brianacooper11

Thanks SilentEagle, that refines an uncertainty. And thanks everybody else for the moral support. Brian

3rd party route: I'm talking to ED. Don't want to add anything further. Flight model: AFM/EFM, we'll see. Some stuff has to be custom, but no sense re-inventing the airspeed indicator. Additional team members: maybe, probably, pretty much have to Moral support: yes, give All the details figured out, project rock solid stable, deadline a sure thing, success guaranteed: no, but getting better Is Tu-22M worth it: what do you think? Brian

Reading these responses, I perceive excitement and hope, but I also perceive doubt about eventual success. I also neglected to mention some important details in the initial announcement (updated). I'd like to explain my battle-plan for the programming effort, in the hope that the whole effort will be believable. First off, I picked the Tu-22M3 because it's largely an analog airplane. Most systems or cockpit indicators just do a few simple things, and they don't talk as much with each other. The code for them will have low complexity. One measure of this is cyclomatic complexity. Contrast this with the F/A-18 ED is working on, or any modern real world aircraft for that matter. Their cockpit displays and aircraft systems are extremely integrated, and as the degree of integration or complexity increases, the development effort increases exponentially. That's just my experience. The Tu-22M3 has redundant systems, but they are a 'simple' redundancy: they are in parallel, like power buses, or there are two or more physical units like airspeed indicators. If something breaks, you don't have to program a reaction to it. On modern systems, if something fails, all the computers have a stupid confab about it, and often decide to DO something, like swap channels, or vote on the best source of data, or average the remaining sources of data. The options are endless, and the powers that be dictate that all options must be implemented. Tons of code results. Ask the ED guys about it on the F/A-18. The Tu-160, B-52, B-1B, etc all have at multiple integrated digital systems that would have ground things to a halt. With the Tu-22M3, I don't have to deal with that. If the BN's airspeed indicator dies, he asks the pilot to read him airspeeds. If the autopilot goes out, he starts giving course corrections to the pilot. This isn't ideal in the real world, and that's why we have progress, but for our simulation purposes, it makes my life much, much easier. An Su-24 is similar to to the Tu-22M3 in this respect, but it requires a single player to be in two places at once during the final critical phases of a bombing run or weapons launch, as the pilot is truly directing the airplane, but he doesn't have the attack radar in front of him, and in the final moments, you need EVERYTHING for cross-checking. The Tu-22M3 is a bit old fashioned, in that the pilot hands off the plane to the BN entirely, and you only need to be in that position during the bombing run. You've got the optical bombsight, autopilot control, attack radar, nav radar, and standard six pack instruments all at that single station. Some weapons controls are at EW but you can preset all that, and pickle from the BN seat. A single player doesn't have to go mad. There will be optional AI for the RWR for single player mode. For these reasons of complexity, and a reasonable single player experience, there is only one option in a modern bomber: Tu-22M3. Now, before I produce a single line of code, I create a monstrous Design Document (DD). That's where you spell out in plain English or with engineering diagrams what every cockpit indication does, how every single system works in detail. It keeps the software project organized. It highlights work scope creep. It gives you a metric to measure progress. It also, most importantly, allows you to split up work, and I will be delegating like gangbusters. I am in a position due to experience and training, to go through tons of Russian documentation, translate it, and then incorporate the stuff that's relevent to simulation into the design document. In just that respect, I am doing something by myself. But A design document is sufficiently detailed for a programmer with no knowledge of the system to go and implement it in code. My wife is a programmer. Tons of my friends are programmers; they are engineers too, so they have tools like Simulink, detailed below. DD. Delegation. Those are what will make this project awesome and on time. Engineers like me who have to incorporate electronics on our aircraft or engines are programmers by circumstance, and even then, under duress. We think and communicate in diagrams, equations, concepts. A fuel system isn't a bunch of ones and zeros, it's twelve damned fuel tanks with various pumps, vents, fire suppression systems and cockpit indications. Engineers have long switched to graphical programming environments like Simulink, and to a lesser extent NPSS (Numerical Propulsion Simulation something-or-other) to program simulations of physical systems faster and more accurately than with hand code. It looks like this: Simulink takes those diagrams and converts them to C-code, and can them compile them into the dll(s) that DCS will use. I can test my logic at a very high level, within simulink, I will do a validation check of the added system in DCS, and it gets checked again when alpha and beta (since there are four positions, maybe we have alpha, beta, gamma and delta testers?) testers get their hands on it. I can even program HUDS (there isn't one in this case) and displays within Simulink/Matlab, and trade args with the airframe and cockpit in this environment. It's far faster and easier in this way. Eventually, there is C++ and lua programming required to tie everything together, but high level stuff is done in Simulink. I'm not sure I can give a quick explanation here of how I am going to do the flight and engine models. Maybe later. I will be using some modern tools for both that should let me create accurate models quickly, that can then be validated by open source information I have on both. The Tu-22M3 has one or two aerodynamic bugaboos, a nasty stall with the wings swept, plus the wings flex as much as eight degrees at high sweep, high load factor and high angle of attack. That cannot be ignored aerodynamically, but all of these issues have been faced and solved by others before me. To summarize the things that make this simulation tractable: - I chose an aircraft with significantly less complexity than it's brethren. - Design Document - Delegation - Graphical programming environment (Simulink/Matlab) - Modern software tools for speedy flight and engine modeling In the midst of all this, I personally have two unknowns. At present I'm not sure how to impliment multi-crewing. I know it's been done for two; I assume there is some way to do four. If any of you have solid thoughts on solving that particular item, I'm all ears. I'm also not going to take the time to model the radar reflectivity of the terrain for the radars, so I hope to lean on ED's experience for that, but we'll see what happens. I hope this was informative, and not preachy. Brian

Oleg Kovalev (3dArtistExtreme) and I have teamed up to create an ambitious Tu-22M3 mod. Oleg's work (http://www.oleg-kovalev.com/) speaks for itself. I'm bringing systems programming and flight dynamics experience, plus an insane willingness to translate thousands of pages of Russian documentation. Some highlights: - The State Aviation Museum of Ukraine is providing substantial technical assistance and access to their own Tu-22M3. This effort would have been dead without access to the real thing, so our thanks to them. - All four crew positions will be modeled to incredible detail, visually and functionally. We will accommodate multi-crewing during multiplayer sessions, but a single player will be able to switch between the four positions. The Tu-22M3 was specifically selected over other aircraft to allow a single player to take on multiple roles without becoming overloaded, or needing to be in two places at the same time during critical moments during the mission. - 6DOF, clickable cockpits front and rear. Give Oculus your money now; this airplane will suck without it. - Custom flight model including FBW, non-linear stall behavior, transonic and supersonic effects on the airframe and propulsion, and wing sweep and elasticity effects. - A modern NPSS propulsion model of the 3-spool NK-25 engine itself, plus inlet effects like ramp positioning, spill doors and secondary intake door motion based on inlet physics. - Extremely detailed systems, to include fuel balancing (like the Concorde and Tu-144), fully functional attack radar and radar warning receiver scopes, TV remote optical bombsight, navigation, hydraulics, electrical system, pneumatic system, modeled system damage effects, the list goes on. - Release dates TBD. This is DCS. Updates will be spotty, as we will be busy, and a website is a low priority, but trust us, the light is on at the virtual office. Thanks to all the present developers who provided advice about how to proceed, and perhaps more importantly, the pitfalls to avoid. Thanks, Brian

And, BTW, 'Wanted: programmers'. Might as well add... Wanted: Tupolev OKB design data and flight test notes, translated Wanted: Tu-22M3 sim time with English speaking IP Wanted: Tu-22M3 pilot, bombardier-navigator, and EW operator, all fluent in English Wanted: 36 hours in a day

Nothing is going to happen without ED's approval. Like I said, I e-mailed ED about the topic, and they said maybe, demonstrate some abilities first. One of those 'abilities' is 3D modeling, and that is my weak point. Programming, flight dynamics, engine dynamics, systems are my strong points. This is a big idea, so I'm trying to gather some 3D talent and present more of a team (and a more rounded one at that), not just one person, to ED. Far more realistic than trying to do everything myself. My thanks to ED for not slamming the door in my face as a noob. They set some objectives for me that I can definitely demonstrate minus, you know, the whole 3D thing. Minor detail. Brian

Moderators: Can you please move this thread to directly under Mods and Apps? Thanks! I'm an engineer and flight sim enthusiast looking to make the jump into creating payware for DCS and one of the survivors of FSX. I am a controls engineer, and have developed simulations and controls for military trucks, turbine engines, aircraft, and all their subsystems. I feel like I have engineering/physics/programming side of things under control, and I want to focus on relatively complicated aircraft system-wise, because that's what I think I have to offer. But I don't have any experience with 3D modeling for sims/games. I've done a lot of CAD, but as I've learned, doing CAD for engineering purposes, and 3D surface modeling for pretty visualizations have little in common. I'd like to find someone to team up with who can produce external and cockpit models to the standards ED accepts for third party licensees. The first aircraft I have in mind is the Tu-22M3, for DCS. Obviously I don't have 'company support' for something like that, but I have enough open source data to make a very believable flight model, and I intend to make the EW and navigator/bombardier stations in the back largely functional. Anybody remember MEGAFORTRESS from the 90's? Gameplay like that. I've already talked to ED a little about this stuff. Without a prior aircraft to point to, ED wants to see what I can do before they let me into their source code cookie jar, so I'm putting together a demonstration package to include aerodynamic and performance data, a new flight model and some kind of start on a 6DOF cockpit. I could use help with that last item. So, anybody interested in diving into the 3D modeling side of complex jets? Feel free to PM me, or reply publicly with thoughts on the idea. I have some other aircraft in mind where I have performance and system data plus access to the aircraft (and I think there is some kind of interest), but my pile of data on the Tu-22M3 dwarfs all others. If one of these sparks your interest, maybe bring that up as a potential project, if TU-22M3 does not sound appealing. Also, I occasionally talk on the Russian forums, but my Russian is not nearly good enough to say all this. I know enough to ask where the pitch trim and bathroom are, that's it. I would be very grateful if someone repeated this offer to the Russian speakers on the forum. I've added photos to wet appetites. The Tu-22M3 rear cockpit: Other Project Ideas - Tu-144 (FSX/Prepar3d) - BAC TSR.2 (DCS) - Avro Canada CF-105 (DCS) - English Electric Lightning (DCS) - Canadair CL-114 Tutor (FSX/Prepar3d) Thanks, Brian

So, finally had everything set up to pull the cockpit model over into 3dsMax, and BRICKWALL! EDM is a very secure container format. I peeked into it a little bit, but I want to stay in ED's good graces, so I left it alone. But there's no way I'm doing the whole thing from scratch. I put forth an idea to ED. We'll see what they say. :helpsmilie: I hope this isn't a dead end.

Does your first lua file work in your tu-22 mod (as automatic movements) ? Yes, works perfectly. I've thought about making a youtube video to convince the non-believers, but as it transitions the various speeds, it animates smoothly to the specified position. I gave it a movement speed of about 15 seconds over the total range. Not sure how fast the real thing works, but I read it was not like an F-14 where it's so fast, they can sweep it before the crowd in a flyby. Still trying stuff. I'm basically deleting files and text little by little to find out what deletion makes that message go away. it takes time...

Since saying "I'm going to build a 3D cockpit" like it's a stroll in the park, I have learned many things: It's harder than a 3D airplane exterior model. The geometry is much more complicated. Even if you had 3-view photos or drawings of a cockpit (which, in this case, I do not), the interior geometry is so complex that you can't get nearly as an accurate idea of the 3d geometry from pictures as you can an exterior. Other angled pictures help with judging the correctness of what you have made, but don't help much in creating it in the first place Thankfully, I found this: Which should be in my mailbox any day now. That, plus my digital calipers, should get me started. It will also help to steal as much "hardware" from the front cockpit as I can :music_whistling: Brian

It should work with any swept wing aircraft. There should be a conversation sometime amongst those interested what keys ought to be bound, as the koyboard commands seem pretty full as it is. To update, I've got the two dev:listen() commands in Sweep.lua now, practically at the top. I've cleaned up all remaining errors, and I still can't get it to work. the log entry is this: 00101.505 INFO EDTERRAINGRAPHICS3: force loading finished! 00101.505 INFO EDTERRAINGRAPHICS3: Force loading pipeline 'map'. Radius 20990.400391. Pos=-125553.062500,434.374329,759518.000000! 00101.629 INFO EDTERRAINGRAPHICS3: force loading finished! [b][u][i]00115.215 ERROR Trigger: can't execute trigger, err:"[string "?"]:1: bad argument #1 to 'loadstring' (string expected, got function)"[/i][/u][/b] 00130.364 WARNING LOG: 1 duplicate message(s) skipped. 00130.364 INFO EDTERRAINGRAPHICS3: edtg::DeleteSurfaceRenderItem() 00 That's kind of a vague problem, but I've been thinking about it, and have several more ideas to try. Not done yet though. This was meant as a coding exercise for me, and in that regard, it's perfect! It's been years since I had a regular debugging setup, so it's slow going. Thanks, spaciba, Brian

Здравствуйте! У меня есть некоторые проблемы с этой модификацией. http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=2749111. Мои русскоязычные друзья умные. Может вам помочь? Спасибо! Brian

I'm at wits end with a .lua mod I created to visibly sweep the wings of a 'make flyable' mod, for the Tu-22M3 in particular, but would work for anything. The main file, an avLuaDevice Sweep.lua, basically works well, looks cool, and looks like this: local dev = GetSelf() local update_time_step = 0.035 make_default_activity(update_time_step) local sensor_data = get_base_data() local autoControl = 0 local IAS local TAS local mach local currentSweep = 0.0 local SweepStops = {0.0, 0.222, 1.0} local targetSweepIndex = 0 local targetSweepSize = table.getn(SweepStops) local targetSweep = 0.222 local sweepStep = update_time_step/15 function post_initialize() end function update() currentSweep = get_aircraft_draw_argument_value(7) if autoControl == 1 then mach = sensor_data.getMachNumber() ias = sensor_data.getIndicatedAirSpeed() if mach > 0.8 and currentSweep < .223 then targetsweep = sweepStops(3) set_aircraft_draw_argument_value(7,targetsweep) elseif ias < 110.0 and currentSweep > 0.0 then targetsweep = sweepStops(1) set_aircraft_draw_argument_value(7,targetsweep) elseif ias > 120 and currentSweep < 0.22 then targetsweep = sweepStops(2) set_aircraft_draw_argument_value(7,targetsweep) elseif mach < .78 and currentSweep > .223 then targetsweep = sweepStops(2) set_aircraft_draw_argument_value(7,targetsweep) end end if math.abs(targetSweep-currentSweep) <= sweepStep then set_aircraft_draw_argument_value(7,targetSweep) elseif targetSweep > currentSweep then set_aircraft_draw_argument_value(7,currentSweep+sweepStep) elseif targetSweep < currentSweep then set_aircraft_draw_argument_value(7,currentSweep-sweepStep) end end function SetCommand(command,value) if command == 3001 then -- Increase Sweep --targetSweepIndex = min(targetSweepIndex+1,targetSweepSize) elseif command == 3002 then --targetSweepIndex = max(targetSweepIndex-1,targetSweepSize) end targetSweep = 1.0--SweepStops[targetSweepIndex] end --need_to_be_closed = true It contains a switch, autoControl, that lets you switch back and forth between automatic control based on airspeeds, and manual control. Unlike the real thing, the automatic mode works great, but for manual control, somewhere between these 3001 and 3002 commands: function SetCommand(command,value) if command == 3001 then -- Increase Sweep --targetSweepIndex = min(targetSweepIndex+1,targetSweepSize) elseif command == 3002 then --targetSweepIndex = max(targetSweepIndex-1,targetSweepSize) end targetSweep = 1.0--SweepStops[targetSweepIndex] end and these teensy little inputs in my keyboad definition Input/Tu-22M3/keyboard/default.lua: {combos = {{key = 'PageUp'}}, down = 3001, cockpit_device_id=devices.SWEEP, value_down = 1.0, value_up = 0.0, name = _('Wing Sweep Decrease'), category = _('Systems')}, {combos = {{key = 'PageDown'}}, down = 3002, cockpit_device_id=devices.SWEEP, value_down = 1.0, value_up = 0.0, name = _('Wing Sweep Increase'), category = _('Systems')}, something is not connecting, and I'm just not seeing it. I could use some more eyeballs to spot my error. As best I can tell, SetCommand() never even gets called. My device_init.lua is short: mount_vfs_texture_archives("Bazar/Textures/AvionicsCommon") attributes = { "support_for_cws", } --------------------------------------------- --dofile(LockOn_Options.common_script_path.."KNEEBOARD/declare_kneeboard_device_left.lua") --------------------------------------------- dofile(LockOn_Options.script_path.."devices.lua") MainPanel = {"ccMainPanel", LockOn_Options.script_path.."mainpanel_init.lua", --{{"SWEEP",devices.SWEEP}}, } creators = {} creators[devices.SWEEP] = {"avLuaDevice",LockOn_Options.script_path.."Sweep.lua",{}} devices.lua: local count = 0 local function counter() count = count + 1 return count end devices = {} devices["SWEEP"] = counter() and mainpanel_init.lua: shape_name = "Cockpit_Tu-22M3" is_EDM = true new_model_format = true ambient_light = {255,255,255} ambient_color_day_texture = {72, 100, 160} ambient_color_night_texture = {40, 60 ,150} ambient_color_from_devices = {50, 50, 40} ambient_color_from_panels = {35, 25, 25} dusk_border = 0.4 draw_pilot = false external_model_canopy_arg = 38 use_external_views = true --cockpit_local_point = {2.419, 0.818, 0.0} day_texture_set_value = 0.0 night_texture_set_value = 0.1 local controllers = LoRegisterPanelControls() need_to_be_closed = true I'm using the Su-25T cockpit, and haven't otherwise modified it. Anybody? Bueller? Здравствуйте! Я извиняюсь за грубый язык. Я сделал 'скрипт', чтобы подметать крылья. Автоматические работы, прямой нет! Я стараюсь, чтобы описать проблему. Вы определяете проблему, или предложить? Thanks, Спасибо, Brian

As it says, I made the Tu-22M3 flyable. I hated the lack of wing sweep, so I wrote a avLuaDevice script (sweep.lua) to follow a schedule something like it would be in real life. They only have 3 settings, 20, 30 (I think) and 65 degrees. It's the Su-25T cockpit, so it's functional and that's it. It will release the bombs on the racks ok, but if you manage to get all the bombs in the bomb bay to let go as a salvo, you go boom! You will need to add the Su-25T's shape and texture files and rename accordingly. If they ever get the air to ground radar working in DCS, I'm going to town on this thing. Spaciba, Brian Tu22mod.zip

You mean to make it flyable, or to get the wings to sweep correctly, or both?

I just used the Su-25T cockpit, so from inside it's not realistic at all. But flying her from the exterior she looked good enough dropping bombs, but the wings always stayed at 20 degrees sweep. I wrote an avLuaDevice script to sweep the wings based on airspeed and mach, found the bomb bay set_aircraft_arg to set too. One time I dropped the whole load of bombs at once, and I somehow ended up blowing myself up. Won't let that happen again. That's actually the long term dream really, to do the Tu-22M3 or Tu-160 cockpits up right. 'Flight of the Old Dog', Russian style...:)

While I wait for 3DSMax, or 3dSmax, or whoseveritscalled to install, I thought I'd announce that I'm going to create a Su-25UB and Su-25UTG, in one order or another. I didn't know what DCS or Eagle Dynamics were until two weeks ago, but I've been having a hoot. Not only did I make that Tu-22M3 flyable, I made an avLuaDevice to get those damned wings to swing nicely. That's heady stuff I thought, why don't I give a whole plane a try? Joking aside, I'm a controls engineer in the aerospace and defense industry, so the real challenge for me here is 3d modeling. I figure if I whittle down at the existing model enough with a chainsaw, something trainer-ish-looking might come out. I'm also learning Russian, Так что для моих русских друзей, я повторюсь. Я собираюсь создать Су-25УБ и Су-25УТГ, чтобы мы могли приземлиться легче на Кузнецо́в. Я сказал, смешные вещи на английском языке, но это проще. Товарищи, если вы должны иметь какую-либо полезную информацию о задней кабине двух сидящих, я был бы признателен. Кроме того, пожалуйста, будьте нежны на моем языке. I added at the end that if anyone has any details on the rear cockpits of either airplane, the more information the better.