jackmckay

check the ease of this flight here. no burner. speed between 500 and 750 with fast fluctuations topped on less then 95% rpm but still agile. this looks too easy compared to DCS struggle in FC3 module. have feel would burn half of fuel trying to immitate this in DCS. hope FF module will match this close enough.

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.

Hi, I had a little challenge here. Was trying to recreate the P-42 record in climb that was set on March 20, 1987 committed on heavily modified Su-27 flanker and has set the score of roughly 55secs. The weight of the empty aircraft (without fuel and pilot) was 14,100 kg. The engine thrust increased from 12 500 to 13 600 kgf. Some parts removed and replaced by appropriate parts to achieve best starting position. My setup included civilian Su-27 with total wight (ME calculated) of 17344kg with 1% of unlimited fuel meaning no extra fuel is carried. I was not able to remove pylons as there's no such options plausible in DCS Flanker right now what actually increased wetted/projected area by some 5% rude estimation. What I can do is reduce weight of fuel drastically to emulate weight loss to match the criteria of record plane which can also help to compensate increased thrust done on original test bed by 2.2t(2x1100kgf). For reference Su27 empty weight is set as 16,380kg by external source so the DCS ME(17250kg) difference in ~1 tone is not understood if you take the weight of pilot and accessories that would otherwise be included in weight estimation. So the result was that it took me more than 2 minutes to reach 12km in comparison to P-42 55secs never reaching supersonic climb as on record breaking plane. What do you think? Is DCS Flanker under performing? Flanker Empty Climb.trk

there is some ground on this statement. trees do come as 40m high. what ED could do is do some scalar size randomization like variations in height egg. hilltop smaller valley larger gradually scaling. its plausible. they are either bushes or tall as building and more of them should fill the gap in between. its also valid for vehicles vs roads/railway track size comparison. a assume that in VR those scales do have different effect.

Guys, I am pretty much convinced that F16 is the best recreated module in DCS yet. I wasn't convinced myself till late clean tests but it seems that this module got the most care seen in DCS. There are probably some other issues like pylon/weapon drag still to be fine tuned but its on the right track. compared to others it still leads by spear length. you cant break its wings as seen on other modules egg. i've seen several airshow displays and I personalty find it top tier plane besides rafale, eurofighter and fulcrum. its ground observation, true, but still it rocks in DCS. I've noticed that air brakes are not as effective as I expected egg. and I had some struggle to slow it down on low level so it really manages energy very good by my perspective. most of you complaining should force other modules to come closer to that level even not perfect in overall. the real deal could come in case that someone does some CFD(virtual wind tunnel) vs DCS engine comparison and in that case we could have some top level physics evaluation that experts in field can stand behind. till then, we have no solid ground expect charts from pilot manuals to refer on. here are my 50 cents. have fun.

i'll try mr big. dont wanna steal the show ofc. holly cow! f16 actually climbs up! though tweaked at 1% unlimited fuel clean I reached angels 28(8500m) from near deck stop. it looks like there's a hope for 16. i mean, there's excess of 10k lbf(4.5tf) force available what is never going to be rl case ofc and should be replaced by fuel weight to start at tw1. well, 16 is the least to criticize at this point based on this initial test. during mission setup i noticed some other things as numbers don't match official manuals in weight exactly and for comparison mig29s just reached 2/5(3700m) of 16 alt in similar test. some planes cant have pylons removed and its impossible to set wp speed at 0 in ME but only scripted spawn. @BIGNEWY can we have separate topic for independent module performance testing of next airframes? i'd like more people to test tw1+ fighters, since i noticed some numbers in ME dont match official, for a start, and it would be great not to sparse this topic wide but centralized. f16bl50 - ew: 19,200lb/8708kg - eng: General Electric F110 - wt(1/1): 29,500lbf/131.2kN - 1% fuel: 8500m f15c - ew: 28,000lb/12,701kg - eng: Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-220 - wt(1/2): 23,770lbf/105.7kN - 1% fuel: f18c - ew: 23,000 lb (10,433 kg) - eng: General Electric F404-GE-402 - wt(1/2): 17,750lbf/79.0kN - 1% fuel: j11a - ew: 36,112lb/16,380kg - eng: Shenyang WS-10A - wt(1/2): 30,000lbf/132kN - 1% fuel: su27 - ew: 36,112lb/16,380kg - eng: Saturn AL-31F - wt(1/2): 27,600lbf/122.6kN - 1% fuel: mig29s - ew: 24,251lb/11,000kg - eng: Klimov RD-33 - wt (1/2): 18,340lbf/81.58kN - 1% fuel: 3700m mig21bis -ew: ?? - eng: Tumansky R-25-300 - wt (1/1): 15,640lbf/69.58kN(21,800lbf/97.1kN) - 1% fuel: engine shutdown! m2000c - ew: 16,535lb/7,500kg - eng: SNECMA M53-P2 - wt (1/1): 21,400lbf/95.1kN - 1% fuel: + f14, Su33, ajs37, f5, (theese i dont own so .. jf17, f1) TW Test.miz Anyone interested in some more testing? This topic is very crucial btw so any help is welcomed. thank you.

well i disagree about fldyn. can you tell at what fuel point the clean airframe reaches t/w ratio over 1 and start to accelerate climb up? name any plane that has enough power and performs so?

sticks can be solved by custom predefined curves egg. matching stick product specific. flight dynamics/drag issues can be solved by using extensive CFD prior setting up flight modeling that is tabular in lua files. no need for live hpc farm cfd and even home pc can do it it just takes more time and less accuracy even with open source soft if you like. also for reference, x-plane has primitive cfd in engine and its bmp the best flight modeling out. if rl pilots say it feels some way ed should take that into account BUT the speed feel can be matter of perspective egg. car bumper vs roof cam or zoom level, ALTHOUGH sensor numbers shouldn't lie. if ed needs help, supply us with 3d model and nda to run the tests, comparison and corrections. this should be done long time ago and introduced as mandatory on 3rd party devs as internally. if there's a will there is a way.

no its not about some existing DCS mission BUT its actually a custom mission im trying to setup for some logistic two-way runs thus exploring the wp logic. what i found out next is that helis(ch47d) do have some issues with wp like not same as airplanes (all about AIs). i set the mission for planes(c130) on right but helis do not follow same logic. here's updated mission WP_test2z.miz the right setup for planes is: WP0 - takeoff(base1), WP1 - turn point set alt speed (base2), WP2 - ReFuAr (same spot as wp1 aka base2), WP3 - turn point set alt speed (base1), WP4 - ReFuAr (base1) .. switch WP4 to WP0 aka restart circle. conclusion: this works for terrain following in planes but helis somehow quit this principle probably for using FARPS - no wp switching cycle for some reason. the previous example had direct wp logic and worked on short legs (AI alt dependent on leg length?) but when there are cross country leg then AI slams into a ground on some point while closing WP never crossed. i managed to correct that so it works now for long runs on WPs example above. Campaign creators might have this process very useful ofc but im more into scripting of logistics so im planning to play scripted wp switching logic just to make the scenery more alive and adaptable to any changes in wp status.

step 1: determine drag vs AoA graph (alpha and beta) up to egg 30deg. step 2: use rude calculator egg.: https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/drag-equation or just use excell match and correct numbers in lua. simple as that. maybe there's an issue with reynolds numbers here as it appears to be too high, if its implemented. also, there was a overall object-world scale misalignment making objects appear larger than they would in RL. that could also make an impact too. egg. train tracks vs tank width. just to add that t/w ratio is progressive value depending on fuel quant mostly, so there should be a point when plane can stay suspended in air and start to accelerate upwards when above 1 at certain fuel level, case pointing up 90deg. in general, energy management needs some improvements. old story.

Noticed some AIs cant avoid terrain and crush. Also, direct WPs cant set altitude without intermediate WP so the real altitude is set by unknown. Strangely, AI flies towards set WP but at 90% leg it turns back and then next round it commits successfully. Talking about perpetual two-way mission. WP_test2x.miz