Jump to content

Community A-4E


Recommended Posts

Ops, sorry, I thought it was due to any programming problem being a "modder"

 

That is a primary reason, but we got lucky and the A-4 radar IRL has limited ability to discern smaller objects, so it doesn't feel like a huge problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gospadin

will you plan doing f4 also? Hope you will

FC3 | UH-1 | Mi-8 | A-10C II | F/A-18 | Ka-50 III | F-14 | F-16 | AH-64 Mi-24 | F-5 | F-15E| F-4| Tornado

Persian Gulf | Nevada | Syria | NS-430 | Supercarrier // Wishlist: CH-53 | UH-60

 

Youtube

MS FFB2 - TM Warthog - CH Pro Pedals - Trackir 5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1+ for the F-4.

Mission: "To intercept and destroy aircraft and airborne missiles in all weather conditions in order to establish and maintain air superiority in a designated area. To deliver air-to-ground ordnance on time in any weather condition. And to provide tactical reconaissance imagery" - F-14 Tomcat Roll Call

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seeing ships would be great to find back home to the carrier in bad weather but hey! What you have showed in the video is absolutely fantastic!

 

Do you plan to release a "early access" version?

 

I'm sure that there will be enough bugs that no matter when we release, people will consider it "early access." =P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
This is seriously amazing.

 

Can't wait to try it out, no matter when ready!

Just a question...

 

What could describe (in layman terms) the biggest limitation of the simple flight model (SFM)?

 

Thanks! :D

 

First, nothing below is a criticism of the SFM. It's serving its purpose very well, which is allowing modelers to get a set of baseline flight characteristics matched to real performance, within a 5-10% margin for error. Hats off to ED for the baseline engine capabilities.

 

[Edit: Second, my schooling was not in aeronautics, so take what I say with a grain of salt. I'm sure I've misrepresented something below...]

 

 

As far as specific limitations... SFM has very simple lift/drag coefficient system as a function of airspeed/altitude, and it just has a simple set of relationships between surface area and drag, and no individual modeling of wing shape and its effects on lift/AoA/drag/etc. Modeling of variable wing structures (spoilers, flaps, airbrakes, etc.) is simplified, so we had to do a "trick" to add drag when the wing spoilers deploy.

 

We cannot dynamically choose how the wing stalls beyond critical AoA, and the baseline SFM stall and spin characteristics are very benign.

 

With SFM, the CG doesn't change as fuel is exhausted, and you have no ability to model the fuel tanks individually. All of our support for external vs internal fuel displayed is derived from initial conditions and a few tricks from monitoring flow rates, and the A-4 draws fuel from all external tanks simultaneously. We cannot change this behavior.

 

With SFM there's a fixed braking coefficient, tire traction, and suspension rebound and damping, so you cannot implement individual wheel brakes or a free-castoring nosewheel. Our landing distances are thus WAY shorter than in real life. (Landing at the minimum weight and applying max braking results in an ~800 foot landing roll, which is what a Cessna 172 can do)

 

On top of this, while drag modeling of individual stores may or may not be valid (up for debate), with SFM we have no way to change the overall model drag when stores are loaded onto stations or racks with varying aerodynamic properties. (e.g. the actual drag of 6 Mk-82 stores on a centerline MER is less than the sum of the drag of 6 individual Mk-82s and the MER individually) Tuning for a clean airframe results in something a bit too slow when loaded, while if we tuned for the "typical" MER payload, we'd have too much acceleration with a clean airframe (until we hit the airspeed table boundary).

 

SFM doesn't allow interaction with a catapult (nor does EFM at this point, though that is coming) so we had to make a thrust hack to allow takeoff from carriers. Tailhook is integrated into the SFM already via a parameter, but we haven't yet figured out how to make the cockpit hook control clickable without breaking it.

 

We also have no way to alter the effectiveness of control surfaces based on loadout or configuration of other surfaces. There's a single set of parameters for inertia and moment.

 

Surface trim in the SFM is purely based on stick deflection, with the same limit as actual stick movement.

 

All that being said, we will make it as accurate as possible within the above limits, and we believe everyone will enjoy it. It won't be perfect, but our goal is to get pretty darn close. So far, if you fly by the NATOPS procedures, everything works more-or-less as expected.

 

--gos


Edited by gospadin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

gospadin, has anyone even looked into EFM Programming API?

 

As it does not require a license/agreement to use (the projects/API are part of DCSW Install IIRC).

 

The only issue might be some systems and their interaction w/ AFM.

 

Even A Baseline EFM would likely be better at some of the items you listed above.

Windows 10 Pro, Ryzen 2700X @ 4.6Ghz, 32GB DDR4-3200 GSkill (F4-3200C16D-16GTZR x2),

ASRock X470 Taichi Ultimate, XFX RX6800XT Merc 310 (RX-68XTALFD9)

3x ASUS VS248HP + Oculus HMD, Thrustmaster Warthog HOTAS + MFDs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

gospadin, has anyone even looked into EFM Programming API?

 

As it does not require a license/agreement to use (the projects/API are part of DCSW Install IIRC).

 

The only issue might be some systems and their interaction w/ AFM.

 

Even A Baseline EFM would likely be better at some of the items you listed above.

 

Only a cursory look at this point, but yes, we recognize that a basic EFM would improve a number of the above issues.

 

To keep the scope small(er) we are going forward with the SFM version, and not making any other commitments at this time.

 

--gos

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, nothing below is a criticism of the SFM. It's serving its purpose very well, which is allowing modelers to get a set of baseline flight characteristics matched to real performance, within a 5-10% margin for error. Hats off to ED for the baseline engine capabilities.

 

[Edit: Second, my schooling was not in aeronautics, so take what I say with a grain of salt. I'm sure I've misrepresented something below...]

 

 

As far as specific limitations... SFM has very simple lift/drag coefficient system as a function of airspeed/altitude, and it just has a simple set of relationships between surface area and drag, and no individual modeling of wing shape and its effects on lift/AoA/drag/etc. Modeling of variable wing structures (spoilers, flaps, airbrakes, etc.) is simplified, so we had to do a "trick" to add drag when the wing spoilers deploy.

 

We cannot dynamically choose how the wing stalls beyond critical AoA, and the baseline SFM stall and spin characteristics are very benign.

 

With SFM, the CG doesn't change as fuel is exhausted, and you have no ability to model the fuel tanks individually. All of our support for external vs internal fuel displayed is derived from initial conditions and a few tricks from monitoring flow rates, and the A-4 draws fuel from all external tanks simultaneously. We cannot change this behavior.

 

With SFM there's a fixed braking coefficient, tire traction, and suspension rebound and damping, so you cannot implement individual wheel brakes or a free-castoring nosewheel. Our landing distances are thus WAY shorter than in real life. (Landing at the minimum weight and applying max braking results in an ~800 foot landing roll, which is what a Cessna 172 can do)

 

On top of this, while drag modeling of individual stores may or may not be valid (up for debate), with SFM we have no way to change the overall model drag when stores are loaded onto stations or racks with varying aerodynamic properties. (e.g. the actual drag of 6 Mk-82 stores on a centerline MER is less than the sum of the drag of 6 individual Mk-82s and the MER individually) Tuning for a clean airframe results in something a bit too slow when loaded, while if we tuned for the "typical" MER payload, we'd have too much acceleration with a clean airframe (until we hit the airspeed table boundary).

 

SFM doesn't allow interaction with a catapult (nor does EFM at this point, though that is coming) so we had to make a thrust hack to allow takeoff from carriers. Tailhook is integrated into the SFM already via a parameter, but we haven't yet figured out how to make the cockpit hook control clickable without breaking it.

 

We also have no way to alter the effectiveness of control surfaces based on loadout or configuration of other surfaces. There's a single set of parameters for inertia and moment.

 

Surface trim in the SFM is purely based on stick deflection, with the same limit as actual stick movement.

 

All that being said, we will make it as accurate as possible within the above limits, and we believe everyone will enjoy it. It won't be perfect, but our goal is to get pretty darn close. So far, if you fly by the NATOPS procedures, everything works more-or-less as expected.

 

--gos

 

Wow, that's a very exhaustive list! :D

Thank you so much for taking the time to answer. :)

 

I wish I could help but I'm an IT and and artist only so... :cry:

 

In any case, all the best for this- I'll be a blast to fly anyway! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

gospadin, has anyone even looked into EFM Programming API?

 

As it does not require a license/agreement to use (the projects/API are part of DCSW Install IIRC).

 

The only issue might be some systems and their interaction w/ AFM.

 

Even A Baseline EFM would likely be better at some of the items you listed above.

 

I looked into this a little bit, and got the C++ template sample (in DCS subdirectory) compiled to a dll and running with our A-4E. However, even making an EFM do "only" what the SFM does would already be a LOT of work, the SFM is not quite as simple as some people seem to think. Then going above and beyond the SFM to try to more realistically model the A-4E would be even more work of course, and possibly require access to more A-4E data than we have or even maybe wind tunnel tests with a scale model etc. I can't really see us tackling this on a part time basis and completing it within any reasonable timeframe, and none of us is (AFAIK) financially independent enough to work full time on this without pay for any extended period of time.

____________

Heatblur Simulations

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I looked into this a little bit, and got the C++ template sample (in DCS subdirectory) compiled to a dll and running with our A-4E. However, even making an EFM do "only" what the SFM does would already be a LOT of work, the SFM is not quite as simple as some people seem to think. Then going above and beyond the SFM to try to more realistically model the A-4E would be even more work of course, and possibly require access to more A-4E data than we have or even maybe wind tunnel tests with a scale model etc. I can't really see us tackling this on a part time basis and completing it within any reasonable timeframe, and none of us is (AFAIK) financially independent enough to work full time on this without pay for any extended period of time.

 

I hope you do an EFM one day, it is surely a LOT of work, but maybe you can become 3rd party dev put it in sale. I personally would pay a full price.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Anticipating Update

 

I'm eagerly anticipating the November 2016 update. :book:

A-10A, A-10C, A-10C II, AV-8B, F-5E, F-16C, F/A-18C, F-86F, Yak-52, Nevada, Persian Gulf, Syria, Supercarrier, Combined Arms, FW 190 A-8, FW 190 D-9, Spitfire LF Mk. IX, Normandy + WWII Assets Pack

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you guys have a target date for release?

System 1:

Windows 10 Pro 22H2 Build 19045.4123 - Core i7 3770K/Gigabyte GA-Z68XP-UD3 (BIOS F-10)/32GB G-Skill Trident X DDR3 CL7-8-8-24/Asus RTX 2070 OC 8GB - drivers 551.61/LG Blue Ray DL Burner/1TB Crucial MX 500 SSD/(x2)1TBMushkinRAWSSDs/2TB PNY CS900 SSD/Corsair RM750w PSU/Rosewill Mid Challenger Tower/34" LG LED Ultrawide 2560x1080p/Saitek X56 HOTAS/TrackIR 5 Pro/Thermaltake Tt esports Commander Gear Combo/Oculus Quest 2/TM 2xMFD Cougar/InateckPCIeUSB3.2KU5211-R

System 2:

Windows 11 Home 23H2 22631.3296 - MSI Codex Series R2 B14NUC7-095US - i7 14700F/MSI Pro B760 VC Wifi/32GB DDR5 5600mhz RAM/RTX 4060/2TB nVME SSD/4TB 2.5in SSD/650w Gold PSU

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Community A-4E November Update

 

Hi everyone, thanks for being patient, and welcome to our November 2016 update.

 

While there are no new major features to show off at this time, this month we made a lot of small updates in various areas of our mod.

 

Externally, kryb has been making continued improvements to the modeling of external lighting. It’s still not quite ready to show off, but it’s improved from where we were just a month ago. Our undercarriage unwrap is now almost complete, and we’ll be updating those textures shortly.

 

In the cockpit, a bunch of small improvements:

 

The first thing was fixing the material setup of our radar screen to fix how mipmaps were applied. This gives us a consistently smooth view of the radar markings while you zoom in and out, versus the videos we showed previously which would have the radar markings “disappear” or get jagged if you zoomed out a bit.

 

From a code perspective, we are now properly blocking movement of the gear lever while parked on the ground (which required us figuring out how to dynamically enable/disable mouse interaction), we’ve plumbed our electrical system to additional gauges that rely on electric power, and we’ve animated the controls for a few new systems that we hope to show off next month. Gyrovague also figured out how to do variable width lines, so he re-coded the scribe line on the APG-53A profile mode, making it much easier to see (and closer to the photos one can find online).

 

Lastly, we’ve adjusted the RCS and IR signatures to be more accurate (based on comparison data with other DCS aircraft) which should give other aircraft a much more realistic detection range of the A-4. (For now we’ve scaled the RCS to be slightly smaller than the F-16’s radar signature, and IR signature is scaled relative to the F-16’s dry thrust)

 

As always, feel free to ask questions and we’ll do our best to answer.

 

--gos


Edited by gospadin
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good day Gentlemen,

 

As most of us know the A-4E does not have a steerable nose wheel, does the SFM allow for differential braking? I am sorry if this was under discusion already, I must have missed it somewhere. I can't wait to get this beauty in the air! I know the typical aggressor configuration is not planned, but will we have the option to mount or dismount the weapons pylons? (Clean wings).

 

-Woog

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good day Gentlemen,

 

As most of us know the A-4E does not have a steerable nose wheel, does the SFM allow for differential braking? I am sorry if this was under discusion already, I must have missed it somewhere. I can't wait to get this beauty in the air! I know the typical aggressor configuration is not planned, but will we have the option to mount or dismount the weapons pylons? (Clean wings).

 

-Woog

They mentioned in an earlier update that differential braking is not possible with the SFM.

 

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good day Gentlemen,

 

As most of us know the A-4E does not have a steerable nose wheel, does the SFM allow for differential braking? I am sorry if this was under discusion already, I must have missed it somewhere. I can't wait to get this beauty in the air! I know the typical aggressor configuration is not planned, but will we have the option to mount or dismount the weapons pylons? (Clean wings).

 

-Woog

 

The SFM sortof forces nosewheel steering on us, but I have a workaround in mind that I'm reasonably sure would do a fair job of approximating differential braking instead of nosewheel steering (similar trick that I used to implement the spoilers, which SFM doesn't model). However, it is so far down my priority list that I had completely forgotten about it until you mentioned it now. It is still pretty far down on my priority list though :) It will take a few hours to implement, and at the end of it the idea might not work at all (or not work adequately), so I'm a bit hesitant to take it on. IIRC, the A-4F did have nosewheel steering, so for now we can just pretend that our very late A-4E had the nosewheel steering upgrade backported to it. The SFM places a bunch of restrictions on us, but the flip side is that if we want to contemplate EFM, it would be a massive amount of additional work.

____________

Heatblur Simulations

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...