What about a performance calculator?

[dariocs]

Hello flyers.

Apologies if this question has already been raised, I looked for it but I did not find it.

When creating a mission, it would be really useful to have a performance calculator integrated for each unit, based on the defined waypoints, actions, altitudes, payloads and speeds.

E.g., if I want to attack a target and get back to base following a certain path, I could roughly know the amount of fuel required. Or I could get a maximum range circle given a certain amount of fuel, payload and initial position. I could also get maximum endurance or loitering time (useful for an AWACS or tanker, for instance).

Making rough maths for this by oneself is not unaffordable, but if automated like this, more parameters could be introduced, giving a more precise result.

Cheers!

[Lace]

Yep, it would be great if the mission editor could generate PLOGs and briefing packs, with calculated magnetic headings, drift, GS, fuel burn, etc.  It shouldn't be hard as the numbers are all already in there somewhere.

[=475FG= Dawger]

2 hours ago, dariocs said:

Hello flyers.

Apologies if this question has already been raised, I looked for it but I did not find it.

When creating a mission, it would be really useful to have a performance calculator integrated for each unit, based on the defined waypoints, actions, altitudes, payloads and speeds.

E.g., if I want to attack a target and get back to base following a certain path, I could roughly know the amount of fuel required. Or I could get a maximum range circle given a certain amount of fuel, payload and initial position. I could also get maximum endurance or loitering time (useful for an AWACS or tanker, for instance).

Making rough maths for this by oneself is not unaffordable, but if automated like this, more parameters could be introduced, giving a more precise result.

Cheers!

Part of "realism" is doing this yourself.

[bbrz]

How many users do you think have all the required manuals and especially the associated performance sections?

[dariocs]

hace 2 horas, =475FG= Dawger dijo:

Part of "realism" is doing this yourself.

True, but even back in the Cold War they planned missions with computers

Anyway, you can always do it manually if you like and have the necessary inputs! The equations involved are not a big deal if you simplify enough.

[=475FG= Dawger]

52 minutes ago, dariocs said:

True, but even back in the Cold War they planned missions with computers

Anyway, you can always do it manually if you like and have the necessary inputs! The equations involved are not a big deal if you simplify enough.

Pilots did and do the planning, with or without computers. 
 

It shouldn’t be part of the mission editor functionality. Even putting in waypoints is solely for AI.

Human players should plan their own routes, payloads and attack profiles for the designated target.

The massive effort required by ED to implement something like this is completely unnecessary.

 

 

 

 

[dariocs]

hace 7 horas, =475FG= Dawger dijo:

Pilots did and do the planning, with or without computers. 
 

It shouldn’t be part of the mission editor functionality. Even putting in waypoints is solely for AI.

Human players should plan their own routes, payloads and attack profiles for the designated target.

The massive effort required by ED to implement something like this is completely unnecessary.

 

 

 

 

I understand your point, but many people prefer to fly and shoot instead of spending time planning. This is a hardcore sim with an already steep learning curve, and spare time is limited in your adulthood.

Leave the decision to ED, it is just a proposal. And you can always do the maths on your own if you prefer.

[=475FG= Dawger]

4 hours ago, dariocs said:

I understand your point, but many people prefer to fly and shoot instead of spending time planning. This is a hardcore sim with an already steep learning curve, and spare time is limited in your adulthood.

Leave the decision to ED, it is just a proposal. And you can always do the maths on your own if you prefer.

What you describe isn’t hardcore at all. 
 

And if you bothered to do the actual planning yourself, you would learn a tremendous amount about your aircraft and, with some repetition, soon be able to make remarkably accurate performance estimates without the need for a computer. 
 

In addition, were such a thing to be produced by ED, the required inputs in order to produce an accurate results would be tantamount to doing the planning by hand. 
 

You would have to provide the planner every possible variable or be satisfied with a very limited profile. 
 

You have obviously never done any significant planning or you would realize the enormity of what you propose and realize that it is an unrealistic request counter to the supposed “simulation” experience. 

[MAXsenna]

Pilots did and do the planning, with or without computers. 
 
It shouldn’t be part of the mission editor functionality. Even putting in waypoints is solely for AI.
Human players should plan their own routes, payloads and attack profiles for the designated target.
The massive effort required by ED to implement something like this is completely unnecessary.
 
 
 
 

Sure. With a "DTC" for all modules through the Mission Planner, if enabled in the Mission Editor. Could be a nice feature.

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

[dariocs]

hace 8 horas, =475FG= Dawger dijo:

What you describe isn’t hardcore at all. 
 

And if you bothered to do the actual planning yourself, you would learn a tremendous amount about your aircraft and, with some repetition, soon be able to make remarkably accurate performance estimates without the need for a computer. 
 

In addition, were such a thing to be produced by ED, the required inputs in order to produce an accurate results would be tantamount to doing the planning by hand. 
 

You would have to provide the planner every possible variable or be satisfied with a very limited profile. 
 

You have obviously never done any significant planning or you would realize the enormity of what you propose and realize that it is an unrealistic request counter to the supposed “simulation” experience. 

I know what it takes. I am an aerospace engineer, so I have gotten well into the performance equations in the past. That is exactly the main reason I want it automated: it could get better than simple hand calculations, which I find it a bit boring to do it myself.

But anyway, it is just a personal preferente. Just an idea.