SF2 Series DACT Reports And Related A2A Discussions (Game only)

[+EricJ 4,246]

The engine values are guesstimates based on public literature from Boeing, and so I don't make specific versions because of that fact, it's not standard or approved or bought by the US Navy, so the values are just what I think it could be, not established fact.  But Boeing themselves estimate a 20% increase with slightly better fuel economy.  And yes that includes the angled pylons, as the drag is increased to account for that when the pylons are visible, at least that's what I've understood for years, so if they are not there the drag shouldn't be there... I think.  That was a given when we were working on the Super Bug (the team) and so yes it is accounted for.  Just fly the non-EPE and you'll see how slow you are compared to normal aircraft

[Kyot54 2]

I have been tweaking the F-22 recently, as it has more than double the internal fuel it should, even though the data.ini shows the correct numbers.  Not sure why that is, but I changed it so that the aircraft has roughly 18,000lbs internal, rather than 36,000 to mirror its real world loadout.

 

Hrmm...Still kind of benign in the gunfight.  Bear in mind that I haven't touched the thrust of the F-22, it's still ridiculously high (over 100,000lbs total thrust in max AB), but I HAVE significantly reduced the bird's weight by getting its fuel quantities corrected.  I also know from having flown the aircraft recently that it will easily push to over 30 units AoA.  The F-14 doesn't usually do this except at altitudes of about 20,000 feet or more, and does not normally sustain more than 28 unless it's at the same altitudes with flaps down while pulling.  I feel that in a guns-only fight, the AI F-22 runs into similar problems that it does with the F-14, F-15 and Su-27: for whatever reason, it just doesn't handle the larger aircraft as well.  What I will say, however, is that with 18,000 pounds of gas removed, the aircraft was much more lively than it was in the past!

 

I have just plain quit trying to determine a correlation between the numbers in the data.ini files and flight models. I just assume that whatever numbers they are using regarding thrust and stuff are going to work out. That being said, the data.ini's that I have found are generally off are mod's that I have downloaded, mainly from here. I guess people are thinking that things are a 1 to 1 ratio, but they aren't. I know that in the case of gun ammo, what shows up on the hanger screen has to do with weight, not rounds (there is a spot in the gun data for both in the .ini). Also, for whatever reason it doubles whatever rounds you actually have listed in the .data.ini, at least it does when it shows up how many rounds you shot it the debrief screen. If I want to be realistic, I generally knock my ammo in half on the weapon load screen. That being said, there have been a few times I was more than happy to have some extra rounds in my gun. As far as gas goes, I know I have at least had to tweak the Super Hornets, the Raptor, and I think even the Strike Eagle in Op Darius. I will say those models he used for that campaign all had fuel figures off. It's gotten to the point that when I download a new plane, I probably end up fixing something on it, whether it be fuel, ammo, weps, and sometimes occasionally skins.  

[Kyot54 2]

The engine values are guesstimates based on public literature from Boeing, and so I don't make specific versions because of that fact, it's not standard or approved or bought by the US Navy, so the values are just what I think it could be, not established fact.  But Boeing themselves estimate a 20% increase with slightly better fuel economy.  And yes that includes the angled pylons, as the drag is increased to account for that when the pylons are visible, at least that's what I've understood for years, so if they are not there the drag shouldn't be there... I think.  That was a given when we were working on the Super Bug (the team) and so yes it is accounted for.  Just fly the non-EPE and you'll see how slow you are compared to normal aircraft

Ok, so take whatever numbers I have for thrust and times them by 1.2. Is that 20% both dry and wet? I will say I have noticed that at full mil on the deck with the Super Bug I am not even doing 500knts, where as the Tomcat I am hauling along at .95-.97 Mach all the time. I just tweeked a "D" Tomcat to carry SLAM and JSOWs in the tunnel, which looks pretty raid, and added the 4xSDB rack, which is nice for SEAD, so I take that instead of the Super Bug when speed is needed. I do like the Bugs ability to carry up to 5 AMRAAM's plus Winder's and a nice bomb load, so for Armed Recon and the like, it just depends on the mix I need, if speed isn't a factor.

[Caesar 305]

Kyot,

 

Is your ammo set to "Normal" or "Hard"?  I still haven't quite figured out the fuel thing yet (only a/c I know of where it bugs for some reason are the F-22 and F/A-18E/F/G), but gun ammo shouldn't double if you have ammo usage set to Hard.  (And, come to think of it, I have to adjust the F-14 weights again sans bullets because that's part of the weight of the "basic" aircraft: guns ammo, crew, trapped fuel, etc. and the game calculates the bullets seperately).  Also, the data.ini's are in all different kinds of units.  Aircraft weight is in kg, engine thrust is in newtons, fuel weight is I think in pounds (per tank), max speed is in Mach, so that's something to pay attention to.

 

With respect to your question "B", the whole discussion with "g" limiters got brought up when someone started breaking the Super Bug during bombing run pull-outs.  EricJ implemented the same hard limiter used in the F-16's and the Bug don't break no more!  I added the limiter to an AI F-14 to try to prevent the AI from pulling 12g in a single hard press and losing the fight because it never works for the AI.  The limiter will keep the AI's energy up longer and make it more likely to regain energy in a fight, making it more difficult to shoot down as quickly.  Its applicability has to do with just about any mission, since, if your wingmen are surviving more in campaign, they'll get better.  In single missions, it's just as applicable, but for player A/C, I don't use the limiters.

 

With respect to the Bug's speed on the deck, it is slower than the F-14B/D in reality; higher aerodynamic drag, lower thrust to weight.

[+EricJ 4,246]

To go with Caesar the Super Bug on the deck is not a speed demon, which is why I went towards the EPE version and not the stock Block I or II versions, as one time I was doing a strike on the Afghanistan map and was watching my escort F-15s truck away and finally saw the light on the speed difference.  The basic engines give what they give but the EPE engines give definite more push and when doing a subsequent mission on the Bombing Range I was like "this is nice now" and stayed with it since.

 

Also the fuel values are correct as per the NATOPS, as I did figure out with help to set it right.  So its the game engine but the aircraft does have a MTOW of around... 66,000 lbs.  She may not look big but through some other forums its called the "Rhino" due to the weight, not so much looks, etc.

[Kyot54 2]

Caesar,

   

       I generally keep my ammo on normal, mostly because I am trying to develop some situational discretion. Most of the times I have been happy I had a few more round is when I have been a cocky jack___ and continued to hunt bandits when I've run out of missiles. Better to save the gun for in case I get jumped on the way home, not go out looking for more trouble.  I figured as much regarding the weights, thrust etc. As I mentioned, it's genrally more just getting them to engage, as opposed to maneuvering with the wingmen (Dash 4 mainly, as I said). When I am flying campaigns I've begun to challenge myself to see how many in my squadron I can get to survive and make it to ace status.  It's kinda interesting choosing to fly top cover and allow the wing to bag the MiG, very realistic in fact if you are flying by loose deuce tactics.

 

Eric,

 

      I don't have sources readily available, but yes, to an extent you are correct regarding the Rhino call. From what I understand, it was implemented during carrier landings with the ball and fuel state call: "Tomcat ball, 6.5" for example. Since the Super Hornet is upwards of 7000lbs heavier even when empty, there easily could be 12,000 lbs worth of difference in the landing weights between a "Hornet" (say 33,000) versus a "Super Hornet" (31000 plane, 10000 fuel,  3000 weps bringback). That kind of calculation difference would be disastrous if the arresting gear were set to the wrong weight. So to avoid the chance of missing the Super in "Super Hornet" during a landing cycle, the pilots call "Rhino, ball, 9.2" for example. The E/F/G's are very similar to the F-4 in weights to a degree (31000 empty, 42000+ loaded) so it's an understandable connection.  

[+Crusader 2,101]

 

 

 

..., fuel weight is I think in pounds (per tank), ....

 

 Fuel weight is in kg
 

Edited November 24, 2014 by Crusader

[Caesar 305]

 Fuel weight is in kg

 

Whoops!  My gut told me "it isn't in pounds" but I couldn't remember.  Thanks for zee correction.

[saisran 84]

Kyot,

 

-4 acts as a reserve force and will just lag behind a bit on formation and wont activate until -3 is either shot down or ran out of weapons including gun ammo. same goes for -22,23,24,  -32,33,34 and so on. until the the first fighter in the command line is down or out of ammo they wont activate. Although there are several instances where -4 acts on his own and i think this are just rare occasion when the ai thinks its too damn stupid not to take action. :)

Edited November 24, 2014 by saisran

[+Crusader 2,101]

Its some fancy coding (!?) to leave enough targets for da player ... 

If you run into big air battles during campaigns its more likely that all wingmen start to shoot immediately ...

[+eburger68 201]

Kyot:

 

 I know I have at least had to tweak the Super Hornets, the Raptor, and I think even the Strike Eagle in Op Darius. I will say those models he used for that campaign all had fuel figures off. It's gotten to the point that when I download a new plane, I probably end up fixing something on it, whether it be fuel, ammo, weps, and sometimes occasionally skins.  

 

I just double-checked the fuel loads in the three aircraft you mention. The Super Hornets are a little high, but the other two (F-15E & F-22A) appear to be spot on by my calculations. If you've got different numbers, I'd love to see them.

 

Eric Howes

[Kyot54 2]

 Fuel weight is in kg

 

 

     Well, that would definitely explain why in the cases we are discussing the fuel numbers have been slightly over double: 2.2lbs per Kg. Mystery solved.

 

I am toying with the idea of converting my Block II Super Bugs to EPE or some variance (maybe a halfway point between the EPE/EDE, not that engine life is something we deal with in game), partly because I don't see much difference between the Block I's and II's except for Squadron assignments? I have generally accepted that the "F" is a justifiable successor to the medium range duties of the A-6 in lieu of the A-6F, with the additional benefit of self-escort and picking up slack in fleet defense, while the Tomcat could still handle the long-range strike duties. I've even converted some old Intruder squadron skins to VFA status to see how this concept would look visually. Black Panthers, Boomers, Sunday Punchers all look pretty nice "Bugged" out. Wish I has a decent Main Battery decal, but maybe I can rig something. I'm going to fly some 4th gen versus the UFO (MiG-17) DACTs here soon, maybe we'll see how it all turns out.

[Kyot54 2]

EH,

 

    were you looking at them in the data.ini or in the Hanger screen? In the Hanger screen was where I noticed the discrepancies. As you can see in earlier post, we determined that the .ini uses Kg for fuel, which would explain why they were slightly over double if the number over lbs were used as the value. I'm not sure on the Strike Eagle, I do know I had to fix the Raptor,Super Hornets, and Growler for sure. I'll list the appropriate weights according to Wikipedia (which I'm sure is using FAS and Global Security in turn) for the planes in question below in pounds with the metric equivalent in parentheses. Note: there are INTERNAL fuel loads, as that is what is listed on the fuel and ammo section of the hanger screen, external fuel is calculated separately and therefore should not need to be accounted for in the data.ini, except in the case of the CFT's on the Strike Eagle.

 

 

F/A-18E: 14,400 lb (6,780 kg)

 

F/A-18F: 13,550 lb (6,354 kg)

 

E/A-18G: 13,940 lb (6,323 kg)

 

F-15E: ~ 13,455 lb (6,100 kg) internal w/o CFT.

               w/ CFTs :each unit carries an additional 849 US gal of fuel (don't have the exact numbers, but JP-5 weighs around 7lbs/gal so roughly 12,000 lbs with both [~25,500 total internal])

 

F-22A: 18,000 lb (8,200 kg) internally

 

Hope that helps.

 

P.S. If memory serves, before adjusting them, the Super Hornets/Growler were all in the 30,000lbs internal range, and the Raptor was up to 38,000lbs internal

Edited November 25, 2014 by Kyot54

[Caesar 305]

I second what Kyot has, but I adjusted the numbers.  Now, what COULD have happened is that new versions of these aircraft came out and I didn't download them.  If that's the case, this whole thing could be moot and I'm just using old data.  One thing I do recall is that I checked the numbers and the numbers in my a/c matched the pounds of fuel of the real-world a/c, rather than kg, and I just adjusted the numbers 'till they matched, commenting out the old ones.  Unfortunately, I'm on my laptop for the next few days (leave), so I can't give you my exact entries.

[+eburger68 201]

Kyot:

 

As I said earlier, I just checked the numbers on those aircraft in OpDarius -- they are nowhere near what you remember them being. The F-22A is at 8200 kg precisely. The F-15E has 6103 kg internal plus 4518 kg CFTs for 10621 kg total. The F-15E numbers haven't changed since the original release. The F-22A numbers were higher in the original release but were corrected in Jan. 2013.

 

As I said the Super Hornets are a little high -- around 8100-8200 kg -- and I will be adjusting them downwards, but again nowhere near the numbers you report seeing. As with the F-15E, those numbers haven't changed.

 

And, yes, I checked both the numbers in the DATA.INI and the Hangar screen.

 

Eric Howes

Edited November 25, 2014 by eburger68

[+EricJ 4,246]

Okay question is if my values are off, which fuel is modeled in-game?  JP-8, JP-4, or JP-5?  As I may have went with I think JP-8 or -4 back then, which would throw everything off.  Given the fuel topic in the Knowledge Base I think I remember it mentioning JP-5, which I went with for the values.  And given the NATOPs manual lists all three (pounds varying between the three) then if it is strictly JP-5, then the difference between that is only 100 pounds between JP-5 and JP-4, which for example Fuel Tank 1 is 2380 lbs JP-5, 2280 JP-4, and JP-8 is 2340.  So if it's "skewed" via Wikipedia then reference the NATOPs (see attached PDF) not Wikipedia for the Super Hornet, and the values in my pack reflect that, not Wikipedia.

F18-EF-000.pdf

Edited November 25, 2014 by EricJ

[Kyot54 2]

EricH,

   

     My apologies, I'm not trying to dis your campaigns, I really like them, and have more than a couple of SF2 installs for that purpose. If you've corrected the .ini's that is awesome. It's been a while since I downloaded Darius, and my Super Hornet install for basic SF2 was a separate download, not a cut and paste from Darius, so I can't be sure if the fuel glitch was for both, though I do know it was in the download for my basic SF2. I do know I had to fix the F-22 for Darius, but I'm not sure whether I got the updated version or not, but as you have it set where it needs to be at this time, I see no further reason to dwell on it. Thanks for being willing to check up on all that.

 

EricJ,

 

     As Crusader mention, the data.ini's calculate fuel based on Kg, not pounds, so if you are using the pounds number, it is going to be way off to the magnitude of 2.2x. As far as the JP-4/5/8, while I readily admit I am a recovering perfectionist (i.e. still really anal), differences in the order of 100lbs over 300 gallons (give or take) I wouldn't fuss as much about, nor is it going to double the fuel load in poundage. For example, in the Tomcat the difference in a full internal load of JP-5 vs JP-8 is roughly 2000 lbs, however we are talking deviances in the order of 15,000 lbs for the E/F/G Hornets. Looking at the original download files (I keep backups, for just such an occasion) it looks like the lbs vs. Kg exchange is the culprit. If, as you said, what you have listed in the data.ini is based on lbs ;

 

[FuselageFuelCell1]
SystemType=FUEL_TANK
FuelTankID=1
MaxFuelAmount=2380
SelfHealing=TRUE
FireSuppression=TRUE
MinExtentPosition=-0.32, 2.636,0.293
MaxExtentPosition= 0.32, 1.686,-0.426

 

[FuselageFuelCell2]
SystemType=FUEL_TANK
FuelTankID=2
MaxFuelAmount=2600
SelfHealing=TRUE
FireSuppression=TRUE
MinExtentPosition=-0.32, 0.203,0.633
MaxExtentPosition= 0.32, 1.335,-0.598

 

Then it would be off if the game is calculating based on Kg. Based on metric measurements they should read

 

[FuelCell1]:1082

 

[FuelCell2]:1182.

 

I know when I adjusted the numbers myself, I cut them all at least in half, and then a bit more, which would follow in the order of Kg vs lbs scenario. I apologize, I feel like I've started a ruckus. As long as I can mod thing to my liking, I'm pretty happy. That's one thing I like about Sims, the Tomcat may not have carried AMRAAM's IRL, but in here I can correct that perceived injustice, though I do try to keep things to a plausible reality. Which means as much as I would love an F-8(X?) with an F135 engine, 4 wing hardpoints for whatever my heart desires including AMRAAMs, and a glass cockpit, HUD and AESA radar would be AWESOME, I'm still probably not going to make one :/ 

Edited November 25, 2014 by Kyot54

[Kyot54 2]

Back to DACT for a moment, here's some pics of my Tomcat vs Vicious Dragon flights, flown in the aforementioned Op Darius install

[+EricJ 4,246]

EricH,

   

     My apologies, I'm not trying to dis your campaigns, I really like them, and have more than a couple of SF2 installs for that purpose. If you've corrected the .ini's that is awesome. It's been a while since I downloaded Darius, and my Super Hornet install for basic SF2 was a separate download, not a cut and paste from Darius, so I can't be sure if the fuel glitch was for both, though I do know it was in the download for my basic SF2. I do know I had to fix the F-22 for Darius, but I'm not sure whether I got the updated version or not, but as you have it set where it needs to be at this time, I see no further reason to dwell on it. Thanks for being willing to check up on all that.

 

EricJ,

 

     As Crusader mention, the data.ini's calculate fuel based on Kg, not pounds, so if you are using the pounds number, it is going to be way off to the magnitude of 2.2x. As far as the JP-4/5/8, while I readily admit I am a recovering perfectionist (i.e. still really anal), differences in the order of 100lbs over 300 gallons (give or take) I wouldn't fuss as much about, nor is it going to double the fuel load in poundage. For example, in the Tomcat the difference in a full internal load of JP-5 vs JP-8 is roughly 2000 lbs, however we are talking deviances in the order of 15,000 lbs for the E/F/G Hornets. Looking at the original download files (I keep backups, for just such an occasion) it looks like the lbs vs. Kg exchange is the culprit. If, as you said, what you have listed in the data.ini is based on lbs ;

 

[FuselageFuelCell1]

SystemType=FUEL_TANK

FuelTankID=1

MaxFuelAmount=2380

SelfHealing=TRUE

FireSuppression=TRUE

MinExtentPosition=-0.32, 2.636,0.293

MaxExtentPosition= 0.32, 1.686,-0.426

 

[FuselageFuelCell2]

SystemType=FUEL_TANK

FuelTankID=2

MaxFuelAmount=2600

SelfHealing=TRUE

FireSuppression=TRUE

MinExtentPosition=-0.32, 0.203,0.633

MaxExtentPosition= 0.32, 1.335,-0.598

 

Then it would be off if the game is calculating based on Kg. Based on metric measurements they should read

 

[FuelCell1]:1082

 

[FuelCell2]:1182.

 

I know when I adjusted the numbers myself, I cut them all at least in half, and then a bit more, which would follow in the order of Kg vs lbs scenario. I apologize, I feel like I've started a ruckus. As long as I can mod thing to my liking, I'm pretty happy. That's one thing I like about Sims, the Tomcat may not have carried AMRAAM's IRL, but in here I can correct that perceived injustice, though I do try to keep things to a plausible reality. Which means as much as I would love an F-8(X?) with an F135 engine, 4 wing hardpoints for whatever my heart desires including AMRAAMs, and a glass cockpit, HUD and AESA radar would be AWESOME, I'm still probably not going to make one :/ 

 

Its fair enough all around so if that makes you happy then I just don't mind either, but I like to ensure that I'm not off-base with my own calculations, so getting it right will be an issue for this mod anyway, as given the abstract nature of the fuel involved different values will be prevalent.  So once I find out some good fuel values I'll probably re-adjust it.  But the "ruckus" was like "Did I not get it right again?" So yeah no harm done, just making sure I wasn't off before... 

 

But anyway yeah the AI is a hit or miss sometimes.  Sometimes it gives you a fight and sometimes it being a plodding jet just makes you think "WTF is going on with this damn pilot! Make me work to kill you!", etc.

 

I finally entered the values for the G-LImiter (been learning the C Warthog in DCS so kinda sidetracked) on the Su-27 so tomorrow I'll do the DACT and see how it performs with the g-limiter installed.

[+eburger68 201]

Kyot:

 

No offense taken. Like EricJ, I was simply trying to ensure that the mod didn't have some crucial numbers terribly wrong.

 

FWIW, the OpDarius mod was recently refreshed -- lots of updates, corrections, and additions.

 

Back to your regularly scheduled DACT programming...

 

Eric Howes

[Kyot54 2]

Trying this from my phone so we'll see how it woeks. Wikipedia's page on jet fuel was interesting but moderately useful. Seems USN uses JP-5 mostly and USAF uses -8, just s

O thing don't get too boring for us :P. LOL

So ultimately this was all the government bureaucracy's fault. :D

[+EricJ 4,246]

Yeah so going with JP-5 weights is what it boils down to since obviously its a Navy jet.  The Aussies may do things differently and so on.  Also the squadron thing.  I have a lot of modding work cut out for me for Arma 3 and somewhat for DCS, so if you have the skillz the templates are available for you to update the skins.  Right now I just don't want to mod SF2 until things change as the community is the greatest among the few I haunt, but I just don't think there's more to do anymore in those regards, but as said before, I'll get that DACT against that modded Su-27 and hopefully it'll be easier this time

[+EricJ 4,246]

Me: F/A-18F EPE with 4 x AIM-9X, 6 x AIM-120D, gun, tank

Opposition: Su-27 with 4 x AA-11s, 6 x AA-10s, gun

 

Takeaways:  Not much to go with this one as this time the Su-27 was more trying to force an overshoot (which I should have taken but... no) than flying to Mars and back, so I think the g-limiter is starting to pacify the beast so to speak, but when he tried to turn and I countered, he kept on trying to force me to overshoot but I got bored and shot him down.  So takeaways not much, though I'm quite sure the g-limiter finally made the Su-27 on a more level playing field and 9.0 g's isn't too unrealistic either for the pilot's sake either.

[+EricJ 4,246]

Why do I feel like I quieted the topic?  Anyway I'm not leaving the community (if that was interpreted then it was my fault) but I just don't feel like modding SF2 that's all to make it a virtual career down for the short term.  More than likely I probably will but right now as said, I have a lot of other projects on the mind and doing (as specified above) so no, not leaving as said, you're the best community I've been with in a long time, but I just don't feel in the position to do anything extensive.  So I'll still support my mods as it's my responsibility, which does entail updated skins but I just don't feel I need to trawl the net again, not yet anyway.  When I get the urge I'll see what I can do but no, not leaving like I did before (that was more for personal reasons than anything against the community).

Edited November 26, 2014 by EricJ

[Caesar 305]

Probably some holiday stuff going on, too, Eric, so people might not be posting much for that reason!