Moa

Flaps look great ... no Emmer, no need to post again :) Looking forward to this model if you decide to share - it just might turn some of us Eagle and Hog folk into regular MiG drivers.

Brainstomer, Yoda's LEAVU2 and ERI code shows how to get exported information from Flaming Cliffs 2 - including doing it remotely via a TCP socket.

Thanks Blaze. That's a bit disappointing really. Creating a tool is straightforward but there is not much point if the effect on flight characteristics is obscured. There are excellent free tools out there for doing flight dynamics, eg. The NASA engine simulator http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/ngnsim.html JSBSim (among others) http://jsbsim.sourceforge.net/ Open-source (Java and Fortran) F-16 flight dynamics model from Caltech http://www.cds.caltech.edu/~murray/projects/afosr95-vehicles/models/f16/ Larcsim (used by NASA and previously in FlightGear) http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=887912&dl=GUIDE&coll=GUIDE&CFID=97604837&CFTOKEN=28918154 So, the modelling bit is easy using these tools - the problem is you're saying they have little effect on the performance of the aircraft (presumably hard-coded values have greater influence).

I'm speculating here, since there is no official documentation, so these are my guesses so far: The Simple Flight Model (SFM) flight characteristics are controlled by: Scripts\Aircraft\Common\sfm_aerod.lua : airframe aerodynamics Scripts\Aircraft\Common\sfm_engine.lua : engine thrust and fuel consumption Scripts\Database\planes\<aircraft.lua> : aircraft dimensions, fuel, weight, sensors In Scripts\Aircraft\Common\sfm_aerod.lua 'x' values appear to be drag. 'y' values appear to be lift. 'z' values are ? possibly roll ? kjx appears to be the dimensionless (clean) airframe drag coefficient (at 0 AoA one would guess). Could also be wing area in square meters (as that is a major factor in drag calculations) but seems too small for the value given for the Su-27 kjz ? Czbe : is a negative value, so possibly is the downward facing Coefficient of lift of the elevator cx_gear : the dimensionless drag coefficient when the gear is fully deployed (down/out) cx_flap : the dimensionless drag coefficient when the flaps are fully extended cy_flap : the dimensionless lift coefficient when the flaps are fully extended cx_brk : the dimensionless drag coefficient when the airbrake is fully extended. aertabl1 : speed-dependent quantities. M : Mach number Cx0 : Zero-lift drag coefficient (see this wikipedia page for more info) Cya: Lift coeficient (possibly at 0 AoA) B : ? B4 : ? Omxmax : ? Aldop : Possibly max-AoA for linear lift increase (AoA at stall point) Cymax : maximum lift coefficient (lift coefficient never exceeds this) In Scripts\Aircraft\Common\sfm_engine.lua typeeng : 0 for non-afterburning (eg. turbofan), 1 for afterburning engine dcx_eng : (total guess) dimensionless drag coefficient of a stopped engine hMaxEng : ? possibly max thrust per unit fuel dpdh_f : fuel consumption rate in kilos per hour when at max afterburner dpdh_m : fuel consumption rate in kilos per hours when at mil power (100%) engtabl1 : speed-dependent thrust (measured in Newtons) M : Mach Number Pmax : Thrust in Newtons at mil power (100% fan) Pfor : Thrust in Newtons at max power (full afterburner). Same as mil power for non-afterburning engines. So that's my best guesses until I find an equation that links B, B4 and the rest (which I guess is possibly some quartic-power effect) The Simple Flight Model is so simple (perhaps it should be the 'Primitive Flight Model') that most of the known equations on (wiki/wiki uni) have far more variables. The hard part is guessing what to leave out to match these variables. c0ff or ED team member: care to clarify my mistakes/guestimates?

Awesome Mustang - definitely bookmarking that.

Master's degree? They're a dime a dozen. I have a PhD in (astro-)Physics [as does 51st Case] and know a reasonable amount about signal processing (having done a fair bit in software and hardware) but that doesn't mean I'm an expert in the field since those who do know the true capabilities (the firmware coders, not the pilots) are not on these forums. Kopp has some interesting information but that doesn't make him right about any particular thing. Some of you are only hearing what you want to hear, specifically: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=954786&postcount=7 It is pretty clear that the Su-30 is a dangerous foe 1 vs 1 but that almost never happens these days (and never if the Aussies are smart - and they're nearly as smart as us Kiwis :) ). If you really think the Indonesians could take the Aussies in the air well we're here to wake you up with one of two great lines from the Aussie film The Castle: "tell him he's dreaming", and "get your hand off it Daryl!".

That carrier sure could take a load of punishment. Note that torpedoes do far more damage than bombs, and are also under the waterline. Most smaller, but not tiny, vessels would break when hit with a single torpedo. Witness the Cheonan (displacement 1200 tonnes). The carrier taking several proves how damage resistant they are. Rather than sink a carrier it is easier to disable it by damaging its screws. Very hard to conduct flight ops on a stationary carrier. A ballistic missile can't achieve this - which is why AIP diesel-electric subs give carrier groups the willies.

I found that with my Angle-of-Attack control (intended for VNAO use) that the current ERI export scripts don't provide enough information about the mechanical (eg. tail-hook, flap) and AoA state of your aircraft. Fortunately a small addition to the ERI scripts allowed this information to be accessed. So, now it seems like we have a 2/3 majority in favor of ERI in some form it might be worth standardizing on what information should be permitted. I added the following information (and am happy to supply the modified files for inspection/integration - unfortunately the ED forums did not allow uploading of LUA scripts): data[1+#data] = string.format("Mech_Info %s %s %s %s %s %s %s %s %s %s %s %s %s %s %s %s %s %s %s %s %s %s %s %s %s %s %s %s %s %s \"%s\" %s %s\n", g_aircraftMechanicalInfo.gear.status, g_aircraftMechanicalInfo.gear.value, --g_aircraftMechanicalInfo.gear.main.left.rod, --g_aircraftMechanicalInfo.gear.main.right.rod, --g_aircraftMechanicalInfo.gear.main.nose.rod, g_aircraftMechanicalInfo.flaps.status, g_aircraftMechanicalInfo.flaps.value, g_aircraftMechanicalInfo.speedbrakes.status, g_aircraftMechanicalInfo.speedbrakes.value, g_aircraftMechanicalInfo.refuelingboom.status, g_aircraftMechanicalInfo.refuelingboom.value, g_aircraftMechanicalInfo.airintake.status, g_aircraftMechanicalInfo.airintake.value, g_aircraftMechanicalInfo.noseflap.status, g_aircraftMechanicalInfo.noseflap.value, g_aircraftMechanicalInfo.parachute.status, g_aircraftMechanicalInfo.parachute.value, g_aircraftMechanicalInfo.wheelbrakes.status, g_aircraftMechanicalInfo.wheelbrakes.value, g_aircraftMechanicalInfo.hook.status, g_aircraftMechanicalInfo.hook.value, g_aircraftMechanicalInfo.wing.status, g_aircraftMechanicalInfo.wing.value, g_aircraftMechanicalInfo.canopy.status, g_aircraftMechanicalInfo.canopy.value, g_aircraftMechanicalInfo.controlsurfaces.elevator.left, g_aircraftMechanicalInfo.controlsurfaces.elevator.right, g_aircraftMechanicalInfo.controlsurfaces.eleron.left, g_aircraftMechanicalInfo.controlsurfaces.eleron.right, g_aircraftMechanicalInfo.controlsurfaces.rudder.left, g_aircraftMechanicalInfo.controlsurfaces.rudder.right, LoGetAngleOfAttack(), LoGetVerticalVelocity(), LoGetPilotName(), LoGetPlayerPlaneId(), signal_format(g_MeObject.Type.level1,g_MeObject.Type.level2,g_MeObject.Type.level3,g_MeObject.Type.level4));

If one aircraft is better than the other the difference is marginal enough that victory on 1 vs 1 is not assured for either side. Therefore it comes down to numbers and clearly it is far more likely that Australia has the numbers. Incidentally I think the Indonesian change of government means that (at present) confrontation with Australia is far less likely than it has been in the past. I hope you remember to give the Indonesians credit for this - they may be your most likely potential adversary but are also not your enemy (at least not yet). This is an improvement of the situation from what it once was.

Is there a known exploit A.S.? yes or no is sufficient - although the details would certainly be interesting. Thanks.

Well, the current state of play unfortunately disables external dials, hardware etc. For me personally is not just about the F-15 radar. Server admins don't do it because they think there is such vehement opposition. This thread is an attempt to gauge the feeling and standardize local (only aircraft only) data export in a way that is acceptable to everyone, and everyone gets a chance to comment. If someone knows of an exploit involving the ERI exports now would be a good time to let us know so Bvoiash doesn't waste development time on improving/standardizing RI if it won't be accepted. That is what this thread is about.

I believe yes, Presing (I know LEAVU2 well enough but not Virtual Panel).

For the 1982 Israeli air battles against the Syrians the keyword you want is "Bekaa Valley" (which hosts the lovely town of Baalbek - now seat of the Hezbollah). This is where the Israeli Eagles ("Nesher" => vulture) made it's impressive and oft-quoted kill-loss ratio (until the Gulf Wars pushed that even higher). For example, here's one analysis: http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj89/win89/hurley.html

Perhaps I missed your point A.S., but it is worth noting that ERI has no information about the target apart from what your aircraft has *already* determined by radar (that is, it's bearing, elevation, distance, ECM state etc). Aircraft unknown to your radar/EOS are completely unknown to ERI. ERI gives you no information that you didn't already have. In your example you state that it could be used to give warnings when the target fired an ET, lost lock on you, or locked you in EOS. This is incorrect. This is something the scripts that support ERI cannot do unless the server permits global exports - yet no one who supports ERI is asking for global exports to be turned on (they are not needed for ERI operation). ERI does not need global exports to operate as it uses data from your own aircraft only (including known radar contacts). What ERI supporters are asking for is to have ERI pass the server's Integrity Check (allowing only data exports for your own aircraft). The only thing ERI could be used to do is deduce range from signal strength for the F-15 (which the RWR already does), which is something the Russian aircraft can already do with the Berezoya, so there is no game imbalance there - merely making things more realistic. I would like ERI data exports enabled so I can publish my Angle-of-Attack control for the VNAO F/A-18F mod as it requires flight data from your own aircraft.

Yes, Falcon is a bad example. No one is asking for the source, just the ability to integrate. At the moment, cockpits are the biggest obstacle followed closely by the limitations of weapons with aircraft (eg. the human flyable F-18 cannot used HARM, or Harpoon etc while the AI aircraft can). Once those are moddable a fair chunk of modder whinging would go away. Edit: Adding static cockpits would be an inprovement but the ability to put an arbitrary bitmap in a cockpit would be better (eg. you could have live MFDs). At the moment the reverse is possible, Shkval exported to bitmap. Would be nice to place an updateable texture at an arbitrary place within the cockpit surface.

Even if ED did make an official release for an aircraft there are so many variants of modern aircraft even it doesn't make sense for ED to do it someone in the community might. For example, even if ED did a Block 52 F-16 people in the community might be inclined to model the 'A', Block 40, Block 60, F-16I .... Stuff that doesn't make sense commercially for ED yet someone might want to do the aircraft their own Air Force uses (it's not just people from the USA and Russia that play LockOn, even if those two are the single biggest markets).

However, at Mach 2 the shells slow slow down rapidly once they leave the barrel since the drag on the shell is higher at the combined aircraft plus muzzle velocity of Mach 3 than if the shell was fired from stationary (Mach 1). I believe there is a historical case where a Canadian aircraft in a dive fired and overrun its own bullets/shells - shooting it self down (engine ingested them I guess). Crazy Canucks. Never ask a physicist whether firing stuff from the front and back of an aircraft makes those objects move at the same speed (clearly not 'velocity' since that is directional). They would answer the speeds are approximately the same, but some infinitesimal difference due to relativistic effects. If an 'aircraft' was firing lasers and was also moving near the speed of light the forward laser would still travel at the speed of light (not twice the speed of light). One of the funky consequences of relativity. Now glad you didn't ask a physicist? :)

Amazing! Another sublime effort Glowing Amraam. I'll be showing this to my StarCraft loving friends, hoping to get some converts :)

Our Extra Sensory Perception is broken today. How about you tell us what the error message says if you would like others to help?

Hi Bob, most of the aircraft files are editable. What is missing is: * documentation on what the parameters mean. For example: what does the aerodynamic parameter "Czbe" mean and what are the units (usually SI it seems). Note: The ED programmers have also fallen into the classic trap of naming their variables after the mathematical symbol rather than the quantity it represents, eg. if it was called elevatorPitchMoment we wouldn't be asking the question (except about the units). * Cockpits don't seem to be truly moddable (except for simple texture replacement). The MFD positions cannot be changed. If they are no one has demonstrated how to do it. Until it is documented then it cannot be considered 'moddable'. * The ability to use do multi-role aircraft. Partially this is tied into the cockpits but also it is things like the AI can use HARM/ALARM etc but players cannot, even if they have the correct pods (as listed as a requirement in the weapon database). Same goes for Harpoons etc. Stuff like that only works if pre-designated in a mission. I've only been modding aircraft (Harrier and F-18) for a week and had some success but it all is Sisyphean and despite pushing through it I know that there are things that I just won't be able to get going (eg. Harpoon). Kinda makes me feel like switching my efforts to X-Plane where third parties routinely produce stuff like this F-16: http://store01.prostores.com/servlet/x-planestore/Detail?no=237 LockOn has the best modern combat of all the sims out there and I want to persevere with it for that reason. LockOn's advantage won't last long if x-plane ever concentrate on adding better combat elements (they have very simple missiles and bombs at the moment - but one could argue that you don't get much more in LockOn for many user-modded aircraft).

FYI, a VMWare guest virtual machine running Windows requires re-activation if copied to a new machine. Windows virtual machines cannot be copied willy-nilly (Linux VM can be - another win for Linux ease of use :)).

I think people who are used to big birds with reheat and gas to spare will be shocked at these aircraft. You really will need proper gunzo tactics rather than turn hard and whack afterburner on. Plus, they run out of gas pretty quick. It's good they won't have missiles so it'll stay gunzo. If the mod is a success (fingers crossed) it'd be great to add the Vampire (w00t!) and Mystere. That'd probably be enough to cover just about every Air Force in the world at that time.

@Robin Hood: I didn't write that bit of script, VNAO's Wraith ("jalebru" in these ED Forums) was the guy who did it. I will take a look to see how it was done though. nb. The EFA Harrier needs several fixes. I've been changing the engine to match the Mk 107 Pegasus but still don't get the supposed cruise speed of 456 kts (check the Boeing page) and making sure the key and joystick bindings support weapons, adding smoke rockets etc.

You can make a completely 3D cockpit using DirectX 'overlays'. Essentially the cockpit is rendered in another program and written on top of the LockOn screen. This technique is used by Fraps to put a frame rate counter etc. on the screen of the game you are in. Upside: * You can have *whatever* cockpit you want. Including full 3D and working in-game MFDs etc. * View will work with TrackIR using exported pointing information (eg. info obtained through LEAVU2). * Cockpit can be made to respond to normal LockOn input commands (joystick, keyboard) using LEAVU2. Downsides are: * Cockpit not visible from in-game screenshots. May be visible using external programs (eg. Fraps may grab, have not tried though). * Cockpit may not be mouse clickable as in DCS. Could possibly be if input hooks used and proxy input for LockOn (I've not researched this for DirectInput, but may be possible). * Very large drop in framerate if rendered on same video card as LockOn. * Small drop in framerate if rendered on second video card or second computer. If you have a powerful video card it is likely to be idle anyway while it waits for data from the CPU. * Technologically quite complex. The ideal situation would not be to use overlays but in fact to use LockOn as the environment rendering engine and have the player interact with the external 3D program and get LockOn to paint the outside world. There is some move to this with the ability to get the Shkval bitmap in an external program but at present the external view cannot be imported as a bitmap. If DCS was to enable access to this external bitmap then all the problems in a full user-created 3D cockpit could be solved in a straightforward way with the external program managing the cockpit and composing the rendering; and LockOn doing all the flight model, environment rendering, and network etc.

These aircraft can have approximately correct flight and engine models. For example, I'm working my way through the EFA Harrier now which I hope to include in a new release for the VNAO mod (the other one, not this gunzo one). I've upgraded the engine to the Mk107 Pegasus used on the GR9/AV-8B+ and it has a fair bit more power (would appreciate if anyone has any engine data besides the 105 kN static thrust). Have also added keyboard and joystick bindings for weapon release etc, smoke rockets, AGM-65D (seeker now works in cockpit) and more to come. Anyway, my point is that the VNAO Gunzo mod can have correct (simple) flight models for the Fury an Fagot - and *add* the aircraft as new, rather than *replace* an existing aircraft. Welcome to the new moddable world of FC2 (shows you what great strides ED are making). I think doing early 50's style knife-fighting is something new and cool for LockOn. Great stuff Max.