New FM for Mirage F1?

[Fubar512 1,350]

Are you farckin' serious? Have you been living in a cave? Do you know how many damned tutorials and posts there are on the subject? Column5, Charles, and Streakeagle (to name just a few) have posted rather extensively on this very subject here, and at Thirdwire.

 

The results? Only a few have gotten involved.

 

Get real. You cannot get more than a few of the people who play with this series to read the knowledge base or perform research.

 

 

This is the results of less than 5 minutes work, using the search feature at TW:

 

http://bbs.thirdwire.com/phpBB/viewtopic.p...=center+gravity

 

http://bbs.thirdwire.com/phpBB/viewtopic.p...=center+gravity

 

http://bbs.thirdwire.com/phpBB/viewtopic.p...=center+gravity

 

http://bbs.thirdwire.com/phpBB/viewtopic.p...=center+gravity

[+Crusader 2,059]

its easy to fix the animation of parts with false movement direction

check for this entry int he data.ini or add it

 

ReverseModelOrientation=TRUE

 

use TRUE or FALSE, I think if the entry is not there then the game recognizes it as "FALSE" by default ...

[Guest Saganuay82]

Oh well, it was a try anyway. My F1 works the way I like it.

[+Typhoid 231]

Typhoid> The only real problems with the FM are the pylon drag (inducing a left roll when wingtips rails are present) and the CG (which tends to make it harder to fly but not in my opinion "vicious").

Solutions to both problems are in this thread

 

Jedi Master> That's exactly what Blackbird means, but only as far as animation is concerned.

 

not entirely, no.

 

The F-1 is not the only one, there have been several more models where if you are straight and level and let go, the plane wants to roll. In every case, I have tweaked the ailerons and corrected the problem. The F-1 is still a bit off and I will try the above corrections.

[+Timmy 1]

Typhoid> The only real problems with the FM are the pylon drag (inducing a left roll when wingtips rails are present) and the CG (which tends to make it harder to fly but not in my opinion "vicious").

Solutions to both problems are in this thread

 

Jedi Master> That's exactly what Blackbird means, but only as far as animation is concerned.

 

If you add this line to the misbehaving animation (ReverseModelOrientation=FALSE) or TRUE depending on what it says now - will fix the problem with the ailerons. I don't know anything about the FM's but I'm trying to learn by trial and error on some of the models I'm working on... That is one trick I've figured out.

[Fubar512 1,350]

Hey naysayers....here's what TK himself has to say on the subject. Read the second post on the supplied link...on second thought, don't tire yourself with excesssive mouse clicks, I'll post it for you:

 

"The CGPosition= data under [AircraftData] in data.ini relates the cg position relative to the pivot axis position of the 3d model, and this shouldn't directly affect the flight model. Ie, if its set at 0,-2,0, that just means the cg of the aircraft is located at 2 meters forward of zero position set in the 3d .max model.

 

The reason why the above CGPosition doesn't affect FM is becasue all coeffecients should be calculated off the cg of the aircraft. So no matter where you move the cg to relative to the model, FM, as entered, remain unaffected.

 

The only place CGPosition= affect flight is when determining moment due to force (say from gunfire, bomb release, etc). All forces acting on the aircraft produce moment, and since coordinates are entered in 3d model coord, changing CGPosition= changes the offset arm and the resulting moment. "

 

Source: http://bbs.thirdwire.com/phpBB/viewtopic.p...ight=cgposition

 

Of course, if you disagree, you can always post on his site and tell him that he's wrong, but then again, what does he know? He only wrote the game code

[+Gunrunner 313]

Fubar, just so we understand each other.

Yes, I was careless in my wording, since the problem described affects take-off (I consider take-off as part of the flight, I never was a great fan of appearing magically in the sky with idling reactors) as stated by Sag previously, neither Sag nor myself suggested that CG affected the airborne part of flight, we stated that the change seemed to solve the problem (said problem being at take-off where unless something escaped me (in which case you would be welcomed to correct me, but in a civilised way... please...) CG still matters making the situation a communication problem rather than a technical one).

On the other hand you could have read the thread to understand what was meant (it was clear by reading Sag previous posts on the problem) instead of over-reacting on assumptions, or at least reacted in a way both helpful and civilised, being arrogant and insulting never helped anyone.

Displacing the CG was not a wild experiment by aspiring aerodynamicists, but simply carrying over a change made by Column5 from the most recent Mirage F.1C to the most outdated one.

In short, we were both right (and wrong), but failure to be precise enough on one side and to research before reacting on the other led to a stupid situation and us both making fools of ourselves for no good reason.

But let's not dwell in the excesses of our tempers.

 

Now gentlemen, let's try to remember we're a community and not a loose assemblage of inflated egos with a short temper.

Let's do our homework, be methodical and precise so we can hose those bugs, not each other (at least on a forum).

 

Let's fill the blanks and squash the remaining bugs.

 

F.1C refers to the INI of the Mirage F.1C v1.6 available at Column5.us

F.1C-200 refers to the INI of the Mirage F.1C-200 v1.0 available at Column5.us

(Sorry it took me 2 hours to get them from C5, and it would have taken me another 2 hours for those available here for the sake of comparison, but I had other more pressing uses for the bandwidth. Ah, the joy of a 33.6k line)

Commented lines on the fixes are the original values.

 

The game now is to each independently reproduce and document the bugs, the fixes, and confirm them as real or not, working or not...

 

Bug #01 : Take-off differences between the Mirage F.1C and Mirage F.1C-200

Reported by : Saguanay82

Model concerned : F.1C-200

Description :

Some people were finding the F.1C-200 harder to get off the ground than the F.1C-200

Conditions of Reproduction :

To be clarified

Confirmed by : To be confirmed

Fix proposed by : Saguanay82 (originally a change by Column5 on the F.1C)

Fix :

Copying the changes applied by Column5 on the F.1C

[AircraftData]
...
// CGPosition=0.00,0.75,0.00
CGPosition=0.00,0.00,0.00

Fix confirmed by : Saguanay82

 

Bug #02 : Excessive ground bouncing on the Mirage F.1C-200

Reported by : Gunrunner

Model concerned : F.1C-200

Description :

Excessive bouncing of the aircraft on the ground leading to lateral instability on the ground, more difficult take-off and troubles for the AI planes.

Conditions of Reproduction :

Start on the ground with the F.1C-200 and compare the amount of bouncing around to the F.1C

Confirmed by : To be confirmed

Fix proposed by : Gunrunner (originally a change by Column5 on the F.1C)

Fix :

Copying the changes applied by Column5 on the F.1C

[NoseGear]
...
// SpringFactor=3.0
SpringFactor=2.5
// DampingFactor=0.3
DampingFactor=0.45
...
[LeftMainGear]
// ShockStroke=0.2
ShockStroke=0.3
// SpringFactor=6.0
SpringFactor=3.0
...
[RightMainGear]
// ShockStroke=0.2
ShockStroke=0.3
// SpringFactor=6.0
SpringFactor=3.0

Fix confirmed by : Gunrunner

 

Bug #03 : Extra left roll when using wingtips loads

Reported by : Saguanay82

Model concerned : F.1C, F.1C-200

Description :

When wingtips missile pylons are present the aircraft has a strong tendency to roll left.

Without wingtips missile pylons, this tendency is absent/not so noticeable.

Conditions of Reproduction :

Fly any of the F.1 with wingtip loads.

Confirmed by : Gunrunner, 76.IAP-Blackbird

Fix proposed by : Gunrunner

Fix :

Correcting the asymetric drag of the wingtip pylons.

[SidewinderStation1]
...
// PylonDragArea=0.04
PylonDragArea=0.03
...
[SidewinderStation2]
...
// PylonDragArea=0.02
PylonDragArea=0.03

Fix confirmed by : Saguanay82, 76.IAP-Blackbird

 

Bug #04 : Incorrect ailerons animation

Reported by : 76.IAP-Blackbird

Model concerned : F.1C, F.1C-200

Description :

Whatever side the aircraft is rolling, ailerons on both wings are moving identically.

Conditions of Reproduction :

To be clarified

Confirmed by : To be confirmed

Fix proposed by : Crusader / Timmy

Fix :

Changing the value for the animation inversion on one of the ailerons

[LeftAileron] // or [RightAileron], I can't test it from here
...
// ReverseModelOrientation=FALSE
ReverseModelOrientation=TRUE

Fix confirmed by : To be confirmed

 

Bug #05 : Residual extra-roll

Reported by : Typhoid

Model concerned : F.1C, F.1C-200

Description :

More precision needed

Conditions of Reproduction :

To be clarified

Confirmed by : To be confirmed

Fix proposed by : Typhoid

Fix :

To be disclosed

Fix confirmed by : To be tested and confirmed

Edited April 14, 2007 by Gunrunner

[Fubar512 1,350]

Well, now, that's a clear and civil response.

 

Let me clear the air on my side, Gunrunner, by providing some background.

 

Kreelin and I once released an FM (the MiG-21F13), that was based on accurate data, It was so close in fact, that its takeoff speed was exactly on the mark, and its turn rate and max sustainable G at altitude was within a few percentage points of the real thing. This model was based on data provided by the USAF on a "borrowed" F13 that was tested during the course of the "Have Dough nut" evaluation.

 

Anyway, when we released the FM, a gent PM'ed me regarding its tendency to feel nose heavy at cruise speed (approx Mach .9). I explained that (assuming that the SF flight engine was correct, and the flight dynamics were close enough to take advantage of the flight engine) this may be a result of a phenomenon known as "Mach tuck", that effects delta wing aircraft. I promised that we'd look into,just in case it was an issue regarding Xmac or wing and tail plane CL0 and CLa values. To make a long story short, this gent suggested moving the CG position back, and said that he'd release an FM with that correction.

 

His FM was terrible, of course, as the model bounced around on the ground like a kangaroo on amphetamines. And, it was still "nose heavy" at Mach .9.

 

Now, Kreelin and I both spent a cumulative total of several hundred hours on this FM, and while my qualifications may be called into question, in my opinion, Kreelin had forgotten more about aerodynamics than this gent will ever know. So I was of course, more than just a wee bit miffed. When I attempted to explain to this person that the CGvalue was meant mostly for the model's behavior when on its landing gear, he became more than just a bit unreasonable.

 

In short, I just don't like when people provide misleading information to potential newbies. The reason is that I'm often the poor dumb SOB that has to clean up the mess, afterwards.

[Guest Saganuay82]

Good bit of work on that Gunrunner. Quite a professional touch. It will be interesting to see your completed results.

[+Gunrunner 313]

Fubar,

I know who you are and what you did already for the community, not knowing the problems you already had, I thought that, out of context, your answer a tad too agressive and unjustified.

Glad this is all cleared now, sorry to have initially over-reacted myself instead of clarifying the matter right away.

 

Sag,

Thanks.

 

76.IAP-Blackbird,

I can't seem to reproduce the animation bug (Bug #04), in my installation both F.1 have proper ailerons and "spoilers" animation.

 

Typhoid,

I can't reproduce any added roll once airborne (with fixes to bugs #01, #02 and #03 applied), I just flew the GermanyCE map from one end to the other without gaining or losing a degree (I took off, went to 5k feet, leveled, set the throttle to 55% and accelerated time).

Can you give me instructions to reproduce this behaviour ?

 

Informations I need are game settings (Simulation Difficulty, especially Flight Model and maybe Fuel Usage) and the loadout (I'm usually testing with a clean plane), altitude, speed, throttle and manoeuvers needed to reproduce the problem.

In case I still can't, we'd need to arrange so I can compare LOD (for the animation bug) and DATA.INI (for both), in case significant differences between those I use and yours are to blame.

 

Can anyone else test and confirm (or not) bug #04 and #05 ?

 

Also, I'll meddle a little with bug #03 as the bouncing is still sensible (and gets the plane off the axis of the runway).

Edited April 15, 2007 by Gunrunner

[+Gunrunner 313]

From 76.IAP-Blackbird

So it's not easy to explain, you have 4 ailerons on the topside of the wings. outside right, inside right and outside left and inside left. Take attention to the animation when you simply move the stick from right to the left and back to the right! The animation should be mirrored, but it doesn`t happen... so this was the thing I wanted a fix for! Hope you understand what I want to say

 

Ok, now I understand what you meant, it's about the spoilers NOT deploying on one side when you do quick roll manoeuvers...

 

I'm afraid this is a normal behaviour...

 

It's due to the delay deploying the surfaces and the possibility that aerodynamically it may not be necessary or wise structurally at that moment.

 

Let me try a simplification of the system (please don't yell at me, I know there is far more to the problem than that, but the goal is not to put down equations, just to explain why it is "normal", correct me if I messed up the effects of surfaces on drag and left) :

 

Step 1 : Stick Right #1 :

Right spoilers and aileron go up, increasing drag and decreasing lift

Left aileron goes down, increasing drag and lift

The aircraft rolls right...

 

Step 2 : Quick-stick Left #1 :

Right spoilers and aileron go down, decreasing drag and increasing lift

Left aileron goes up, decreasing lift and drag

The aircraft stops rolling, and the surfaces are preparing to engage the second part of the roll but...

 

Step 3 : Stick Right #2 :

see #1

 

This is apparently also translated aerodynamically, when performing a left roll followed by a right roll, you can see the plane stopping the roll slowly and then suddenly rolling again on the other side (and the F.1C as modeled has a high roll-rate so you can't miss the times when you're not rolling anymore).

 

When you move the stick from one side to the other there is two sequences taking place, the first is to obtain a neutral roll rate (by having all surface horizontal) and then the second is to roll (by elevating the surfaces on the side of the roll and depressing the ailerons on the opposite).

With quick manoeuvers, you initiate a new roll on the same side while the first sequence is either not over, or the second is just beginning, so the spoilers are not supposed to move yet.

 

I'm not quite sure this is a bug.

Changing this would mean modifying at least the [LeftSpoiler], [RightSpoiler], [LeftOuterSpoiler] and [RightOuterSpoiler] entries, but I don't have enough informations on the F.1 to "fix" this and produce a significantly "better" or more realistic FM, it's also a tad out of the scope of what I intended, especially with a new F.1 in the works.

I think we'll leave that to the pros.

[+Gunrunner 313]

Ok, after another exchange with 76.IAP-Blackbird, I have finally understood what he meant, I can be a tad dense sometime -_-

 

So, here we are with the updates...

 

F.1C refers to the INI of the Mirage F.1C v1.6 available at Column5.us

F.1C-200 refers to the INI of the Mirage F.1C-200 v1.0 available at Column5.us

Commented lines on the fixes are the original values.

 

Bug #01 : Take-off differences between the Mirage F.1C and Mirage F.1C-200

Reported by : Saguanay82

Model concerned : F.1C-200

Description :

Some people were finding the F.1C-200 harder to get off the ground than the F.1C-200

Conditions of Reproduction :

To be clarified

Confirmed by : To be confirmed

Fix proposed by : Saguanay82 (originally a change by Column5 on the F.1C)

Fix :

Copying the changes applied by Column5 on the F.1C

[AircraftData]
...
// CGPosition=0.00,0.75,0.00
CGPosition=0.00,0.00,0.00

Fix confirmed by : Saguanay82

Status : Closed

 

Bug #02 : Excessive ground bouncing on the Mirage F.1C-200

Reported by : Gunrunner

Model concerned : F.1C-200

Description :

Excessive bouncing of the aircraft on the ground leading to lateral instability on the ground, more difficult take-off and troubles for the AI planes.

Conditions of Reproduction :

Start on the ground with the F.1C-200 and compare the amount of bouncing around to the F.1C

Confirmed by : To be confirmed

Fix proposed by : Gunrunner (originally a change by Column5 on the F.1C)

Fix :

Copying the changes applied by Column5 on the F.1C

[NoseGear]
...
// SpringFactor=3.0
SpringFactor=2.5
// DampingFactor=0.3
DampingFactor=0.45
...
[LeftMainGear]
// ShockStroke=0.2
ShockStroke=0.3
// SpringFactor=6.0
SpringFactor=3.0
...
[RightMainGear]
// ShockStroke=0.2
ShockStroke=0.3
// SpringFactor=6.0
SpringFactor=3.0

Fix confirmed by : Gunrunner

Status : Closed, optimisation possible

 

Bug #03 : Extra left roll when using wingtips loads

Reported by : Saguanay82

Model concerned : F.1C, F.1C-200

Description :

When wingtips missile pylons are present the aircraft has a strong tendency to roll left.

Without wingtips missile pylons, this tendency is absent/not so noticeable.

Conditions of Reproduction :

Fly any of the F.1 with wingtip loads.

Confirmed by : Gunrunner, 76.IAP-Blackbird

Fix proposed by : Gunrunner

Fix :

Correcting the asymetric drag of the wingtip pylons.

[SidewinderStation1]
...
// PylonDragArea=0.04
PylonDragArea=0.03
...
[SidewinderStation2]
...
// PylonDragArea=0.02
PylonDragArea=0.03

Fix confirmed by : Saguanay82, 76.IAP-Blackbird

Status : Closed

 

Bug #04 : Incorrect ailerons animation

Reported by : 76.IAP-Blackbird

Model concerned : F.1C, F.1C-200

Description :

The depression sequence of spoilers is not identical on both wings, outer spoilers depressing slower than inner spoilers on one wing, while inner spoilers depress slower than outer ones on the other wing.

Conditions of Reproduction :

On the ground, outside view, push the stick left, then center, look at the order in which spoilers return to neutral, do the same pushing right, notice the difference.

Confirmed by : Gunrunner

Fix proposed by : Gunrunner

Fix :

Harmonise the ControlRate of spoilers so they react identically on both sides.

I have no idea what the real values should be, I just corrected an obvious consistency bug, this isn't necessarily more realistic.

[RightSpoiler]
...
// ControlRate=4.0
ControlRate=1.0
...
[RightOuterSpoiler]
...
// ControlRate=1.0
ControlRate=3.0

Fix confirmed by : To be confirmed

Status : Waiting for fix confirmation, optimisation possible

Thanks to : Crusader and Timmy for the proposed solution for a misidentified bug on our part.

 

Bug #05 : Residual extra-roll

Reported by : Typhoid

Model concerned : F.1C, F.1C-200

Description :

More precision needed

Conditions of Reproduction :

To be clarified

Confirmed by : To be confirmed

Fix proposed by : Typhoid

Fix :

To be disclosed

Fix confirmed by : To be tested and confirmed

Status : Waiting for bug confirmation and reproduction instructions.

[+76.IAP-Blackbird 3,545]

Ok fix is confirmed, it solved the prob.... will upload the fixed Data.ini of the F-1C, F-1C200 and the F-1EM <--- for private use.. it`s a spanish version!!

[+Typhoid 231]

very professional approach and documentation. I am, as always, impressed.

 

Looking forward to flying it.

[+76.IAP-Blackbird 3,545]

But one thing still remain, wich pit is better? the one from the Mirage III or the one from the Kfir?

 

And teh DEFA cannon hast each 125 rounds I found a german source it say, it hast 270 rounds but don´t know if each or both together?!?!?!

Edited April 19, 2007 by 76.IAP-Blackbird

[+Crusader 2,059]

F-1C has 135 rounds per gun = 270 rounds total. The recce version F-1CR has only 1 gun, the left one is deleted to make room for recce stuff.

[+Gunrunner 313]

The F.1CR since the mid 90's has no gun at all as the remaining one was replaced by still more electronic (a FLIR IIRC).

 

And yes, it is a maximum of 135 rounds per gun.

 

BTW, I don't think spanish F.1 were F.1EM...

 

The C.14A is a F.1CE.

The C.14B is a F.1EE.

 

They also bought second-hand F.1 from France (F.1C) and Kuwait (or was it Qatar ?) (F.1EDA).

Edited April 20, 2007 by Gunrunner

[+76.IAP-Blackbird 3,545]

Ok it was my mistake. delete the "E", it`s called Mirage F.1M C.14-01/14-01

Until the arrival of the EF-18 Hornet, the Mirage F.1 was Spain's top fighter. Today, the Dassault Mirage F.1 remains active with Ala 14 at Albacete-Los Llanos. Ala 11 at Valencia-Manises only briefly operated the type before disbanding, while 461 Escadron at Gando, Gran Canaria converted to Hornets. Later in this decade, Ala 14 will convert to Eurofighter Typhoons.

Until recently, the Mirage F.1 fleet had many sub variants. Original Spanish F.1CE and F.1EE single-seaters along with F.1BE two-seaters were joined by ex-Qatari F.1EDA single- and F.1DDA two seaters. Throw in some ex-French F.1C's and the logistical nightmare was complete. Through a modernization programme, all survivers , excluding the Qatari machines, have been brought to a common F.1M standard.

 

source : http://www.cavok-aviation-photos.net/Spain.html

[+Gunrunner 313]

Thanks, I didn't know the designation used for the latest standard.

 

F.1 designations (well Mirage designations for that matter) are so numerous and confusing it becomes hard to track them.