Wings over Korea all-in-one pak?

[Emp_Palpatine 501]

I had strange occurences with myself too. Not especially with Korea, though. Was shot down above ennemy territory without having the opportunity to eject and I was able to resume the campaign. It might be the same thing. 

[Do335 382]

The tupolev is ready...

3 squadrons in campaigns. 22th/24th bomber air regiment of the 8th bomber air div, and 28th regiment of the 10th bomber air div.

In korean war each regiment of the 3 conducted air raids on the Taehwa-do island （大和岛）. The only 3 sorties the Tu-2 did in korea i can find. The 1st one was most successful and on the 3rd sortie they were intercepted by sabres from the 4th FIW and lost quite a few. Both divisions moved back to Chinese mainland not long after the raid.

Thanks goes to Cocas for the model, Baffmeister for the FM and Kulbit80 for the skins.

 

 

NEXT UP... AN-2 aka the headache:X:X:X

Edited March 7, 2016 by Do335

[Do335 382]

made new Fm for the antonov... wery wery cute little thingie:D

[+Gepard 10,267]

made new Fm for the antonov... wery wery cute little thingie:D

 

 

Its not as little as you may think. Its the biggest single engined bi-plane.

Its really impressive if you stand in front of an "Anna"

[Do335 382]

Okie have touched the holy grail and re-worked the F-86/Mig-15 FM aeros. tiz actually been going on for over a year now. The original sabre FMs flies very sweet but are way too good compared to the mig in performance, and has a tendency to enter flat spins when damaged when flown by AI. The former is mostly due to very low CDL (drag due to lift) leading to very low energy bleed during maneuvers; the latter mostly due to very forward xac (lift center) causing very high pitch sensitivity, and during combat the AI sometimes goes from full push to full pull in an instant leading to, in effect, pitch oscillation. Although AI flies on normal FM, after the airframe sustains damage the FM actually partly switches to hard and can depart, which the pitch oscillation does lead to at high alt/low speeds, mostly when AI is dodging gunfire or doing vertical maneuvering. Another small problem is very low lift at low alt below mach .2 as the CLa curve dips below 0.6 which I thought wouldn't matter until I got in a slow and low fight vs a mig.

 

So purpose of the re-work: 1. re-balance performance of the sabre against the mig. 2. improve handling quality/safety of the sabre. Edits on the f-86s are:

*CLa, CD0 and CDL numbers and curves rewritten adhering to TW formats.

*Max Mach reduced (.93 for A/E, .94 for F-10, .95 for F-30, in game performance at low alt .91, .92 and .93 max for each, +.01 at high alt, max dive mach 1.03, 1.04, 1.05 for each)

*Xac curves on the wings and stabilizers adjusted, lift center of wings is still forward of CG but a lot closer

*wing chord lengthened a bit, Cmq (pitch moment due pitch rate) adjusted and cm0 added to [fuselage]

*Alphastall, AlphaMax, Alphadepart and Clmax on wings and stabs adjusted adhering to TW formats

*limited MaxControlSpeed for stabilizers and ailerons so high speed does reduce pitch/roll responses (also prevents over G, which hard FM does to AI and cause aircraft breakup), min/max deflection reduced on stabilizers and elevators

*CL0 curves on the stabs adjusted to reduce stab deflection (trim) for 1g flight

*Slats on the A, E, F-10 are given a higher DeltaStallAlpha for a better instantaneous turn rate

*6-3 wing F have longer wing chords, higher wing lift and drag (4-5%), tiny bit higher critical alpha before slats, a little bit forward Xac on wings. The nail biter is the vortex effect of the 6-3, after various attempts I concluded it is impossible to model on the TW FM engine, so Cla curves are given 1%~3.2% edge on mach 0.6-0.9 to compensate. I have tried 20%, 12% and 8%, but they all make the aircraft way too fast.

*other fixes and cleanups, unsymmetrical data points, callouts that are not used by game engine, etc.

 

edits on the Mig-15 are not much, they're afterall stock TK's FM except

*CDL reduced. Reason is the Mig-17, the Fresco wing has a lower aspect ratio, but much lower CDL vs the Fagot (plus higher Clmax). CDL curves have more data points.

*aileron effectiveness reduced at high mach (according to mig-15 manual).

 

The end result is this: The F-86A and E cannot out turn the Mig-15/15bis in sustained turn fights. They wouldn't be able to keep up with the Mig in a straight line acceleration or climbing. They can out turn the Mig with instantaneous turns.

The F-86F-10 can out sustain turn the Mig-15, not the -15bis.

The F-86F-30 can out sustain turn the mig-15bis at high speed, but cannot out turn it at low speeds. It can almost keep up in acceleration and climbing, the gap is still there but barely noticeable.

(Just for testing, made a pseudo F-40 and it could marginally out sustain the Hunter, which I guess is adequate)

For handling, pitch oscillation will only lead to flat spins below ~115kts, similar to stock TW FMs. For slatted sabres, it is even lower to impossible, if the slats are not shot off by gunfire which... they sometimes do. The reduced pitch sensitivity also provides a bit better precision in shooting.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How does the player handle the sabre now - still take it vertical. The AI doesn't know very well energy preservation in the vertical and will become slower in this way. However even this has a limit as during testing I've given the -86E just .0001 higher CDL while the Mig a higher Clmax, and it struggled against the Mig in low alt vertical fights. How does the AI pit against each other. The 6-3 Fs are largely competent in shooting down Migs. The -86A is OKish. The -86E struggles a bit because it is the most underpowered, when it gets on the tail of the mig, due to low acceleration it is hard to close in for the 50cals to be effective, ending up as the AI sits on the Mig's tail for quite some time and being vulnerable. To compensate the "dogfightAI" ([DogfightNovice], [DogfightAce] etc.) is given some better stats with "ChanceContinue" and "ChanceCheckNewTarget", so the AI has a higher chance of breaking off the current attack if being attacked, or switch targets if it has injured the current one (damaged state leads AI to go home and outta the fight) but unable to kill it; also "CannonFireAngle" further reduced to improve accuracy.

Edited March 20, 2016 by Do335

[+Coupi 4,279]

Oh! Super... I go to install your new FM!!!

[Do335 382]

thnx Coupi! Plz post if you see problems.

[Nicholas Bell 117]

Do335-

 

Looking forward to the release of the TU-2.

 

I'm currently focusing on early 50's campaigns, so will be giving your revised dat files a try.  Anything conditions/situations you want me to setup or look for specifically?

 

Thanks!

[Do335 382]

Do335-

 

Looking forward to the release of the TU-2.

 

I'm currently focusing on early 50's campaigns, so will be giving your revised dat files a try.  Anything conditions/situations you want me to setup or look for specifically?

 

Thanks!

ah yes, pitch sensitivity on the 6-3 wing F-30/F-2. The slatted wing versions seem to hit the sweet spot on handling, the ac feels agile yet "tight" for accurate gunnery. Not sure about the increased pitch sensitivity on the 6-3 version. The interesting upside is it helps AI in scoring more hits/kills; but the plane feels more loose around the axis and I seem to have harder time hitting with the F-30 <-- but perhaps it's just me there?

Edited March 22, 2016 by Do335

[Nicholas Bell 117]

I tried the F-30 twice last night using a large scenario I have which usually results in a large furball with something like 100 aircraft engaged.  This provides for a lot of opportunity to watch AI on AI engagements, although is not the best method consistent testing.  Some 1 on 1, 2 on 2, 4 on 4 engagements are better for testing I know.

 

Neither I nor the AI have any problems with pitch sensitivity or other handling.  The AI handles the F-30 very smoothly.  Both MiG 15 types displayed extreme fish-tailing when in any defensive combat mode.  I need to force the experience level to Veteran or Ace in their dat files next time (like the F-86s) to determine if this is experience related.  And AI experience has a lot of influence.  In the first engagement, my 16 plane squadron claimed 4 (2 mine) and lost 8, while in the second go-round we claimed 11 (3 mine) and lost 5.  With scores of other aircraft engaged it’s impossible at a glance to determine who came out ahead overall.

 

In the first scenario, the AI squadrons were obviously seeded with higher quality pilots.  Upon initial closure I ended up with a honcho and his wingman hanging on my tail spiraling down from 20,000 feet to the deck.  They were unable to pull enough lead to shoot and after a couple of circles on the deck they got distracted and I extended then climbed out.  Given the number aircraft in the area, I was unable to determine if they went defensive or decided to attack someone else.

After regaining my wingman I went offensive and again ran into some very skilled pilots which took a lot of work to get angles on.  I was unable to simply turn inside them and had to yo-yo my way into position, and then once I ended up in an extended scissor.  I took one minor 23mm hit in this battle.

 

In the second engagement, the AI evidently drew a lot of poor quality pilots as neither I nor the friendly AI had any problem staying inside either MiG type.  And while at times they definitely accelerated away from me as if I were hardly moving, their indecisive nature and that fish-tailing eventually enabled us to catch up and nail them.  I was unscathed in this engagement.

 

All in all, I like what I see so far.  Against better pilots I have to work harder to survive and to obtain a good firing position.

[Do335 382]

Thanks for the report Nicholas Bell. big furballs are very fun, exciting and sometimes hair raising and why I like the 50s as well!

 

If you get any chance/time, it'd be great to try the F-86E-10/F-10 and see if they are a tad better gunnery platform wise, in your hands.

 

I still can't quite put my finger on it, but no matter how i adjusted the numbers, the E-10/F-10 just gives me more precision in fine aiming.

Perhaps it was also a problem on the real aircraft and why they put the extended 12inch on the F-40 and moved back the lift center hmmm But anyway dig it that you're having fun with 'em!

 

I'll likely keep at it and post back if i found a reason.

 

 

edit Apr 1st: okie know what to do. more testing...

Edited April 1, 2016 by Do335

[Nicholas Bell 117]

After flying several scenarios I just can't anything definitive on the E-10.  The AI likes it and is scoring 2-1.  Even with decades of joystick time, I'm still rather ham-fisted, so the subtle difference is likely lost on me...sorry.  I will say that the E-10 really felt heavy on the control below 180 knots - especially roll rate.  Again, that may just be me.

 

One thing that is really frustrating is that recently the AI MiG's when set to Ace/Veteran onlyrefuse to get into any extensive defensive turn fights, preferring to accelerate away and then perform short directional changes.  So I can't really test the turn rates.

 

Thanks again for your work on these.  It's a black art to me!

[Do335 382]

Handling quality thing on the 6-3 is solved, the problem was actually not over pitch but over banking. I think the slatted wing aeros hit the really really sweet spot of handling there including roll sensitivity, and changing one value without changing the others affected that. So it was merely a problem of updating the rest of the wing aero datas in line with the increased wing area.

 

I have done more research though. According to flight manual and other RL docs, the slats on the A/E early sabres would NOT open above mach .65, whatsoever. Therefore there was a lift deficit at high alt high mach maneuvering and prompted the 6-3 config to introduce vortex lift. The mach limit on slat opening seems to be another thing the TW FM engine could not model... (Highlift devices don't have maxdeployspeed callouts or anything like that) But if anyone has ideas to implement it that'd be great.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Another search result is max deflection angles on all the control surfaces. The stabs and elevator deflection angles of the tail unit is something i've been looking for for like forever. Apparently the angles are huge, -10/6 deg on the stabs and -20.9/8.3 deg on the elevs. With these kinda angles the F-30 go into flat spins at 130-140kts with pitch oscillation so not good... more tuning.)

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/069271.pdf

Edited April 2, 2016 by Do335

[LucShep 11]

Done a quick read through the thread, and agree that standalone mods are great.

 

The 1950's Korean-war is an era and scenario that I'm very interested in, and I've never atempted to make a "custom built" SF2 installation dedicated for the period/scenario, because it looks absolutely daunting to do (impossible for me).

We have great "care takers" of SF2 (and its modding), and it's definitely fantastic when you can trust such people as author(s) of this sort of compilation, as it somewhat ensures quality and reliable content for best end-user experience.

 

Just wanted to say that your individual and collective efforts for this are very appreciated.   Definitely "subscribing" and "liking" this thread.

Edited April 3, 2016 by LucShep

[Do335 382]

LucShep: I've uploaded the previous version (Wings over Korea) to the missions/campaigns section of Downloads, it doesn't have the new mods released since then by CA's awesome modders, but it is more than stable/flyable if looking to try it out.

[LucShep 11]

Many thanks, Do335. 

But considering past disapointing experience (though not necessarily with this mod), I'd rather avoid possible inconsistency of quality with cockpits, textures, overpowered guns, etc.

Meaning, this time I prefer to be patient and wait for the final product.

Edited April 3, 2016 by LucShep

[Do335 382]

^on a higher level, such is the problem of open modding, isn't it. You got all them different mods, in various quality, and most likely not quite compatible with each other.

It's probably one reason many games don't support modding any more. This is a good debate topic I reckon and digress atm....

 

But when building the all in one mod it's my job to make the mods play nice together. Stability is the top priority, that's always been clear to me.

[Do335 382]

**tis below is just a blog/diary thing**

 

Have tuned the sabre FM aeros more and I'm quite satisfied after some 35 different versions and seeing white stars in me eyes for days:X DTIC and NASA reports have some good info so thanks to google, the American taxpayers, and the college interns that digitized them.

(But hopefully the progress is not jinxed by typing it out.....)

 

Most apparent changes i guess is pitch sensitivity tuned down on all versions especially on the F mostly by lengthening the chord according to RL numbers. It was needed because the tail unit deflection angles on the real jet are much larger than anticipated. Initially I thought it was for sure gonna affect gunnery but apparently it helps improving hit rate by providing a much more stable pipper. Only down side is hand is a bit sore after 1 or 3 flights.:D

Second most apparent is slat opening speed reduced on the slat wing versions. Again I thought it was gonna affect turn rate but apparently it improved energy retention by delaying slat opening so worked out well.

 

Then ran some AI vs AI 4v4/8v8 tests between various jets, one thing that simply doesn't do is the F-10 pwns F-30 everytime. AI fights at mach .4 - .6, more .4 as the fight progresses and the slats on the F-10 helps it. The F-30 doesn't even have the upper hand against Migs while even the E-10s do. Tried giving it some vortex highlift devices but it just felt too unhistorical. Lastly the solution was to assign StallDrag=0 so the F-30 gets better energy retention past AlphaStall, higher lift increase at mach .5 and .6, and a higher CLmax. Vortex highlift remains Cmdc only as before but decided by AoA to improve high alpha handling. Luckily the Mig still have the upper hand in climb and accel despite the F-30 getting better L/D ratio at higher mach so this nail biting thing was settled.

 

 

 

Per subsonic aerodynamics the early jets suffer max CL decrease approaching the mach. Likely critical AoAs are reduced. None of the stock FMs model this. Per real life info the slats on the early wings do not open past mach .65 and yet again the FM engine is unable to model it. And so it made it almost impossible to model the advantages of the 6-3 wing properly. The current solution is I reckon the best compromise. But well don't think it's too bad.

 

On to more campaign testing or atm why can't I get replacement pilots and why all the shot down pilots are POW now after I've changed a few strategic nodes and given the frontlines better resolution???

Edited April 12, 2016 by Do335

[+baffmeister 1,205]

For the hard wing versions, did you increase the wing area data entry? That might explain some of the performance  issues. A quick online search indicates 287.9 sq ft for the slatted versions and 302.3 sq ft for the 6-3 wing. [i leave it to you to do the metric conversion. ]

[Do335 382]

For the hard wing versions, did you increase the wing area data entry? That might explain some of the performance  issues. A quick online search indicates 287.9 sq ft for the slatted versions and 302.3 sq ft for the 6-3 wing. [i leave it to you to do the metric conversion. ]

BM!! I didn't. Because if I do the global ReferenceArea= change, the datas for stabs, fuselage and control surfaces then needed to be scaled down instead. I thought it would be easier to just increase the datas for wings instead.

[Do335 382]

OffensiveMaxImbalance=

 

Present in SF2I campaign_data.ini 1 and 4. Didn't find any explanation for it so did some experiment with OffensiveMaxImbalance=1 set. Couldn't find any difference in the beginning. But flew a mission which started like this, a west/mid/east 3 route offensive as usual

 

Chose a mission that advances the eastern coastal route from T'ongcheon -> Wonsan. After mission success, not only Wonsan was taken but also P'yongyang on the middle route which is something different.

 

So I deleted OffensiveMaxImbalance=1 in the campaign_data.in, restored campaign save and flew another eastern coastal route offensive mission. Result is only Wonsan was taken which is normal offensive campaign behavior and not P'yongyang on the middle route.

 

So to venture a guess it is to prevent an offensive on one route from getting too far ahead vs the other routes. But I don't like that a strategic node can be taken without flying a mission on it first.

Edited April 16, 2016 by Do335

[+baffmeister 1,205]

BM!! I didn't. Because if I do the global ReferenceArea= change, the datas for stabs, fuselage and control surfaces then needed to be scaled down instead. I thought it would be easier to just increase the datas for wings instead.

 

Well, now I'm more confused than normal! As I'm always in a state of semi-confusion when doing FMs I checked some TW ReferenceArea=whatever against some Wikipedia data and ReferenceArea=WingArea is what I got.

 

Some examples:

 

MiG-21:  Wikipedia wing area = 23.0 sq m        ThirdWire ReferenceArea = 23.0 sq m

 

Mirage III: Wikipedia wing area = 34.85 sq m        ThirdWire ReferenceArea = 34.84 sq m

 

Hunter6:  Wikipedia wing area = 32.42 sq m         ThirdWire ReferenceArea = 32.42 sq m

 

Possibly I misunderstood your post.

 

Still not sure how ThirdWire generates the ReferenceChord=whatever but I think the chord entries in the individual wing sections override that entry anyway.

[Fubar512 1,350]

The TW reference chords listed are properly calculated.  They are based off each wing as a total.  The chord values for each individual wing panel are likewise correct. All are calculated the proper distance out from the CL of the AC.

 

If you use Kreelin's Aeroconvert, it will calculate the the Chord value based off each wing.  Calculating it for each wing panel, is where you run into a bit of a quandary. I used TK's "60-40" inner-outer wing ratio, which is really more of a S.W.A.G. than anything else.

[Do335 382]

Fubar! eh got full party of FM meisters here:D

BM: my take on the ReferenceArea:
 

[Roll moment due to roll rate] = q*S*0.5*(span)*(span)*(Clp)

http://bbs.thirdwire.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=508

here TK apparently refers S=ReferenceArea. For each component, ReferenceArea (=S) remains the same and it is up to aero value of the individual component to scale to its own amount of section. So for example LeftStab has a section of 1m^2. Wings (=ReferenceArea) has a section of 5m^2. Real Clp as a property of the stab is 0.1. But when input into the TW FM you use Clp=0.02 which is 0.1/(5/1)

So in the case of F-86E vs F, while the F got enlarged main wings area about times 1.05, the areas of stabs, fuselage, Verttail and control surfaces remains the same. If I change ReferenceArea=(ReferenceArea of F-86E) * 1.05, that as TW FM engine is concerned, you not only get enlarged wings, but also enlarged fuselage, tail, stabs and control surfaces as a whole. Basically the FM engine would deem the entire aircraft got 1.05 times larger, and i reckon that wouldn't do.

Still use the Clp of stab as an example, say the wings just got larger to 6m^2, but the stab remains unchanged. If I put referencearea=6 now, real Clp of stab would then become 0.02*6=0.12.

 

-->i've searched for TW default FMs where 2 aircraft are essentially the same, but only different main wing area, and couldn't come up with anything...

 

 

 

My take on chord: for LiftSurface=TRUE and Chord=x.xx defined, the ReferenceChord=x.xx in [AircraftData] section is overridden, so this likely goes for wings and stabs. For LiftSurface=False (and it wouldn't have Chord=x.xx value) but the component has moments like Cmq or Cmad etc, the chord is taken from ReferenceChord=, so this generally goes for [fuselage]. I don't think TK ever explained these but to me it makes sense like this:|

Edited April 17, 2016 by Do335

[Fubar512 1,350]

Reference area applies only to the wings, as per TK.  

 

Unless I'm mistaken, you'll find this mentioned in an early thread regarding flight modeling (along with other useful tidbits), on TW's site.  When I say "early", I am talking circa 2003-2005.

 

EDIT:  Damn, I just checked the TW site, they seem to have purged all the earlier threads. I may have this in my notes somewhere.

Edited April 17, 2016 by Fubar512