. i think it has slightly better engines then Su27 which could come closer match to P-42. Lets see what happens.

not that much as i'm concerned. the frontal projection of plane was reduced by roughly 5% even that sounds aggregated by shear area calculation. the wetted surface is degraded by tail boom removal also in 5% range as there's a big difference between effect of nose cone and tail section effect on aerodynamic forces. from one side i'm on 94kg of fuel and i assume P-42 needed at least 2t or 25-30% of fuel needed to reach that altitude in wetted AFB mode. The removed parts are in compliance with "civilian plane" box meaning no guns, no radar etc. which sounds like it has no effect on overall weight but i assume it should. My rude observation the setup 27 on 1% fuel should be like 5-10% close to P-42. The effect in time is 100% difference. Are we missing an engine in su27? If J11 is unencrypted that could be closer match to try P-42.