1% tolerance of Real Life performance..

[Dark_Knight_667th 0]

is my goal with the next phase of the Flight model tweaks.

 

I think I have the engine thrusts down pretty well on all but the bombers. There was a thread posted about the mig 17..the thrust value you used was the engine w/o burner..not with, its 7,452 lbs with the burner, the 5952 is without burner, result of the new thrust, though don't try to climb near stall..they pitch down just above stall, and only do so if you are chasing them...they then drag you low and try to keep you low and slow now, more high and low yo yos now from the AI and the -17 is still just as vicous, its fuel consumption is WAY down, had a dogfight with one in the Ssabre that lasted 11 minutes..then his wing got me. (bastard)

F104 was about 2000lbs underpowered..with data at 1% in spec, it now hits mach 2 as it should..haven't found a solution to the rudder..I think that will take tk and crew although while watching the control surfaces in the external I noticed that when max rudder is applied, the ailerons move with the rudder..its the same on all aircraft..but I wonder if somehow in the F104 ini and dat if the inputs are reversed on the ailerons when the rudder is moved..

 

Phantom was a bit overpowered..by 300 lbs on the B, C, and D, and about 700 lbs on the E..

 

Mig 21 was 400 lbs underpowered.

 

Mig 19 was within 2%..its now within 1%

 

A4 was underpowered by about 1500 lbs..its now within 1% of engine thrust.

 

When they are finished, I plan on zipping them up and sending them over to TK for his thoughts. as well as a list of sources for the data I used. Andy has proved to be a very good resource for a lot of this.

 

Dagger, I think you will love the reworked F104 Engine..she's a thrill ride now..here's the screenshot taken as she departed controlled flight at 88,000 feet..entered a cartwheel spin..

 

http://members.cox.net/cptdarkknight/perso...cord%20F104.jpg

 

A lot of the thrust figures I used come from www.fas.org and www.wpafb.af.mil/museum if anyone wants to check them out. all data on the phantoms came from the latter..fas.org only had data on the F4g that I could find.

 

DK

[Jack Sciutti 0]

:shock:

 

And how do we get and install these??

 

Thanks.

 

Jack

[column5 63]

The Skyhawk modeled in the game, the A-4E, has the 8500lb thrust J52-P-6A engine. This is correctly modeled in the game as:

 

SLThrustDry=37809.9

 

37809.9 Newtons / 4.44822 = 8500 lbs

 

Only certain A-4Fs and later models had the higher powered J52-P-408A, rated at 11200 lbs thrust. Thus, there is no need to increase the thrust on the stock A-4.

 

Here's a good source for information on the various Skyhawk models:

 

http://www.aero-web.org/locator/manufact/d...douglas/a-4.htm

[vercingetorix 0]

Column5, Nice Site here! I like the info

 

 

 

-Vercingetorix

[Dark_Knight_667th 0]

If you go by individual designation there column..the thrust was steadily increased from the B forward

 

Max thrust of teh B was 7800, C was 8400 and the E was 8500, with those figures, the trhust of the A4 out of the box is still incorrect cd stock they all use 7800 lbs thrust

 

DK

[column5 63]

If you go by individual designation there column..the thrust was steadily increased from the B forward

 

Max thrust of teh B was 7800, C was 8400 and the E was 8500, with those figures, the trhust of the A4 out of the box is still incorrect  cd stock they all use 7800 lbs thrust

 

The A-4B and A-4E both have the correct thrust OTB. The only model where a change can be justified is the A-4C. They do not all use the 7800 lb figure. The A-4E is clearly rated at 8500 lb out of the box.

[column5 63]

I want to add the following:

 

My humble opinion is that the what Dark_Knight is doing is great--that is, we all want the highest-fidelity flight models that we can get given the constraints of the game's physics engine. I want my work to be taken seriously and so I respect everyone else's contribution in kind.

 

That said, I have one huge problem with modding the .INI files by hand:

 

There are lots of variables in the flight models that serve as inputs to other equations. An example:

 

Pitch inertia is a factor of fuselage weight and length. If I were to change the weight of an aircraft without recalculating the pitch inertia, along with every other stat for which weight is an input, I have not made the flight model any more accurate, in fact I would argue that the flight model has been made worse because it is now unbalanced.

 

I expect that TK will release a flight model editor which will allow us to make changes to the basic stats, such as thrust, weight, etc. and which will recalculate all of the other stats for us. Until that time, I'm going to stick to the OTB flight models and put my own pet projects, the A-4F and F-4J, on hold.

 

This is all, or course, just my opinion.

 

Dark_Knight, I hope you don't take offense to my being so vocal on this issue.

[Dark_Knight_667th 0]

Not at all..

 

What I am changing is the max values..of all the others that I have been able to verify, the numbers used in calculating how much pitch or how much roll seem to be pretty close..they could be closer..but I'm not changing those yet.

 

Here is what I have changed

 

Max thrust

Stall speeds for the Mig 17, 19, and 21s, looking for same data on the flyables

max internal fuel loads when I could verify em, and thanks to russky I got those for the migs

 

Wing area, when I can find the data and it doesn't match..example, the F100 was off a bit here. now corrected..

 

these tweaks I am doing are going to take long after the first patch..I would say January or february before I will feel they are truly ready for public use. Even with just changing the maximum values for each aircraft I am noticing a remarkable improvement in performance..the rates that the aircraft hit these max values I don't know if they will be 100 percent verifiable if changed..so I haven't changed them yet. From the hud debug the following aircraft are hitting their marks: for top speed all A-4's, Mig 17, F100, IL28 and F104, Climb Performance: F100, Mig 17, All A4s, F104 rest untested,

 

Finding the data is difficult..just the changes to the F100 alone took me 6 hours to find matching data from at least three sources. on the F104 Andy was able to provide me a link that provided the third source for it. I've found a set for the Phantoms, am currently using that data and trying to corroberate it as we speak. :casstet:

 

So, once these figures are in, the FM's will be put in a folder until such a time that TK does release a FM tool for us to use..

 

Once they are finished, tested, retested, and triple tested for the authenticity of the data, they will then be forwarded to TK for possible inclusion in an FM update of some sort..if he chooses not to do so, then we will cross that bridge when we come to it.

 

DK

[Dark_Knight_667th 0]

Column..my figures are based on the data at the website you provided with a lbs to kn conversion of 4.442,

 

You might want to go and take a look at the B, C, and E models on that site you gave me..

 

DK

[column5 63]

Column..my figures are based on the data at the website you provided with a lbs to kn conversion of 4.442,  

 

You might want to go and take a look at the B, C, and E models on that site you gave me..

 

DK

 

I have. The conversion factor stated by TK on the SimHQ forum is 4.44822, which might be responsible for the discrepency in our figures, if you are using 4.442 as stated above. Here is a link:

 

http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bb...TML/002239.html

 

Using this conversion factor, A-4B and A-4E have correct thrust, while the A-4C is incorrect.

 

A-4E:

SLThrustDry=37809.9 (37809.9 / 4.44822 = 8500.006)

 

A-4C:

SLThrustDry=34251.3 (34251.3 / 4.44822 = 7700.001)

 

A-4B:

SLThrustDry=34251.3 (34251.3 / 4.44822 = 7700.001)

 

The A-4E and A-4B match up well with the site I linked to. The A-4C obviously is underpowered.