Jump to content

Current Max Take Off weight for AI


speed-of-heat

Recommended Posts

does anyone know the current max take off weight for AI from a cat shot, (as we know its bugged at the moment)?

SYSTEM SPECS: Hardware Intel Corei7-12700KF @ 5.1/5.3p & 3.8e GHz, 64Gb RAM, 4090 FE, Dell S2716DG, Virpil T50CM3 Throttle, WinWIng Orion 2 & F-16EX + MFG Crosswinds V2, Varjo Aero
SOFTWARE: Microsoft Windows 11, VoiceAttack & VAICOM PRO

1569924735_WildcardsBadgerFAASig.jpg.dbb8c2a337e37c2bfb12855f86d70fd5.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven’t had a crash yet with the AI on takeoffs, even with normal max take off weight but I know others have. The AI does pull stupid aoa, and come really close. I have also seen the AI get slow, 115kts or so and get stuck and fail to recover. Literally just fall out of the sky. Hoping it will be fixed this week as it’s caused me to be unable to work on t a campaign I’m building.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the supercarrier cold start mission, I've removed external tanks for all the AI aircrafts, and they are able to survive from crashing into the sea now, although still struggle. I didn't check the weight but I guess less than 43k lbs.  

  • Thanks 1
  • PC Specs: Intel i7 9700, Nvidia RTX 2080S, Corsair 64G DDR4, MSI B360M Mortar Titanium, Intel 760P M.2 256GB SSD + Samsung 1TB SSD, Corsair RM650x
  • Flight Gears: Logitech X56 HOTAS & Flight Rudder Pedals, HP Reverb G2
  • Modules: F-14A/B, F-15C, F-16C, F/A-18C, AV-8B, A-10C I/II, Supercarrier, Nevada, Persian Gulf, Syria
  • Location: Shanghai, CHINA

Project: Operation Hormuz [F/A-18C Multiplayer Campaign]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just got 1 Bag, 4xJSOW (on the outer station) 2x9x , 2xAMMRAM and full internal fuel to go 

SYSTEM SPECS: Hardware Intel Corei7-12700KF @ 5.1/5.3p & 3.8e GHz, 64Gb RAM, 4090 FE, Dell S2716DG, Virpil T50CM3 Throttle, WinWIng Orion 2 & F-16EX + MFG Crosswinds V2, Varjo Aero
SOFTWARE: Microsoft Windows 11, VoiceAttack & VAICOM PRO

1569924735_WildcardsBadgerFAASig.jpg.dbb8c2a337e37c2bfb12855f86d70fd5.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Ginsu80 said:

Hoping it will be fixed this week as it’s caused me to be unable to work on t a campaign I’m building.

Unless there are features in Beta you absolutely need, I recommend working on Stable. Crap like this doesn't tend to make it to the Stable build nearly as often. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Stearmandriver said:

Interesting.  Just curious, is that with the Stennis or Supercarrier?  I haven't thought to try the Stennis.

In my testing, it happens with both the Stennis and SC module ships. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It looks like a change to lift coefficient in the simple flight model also increased the drag 6 times. Resulting in degraded performance.

 

In the last patch, the Cl max in Simple Flight Model for the F-18C was doubled. It went from 1.2 to 2.4. This also caused the drag to increase. In the SFM the drag is computed directly from the lift. The drag computation is given as:

 

Cx = Cx_0 + Cy^2*B2 +Cy^4*B4.

Where B2 and B4 are coefficients also defined in the SFM.  Cx is the drag and Cy is lift coefficient. 

 

  Previously Cl max was capped at 1.2.  it is now 2.4 This meant the drag at Cl max with flaps was

 

Cx = (Cx0 + Cx Flaps) + (Cy^2*B2) + (Cy^4* B4)

 

The old SFM F-18C, at mach .2 at CL max, 1.2, with the flaps down, had a drag coefficient of .584

 

Cx .584 = (Cx0 .0154)+ .(Cx Flaps. 23) + (Cy Max 1.2)^2*(B2 .134)  + (Cy max 1.2)^4* (B4 .056)

 

The new SFM at Cl max, 2.4 with flaps down has a drag coefficient of 2.905

Cx 2.905= (Cx0 .0154)+ .(Cx Flaps .23) + (Cy Max 2.4)^2*(B2 .134)  + (Cy max 2.4)^4* (B4 .056)

 

The previous version,  Cl max of the F-18C was capped at 1.2 it is now 2.4. Based on the the ratio of Cl to alpha as defined in the SFM; If the current SFM F-18C goes over 13.8 AOA with the flaps down, then it will have more drag than previous previous version of the SFM F-18C was capable of producing. 

 

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Curly said:

It looks like a change to lift coefficient in the simple flight model also increased the drag 6 times. Resulting in degraded performance.

 

In the last patch, the Cl max in Simple Flight Model for the F-18C was doubled. It went from 1.2 to 2.4. This also caused the drag to increase. In the SFM the drag is computed directly from the lift. The drag computation is given as:

 

Cx = Cx_0 + Cy^2*B2 +Cy^4*B4.

Where B2 and B4 are coefficients also defined in the SFM.  Cx is the drag and Cy is lift coefficient. 

 

  Previously Cl max was capped at 1.2.  it is now 2.4 This meant the drag at Cl max with flaps was

 

Cx = (Cx0 + Cx Flaps) + (Cy^2*B2) + (Cy^4* B4)

 

The old SFM F-18C, at mach .2 at CL max, 1.2, with the flaps down, had a drag coefficient of .584

 

Cx .584 = (Cx0 .0154)+ .(Cx Flaps. 23) + (Cy Max 1.2)^2*(B2 .134)  + (Cy max 1.2)^4* (B4 .056)

 

The new SFM at Cl max, 2.4 with flaps down has a drag coefficient of 2.905

Cx 2.905= (Cx0 .0154)+ .(Cx Flaps .23) + (Cy Max 2.4)^2*(B2 .134)  + (Cy max 2.4)^4* (B4 .056)

 

The previous version,  Cl max of the F-18C was capped at 1.2 it is now 2.4. Based on the the ratio of Cl to alpha as defined in the SFM; If the current SFM F-18C goes over 13.8 AOA with the flaps down, then it will have more drag than previous previous version of the SFM F-18C was capable of producing. 

 

Personally i find it ridiculous that paying customers have to dig in and figure out the math for the programmers, in my line of work,  mistakes like this cost programmers their jobs...

  • Like 1

System: Ryzen 5900x, G.Skill 3600 32GB, MSI 4090 suprim liquid X, samsung odyssey+ headset 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Curly said:

It looks like a change to lift coefficient in the simple flight model also increased the drag 6 times. Resulting in degraded performance.

 

In the last patch, the Cl max in Simple Flight Model for the F-18C was doubled. It went from 1.2 to 2.4. This also caused the drag to increase. In the SFM the drag is computed directly from the lift. The drag computation is given as:

 

Cx = Cx_0 + Cy^2*B2 +Cy^4*B4.

Where B2 and B4 are coefficients also defined in the SFM.  Cx is the drag and Cy is lift coefficient. 

 

  Previously Cl max was capped at 1.2.  it is now 2.4 This meant the drag at Cl max with flaps was

 

Cx = (Cx0 + Cx Flaps) + (Cy^2*B2) + (Cy^4* B4)

 

The old SFM F-18C, at mach .2 at CL max, 1.2, with the flaps down, had a drag coefficient of .584

 

Cx .584 = (Cx0 .0154)+ .(Cx Flaps. 23) + (Cy Max 1.2)^2*(B2 .134)  + (Cy max 1.2)^4* (B4 .056)

 

The new SFM at Cl max, 2.4 with flaps down has a drag coefficient of 2.905

Cx 2.905= (Cx0 .0154)+ .(Cx Flaps .23) + (Cy Max 2.4)^2*(B2 .134)  + (Cy max 2.4)^4* (B4 .056)

 

The previous version,  Cl max of the F-18C was capped at 1.2 it is now 2.4. Based on the the ratio of Cl to alpha as defined in the SFM; If the current SFM F-18C goes over 13.8 AOA with the flaps down, then it will have more drag than previous previous version of the SFM F-18C was capable of producing. 

 

Excellent analysis! The question now is... can the current SFM be easily replaced by the old one (from the current stable build)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Curly said:

It looks like a change to lift coefficient in the simple flight model also increased the drag 6 times. Resulting in degraded performance.

 

In the last patch, the Cl max in Simple Flight Model for the F-18C was doubled. It went from 1.2 to 2.4. This also caused the drag to increase. In the SFM the drag is computed directly from the lift. The drag computation is given as:

 

Cx = Cx_0 + Cy^2*B2 +Cy^4*B4.

Where B2 and B4 are coefficients also defined in the SFM.  Cx is the drag and Cy is lift coefficient. 

 

  Previously Cl max was capped at 1.2.  it is now 2.4 This meant the drag at Cl max with flaps was

 

Cx = (Cx0 + Cx Flaps) + (Cy^2*B2) + (Cy^4* B4)

 

The old SFM F-18C, at mach .2 at CL max, 1.2, with the flaps down, had a drag coefficient of .584

 

Cx .584 = (Cx0 .0154)+ .(Cx Flaps. 23) + (Cy Max 1.2)^2*(B2 .134)  + (Cy max 1.2)^4* (B4 .056)

 

The new SFM at Cl max, 2.4 with flaps down has a drag coefficient of 2.905

Cx 2.905= (Cx0 .0154)+ .(Cx Flaps .23) + (Cy Max 2.4)^2*(B2 .134)  + (Cy max 2.4)^4* (B4 .056)

 

The previous version,  Cl max of the F-18C was capped at 1.2 it is now 2.4. Based on the the ratio of Cl to alpha as defined in the SFM; If the current SFM F-18C goes over 13.8 AOA with the flaps down, then it will have more drag than previous previous version of the SFM F-18C was capable of producing. 

 

 

Do all AI FA18C's use this model or only Lot 20s ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Dave317 said:

Can one be swapped with another for a short term fix? 

+1

i7-7700K @ 4.9 GHz | Gigabyte Aorus Geforce GTX 1080 Ti | 32 GB DDR4 Corsair Vengeance @ 2400 MHz (2800 OC) | Asus Strix Z270E Gaming | Samsung 970 EVO M.2 SSD 1 TB | Samsung 960 EVO M.2 SSD 500 GB | WD NAS Red 2TB SATA3 | Corsair Cooling Hydro Series H80i v2 | Thrustmaster Hotas Warthog | Saitek PRO rudder pedals | Valve Index

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/3/2021 at 9:12 PM, Curly said:

FA-18A.lua has the old Cl Max of 1.2

FA-18C.lua has the old Cl Max of 1.2

FA-18C_Hornet.lua has a Cl max of 2.4

Could you point me to the locations of these files?  I was going to try a quick replacement, but I'm only able to find two different FA-18C.lua files, and no FA-18A.lua or FA-18C_Hornet.lua at all.  Where are these located?

 

Thanks...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Stearmandriver said:

Could you point me to the locations of these files?  I was going to try a quick replacement, but I'm only able to find two different FA-18C.lua files, and no FA-18A.lua or FA-18C_Hornet.lua at all.  Where are these located?

 

Thanks...

They in the encrypted Database files.

https://github.com/Quaggles/dcs-lua-datamine/tree/master/_G/db/Units/Planes/Plane

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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