OlWilly

On 8/25/2024 at 1:21 AM, EricJ said:

Having some prior experience with ED, they're not big on classified material, and rightly so. I think it's the reverse with ED, they can get a lot of open information on WWII planes and the like, but the modern stuff is classified, so they make their own guesses on what a radar and the like can do. So DCS can model systems well, but gets fuzzy when you're talking about modern jets. There shouldn't be any issue with old aircraft which information is declassified, or known to all, so I would bet that WWII planes are easier. I mean you can do some stuff in SF2 if you have the right info, but mostly like DCS things are at a guess of the true capabilities, and goes with more modern equipment, like jets and missiles, and so on.

Not really, since the days of LOMAC, Chizh maintained that the majority of features and decisions in the game should be backed up by official documents and flight manuals. Therefore, ED won't officially accept a module not backed up by primary documents. 

This is also the reason why jets like Su-30 or Su-34 don't have official modules, the docs for them are held tight

US apparently is more relaxed with documentation and shares anything not being a strategic asset like F-22 or F-35

On 8/24/2024 at 10:43 PM, names said:

So, apart from avionics,almost all of the planes give a realistic feeling of flight as a flight sensation. That's  right ?

Flight model is decent. One of the strongest parts of the game.

This is true for the majority of stock aircraft (sans F-15 and F-16, they're not); for modded ones the quality varies 

But things like F-100, F-105 or F-4 are represented very well 

18 hours ago, FLOGGER23 said:

Now, for these rearview mirrors, I always wanted to know if they were used and who did it, this pic belongs to an SPS as the pic says, but, more light can be shed, if possible

Technicians are preparing the Polish MiG-21PFM for takeoff. The canopy is tilted to the right. The MiG-21PFM was the first version of the fighter to feature two rear-view mirrors in the cockpit. Later they were also used on vehicles of the MiG-21SM family. Only on the MiG-21 MF they were replaced with a TS-27LMSh rear view mirror. The MiG-21PFM was also equipped for the first time with the improved RP-21MA Sapphire radar.

Two rear mirrors on the MiG-21PFM canopy. These mirrors were not present on early MiGs. This aircraft is also equipped with a TS-27AMSH rear-view mirror. In addition, this is an early version of the MiG-21PMF, since the aircraft is equipped with a KM-1 ejection seat.

https://military.wikireading.ru/33447?ysclid=lzs4o0c1wx378987657

TS-27AMSh is the rearview periscope common for other aircraft too (MiG-23, Su-25, etc)

View from Il-76

On 09.08.2024 at 8:49 PM, FLOGGER23 said:

Hey guys! Is this color good?

PF

PFM

Speaking of the text on the fuselage, before you release these birds send textures to someone for proofreading, me if no one else around

2 hours ago, EricJ said:

Also DiD's EF2000 was like 1993 or 94, and Su-27 Flanker was in 1995. I played both of those when it came out for a few years too. Don't forget Tornado as well (don't remember the year it actually came out), but combat flight sims were out earlier than 98.

I mean the most popular sim brands around currently

Falcon 4.0 lives as Falcon BMS

LOMAC is the granddaddy of DCS

The first Il-2 is the progenitor of entire Il-2 series 

SF1 is the father of SF2 

MSFS and X-plane series started long ago too 

In 1990s new simulator titles were popping up every year, now we have mostly old "lineages" continuing development 

Quite sad actually 

30 minutes ago, Trotski said:

.I would say no, but I would also say it has been around longer than any of those, and is still going strong, and I love it.

Falcon 4.0 was released in 1998

The first Il-2 in 2001

SF1 in late 2002

And LOMAC in 2003

Aircraft sim market is really old with barely new titles in over 20 years

Flight model is fairly decent. Of course, a lot depends on the values inputted in, so quality of FMs of different aircraft (especially modded) varies a lot, but it gives you enough tools to have a fairly accurate representation of a real aircraft. This is one of the strongest sides of the engine, I would put the engine's flight model above MSFS (even the latest one, yes) and 90s sims, but below X-Plane and DCS/Lock On - which is a fine place to be.

Aircraft ground behavior is bad and quite unrealistic, there's little joy taxing around. Although not a problem for many people.

The only aircraft I piloted in RL was Yak-52 so I can't talk with competence about nuances of piloting a combat jet, but comparing with other sims gives some insight.

Weapon behavior itself is alright if we talk air-to-air missiles and unguided bombs/rockets; guided weapons and ARH missiles go above the game's competence

Systems, sensors and avionics simulation is the weakest part of the game. Many features are not available, many are automated or simplified. You would feel it when playing around with older jets, and it gets worse if you try newer ones - including stocks like F-14/F-15/F-16; not even gonna talk about trying modded modern stuff like F-22 or F-35.

Mind you, I am not comparing Strike Fighters to serious stuff like Falcon BMS or DCS, my comparison is vs Lock On series, Jane's F-15 and Jane's F/A-18. If you compare them between each other you will see what I mean.

The game is in dire need of avionics overhaul; considering the nearly unparalleled amount of aircraft modded in this will put SF in a special place among other simulators.

Without this happening I recommend sticking to 1950s and 1960s jets as they are the best suited to be represented in the game

SF2 engine allows only for unlimited CCIP - meaning that it will show the point of impact no matter the distance to it.Things like limited rangefinding distance or HUD limits are not present in the game. This works both for rockets and bombs.

What this means in game that you can simply align your CCIP with target box and fire, distance notwithstanding. Rockets will land close to the target

Works only if you had CCIP enabled in avionics.ini

On 23.07.2024 at 5:21 PM, FLOGGER23 said:

Guys, one more: as I start to work on the cockpits for the first models my question will be regarding colors, I have seen the F/F-13/PF/PFM/U and some US's as having the cockpit tubs in some sort of gray (may have seem more than one shade of gray) and black dashboards (S seems to have a black panel too) then they moved to an almost all in turquoise, (M/SM/MF/SMT/Bis/US/UM) dashboard included.

By general rule, aircraft produced/designed in 1940s-1950s had dark gray/blackish color - MiG-15/17/19/early 21s, Tu-95, Tu-16, etc.

In mid 1960s the coloring scheme changed for greenish-blueish color with MiGs, Sukhoi went with more blue-gray colors

Countermeasure pods of all kinds work only in player aircraft, both chaff/flares and ECM.

I tried few ways around it, for example, enabling an internal CM dispenser but loaded only with 1 chaff/1 flare and then loading external pods with CMs.

What AI did with it? It dropped exactly one flare and then just stopped.

Same with ECM, I enabled internal ECM with 0.001 strength and then normal external pod. No change - in fact, in player aircraft you can't really activate internal ECM but ignore pods - both will go on; but AI has only internal working.

So it's not like AI *chooses* not to use the pods, it simply doesn't register them on. The stuff is messed up on .dll level; I've read about that this bug came in only with NA so someone has to compare pre-NA and current .dll's.

The only way around it is to fix the pod external model to aircraft through fakepilot, disable the station taken and enable the function in aircraft .data file. The bad news is that this removes the flexibility from loadout options

17 hours ago, Mr_Tayto said:

Can I take this to mean they defeat or degrade threats within their frequency range and strength, regardless of source (Fire Can, Fan Song)? For the later models (with start dates 1970+) the freq. range increases, I assume because radars and SAMs are more varied and operate a more discrete frequencies.

In RL, to jam something you need to know at what frequency it operates. After you know the frequency, you put out jamming to block it - and from then on, it's the game of jammer and radar powers. Radars, especially SAM ones, usually have more power than jammers, but the signal power decreases with range - so you have jammer working at a certain distance, but then radar "burns" through it.

In Vietnam, the main task for Americans in that regard was to learn the frequency range on which Soviet radars operated. After they found out the frequencies of the first supplied S-75 radars, they issued jammers that blocked these frequencies specifically. Soviets, in respond, supplied radars with changed frequencies. And so on, this is the game one can play for a long time.

The response to this was firstly, to enable radars to use several frequency presets, allowing operator to choose the one that wasn't jammed (Kub, for example, already had it, not sure about later S-75s though). Then, later, radars switched to dynamic frequencies, randomly picking and changing them within the operating range.

Game doesn't simulate these later developments, all SAM radars have fixed frequencies, so early 1960-s level of tech. You can only specify search, track and guidance frequencies

Interestingly, missiles have MinFreq and MaxFreq statements, but those are only for anti-radiation missiles, telling them what radar they could pick

After some testing, I came up with a routine to tune SAMs and SRMs as well.

For SAMs, the data you can find online is usually given for a high-altitude target - where the air is thinner and missile could accelerate better, having more range. To get the low-level performance, for simplicity sake, we may assume that it is the half of maximum range (which is often close to reality, check MIM-23 for example) and reduced max speed.

And this is all we need.

Weight and Diameter as in DATA file. Init speed at zero which would mean launching from a non-moving platform.

Next, we will check the missile performance at higher altitude. Again, to keep things simple, let's assume 15k meters - IAS/TAS ratio at 0.6. Here, aim for more range and speed as stated online - because you had to account for missile actually getting there and MRS doesn't do this.

Then, check missile performance at lower altitudes, which would be IAS/TAS ratio of 0.8, or around 5k meters. The range should drop approximately in half and max speed below the one stated online. Speed of sound at this altitude is around 1150km/h or 319m/s for the reference. 

SAMs nearly universally have booster stages, so they had to be enabled in data file for the required performance.

----

For SRMs, the process is a bit different. SRMs follow the same energy rules as all other missiles, but they are in fact limited by their seeker - the max lock-on range, plus heatseekers leading algorithms are inferior to radar seekers, and they don't lead in the most optimal way. Purely ballistically, one could lob AIM-9 at  well over 20km with no problems, but you would be unlikely to lock on anything at that range.

Thus, as SRMs are designed for maneuver combat at close ranges, we simply pick the lesser energy state of the launch platform.

For simplicity, this would be 5k meters (IAS/TAS ratio of 0.8) and Init speed at 1 Mach, or 319m/s. Tune the missile so it would have the speed close to what you can find online, and range somewhat below it.

The game doesn't have good algorithms for heatseeker operation, and many vanilla SRMs have crazy lock-on ranges - it was not uncommon to lock and shoot with something like Python-3 or AIM-9M from 20km at target that doesn't even have the afterburners on. In my install I arbitrarily capped all SRM at certain ranges to prevent this.

When SF2 crashes, open the crash event report, expand it and look at the module which caused the crash. This may give some input on what caused the crash.

Recently, I had persistent campaign crash in a certain mission, on further examination it was caused by ground_formation.dll or somesuch. So obviously, game didn't like something related to ground unit behavior.

The solution is to start the mission and then exist it, failing but skipping it.

While playing around I noticed that missiles (BVRs mostly) behave quite unrealistically. I have a bad habit of flying low and slow, and this is the worst place kinematics wise for BVR combat, yet, I have little problem scoring hits. Granted, AI doesn't know how to defend with maneuver, but it is still wrong. Similarly, when I am on the receiving side, no defensive maneuver seems to help - missile will still get me. The only way is to abuse the game's engine and go below 50 meters when AI loses all means of attacking me - even with guns.

Checking out the missile performance shines the light on the problem. First example, R-24R - I launch on pursuit course, while going at 0.7M at target above me and going with the same speed. Missile accelerates to 3.7M on upward swing and even gains velocity during the entire 30 or so km flight path. R-40, while checked in MRS, shows the range of 160km while launched at 2.8M from 15k meters. And the crazier ones, AIM-47 shows the range of above 1200km (!) at the speed of 14M (!) while launched from 15k meters at 3M. Both AIM-47 and R-33 have weird 240 second sustainer times.

What this means is that missiles are barely energy limited, and the max effective launch is limited only by the statement in DATA file. Your kinematic performance barely matters.

This turned out easy to correct.

--------------

The missile performance is governed by few statements in the DATA file.

Booster acceleration and booster time govern the max acceleration of missile. Acceleration is measured in Gs which are roughly 35km/h. The time says for how long the booster works. Thus, If we have acceleration at 5 and time at 10, we get 5x10x35 = 1750km/h of default acceleration - with no account of drag and launch platform velocity.

Sustainer works by the same logic.

Then we have subsonic and supersonic drag which determine mostly how quickly missile runs out of energy. Supersonic drag is the most relevant here of course.

The obligatory tool to deal with missiles is MRS:

Now, keep in mind that missile performance you find online is usually its best performance - meaning launch from good altitude at a good platform speed.

For the sake of simplification, let's assume the altitude as 15k meters. You may tailor it more accurately by ceiling of known aircraft, but I keep it at 15k.

The platform speed will be close to max M number of given aircraft or aggregate of various aircraft using a given missile.

As an example, I show the process for R-40 missile as it is very dependent on launch platform kinematic state.

First we have to set up the launch state. MSR has no altitude setting but it could be st by IAS/TAS ratio. For 15k meters it will be around 0.6.

MiG-25 will launch it at 2.8M. The speed of sound at 15k is around 1060km/h. Thus, 2.8x1060=2968km/h. Then we convert it to m/s - the factor for this is 3.6. So, 2968/3.6=~824m/s. We input this into the init speed.

Weight and diameter of missile could be picked from DATA file. Thus, 475kg and 0.31m.

Now we had to deal with the booster and sustainer. R-40 has no sustainer, so both values at 0.

For R-40 we are lucky and we know the default acceleration - around 2.2M and the max speed - around 4.5M. We pick the first value.

2.2Mx1060km/h=2332km/h. Then we divide the given speed at G value - 2332/35=~67. Let's say we give it a 4 second booster - so 67/4=16.75.

This way, we have booster acceleration at 16.75 and booster time at 4.

We press SIMULATE and get 300km range (statement Length) with max velocity 1455m/s (~4.9M). Speed is almost there, but the range is out of whack. We forgot about the drag.

Now, we experimentally adjust the drag to bring missile range close to its real value. For R-40 this should be around 50-60km. Drag has two windows, first is subsonic, second is supersonic. Second is the most important here, keep the first below it.

Input 0.6 for subsonic and 1.2 for supersonic. This gives us 56km range and drops velocity to 1353m/s (4.5M). This looks really good. Check out the energy loss curve too.

Now we can check how missile will perform at subpar kinematic state of the platform. Set IAS/TAS to 0.95 and init speed to 350 (this is going at 1M at 2k meters). We get pitiful 11km range and 845m/s (2.4M) velocity. This is close to how the missile should perform at such launch parameters.

I strongly recommend to extend the duration in DATA file too, make it so missile lives longer

---

R-40 was easy as we know both default and max speed, as well as the parameters of launch platform (MiG-25 and MiG-31 behave similarly). What about missile when we know only the max speed?

Sparrow for example, it has max speed of 4M. But if we use 4M for booster calculation, we get values far above 4M.

Take the max missile speed at retract 70-80% of the optimal speed of launch platform from it. Assume we mind Phantom launching from 2M, so we set up 4M-1.5M=2.5M of default acceleration.

Let's make the same tuning for AIM-7M

Speed is almost here, but range is not enough. As we know, AIM-7M had sustainer, so we can use it here to extend the range. Sustainer acceleration at 4 and duration at 10. I also drop booster to 17

And once again, subpar kinematic state check:

----

What this does in-game is that your kinematic performance now matters. If you want extended engagement ranges, you had to go higher and faster. And missiles now actually lose energy. I am not sure if missiles in-game lose energy during maneuvering (hard to check since AI doesn't defend) but I hope so.

----

Now, this doesn't quite apply to lofted missiles like AIM-54 since they have very different flight profile, and this MSR has no loft settings. I guess you can set them up to have reduced range and velocity and then check in-game if they perform correct while being lofted.

Likewise, I currently don't know how this tool could be used to tune SAMs since their flight profile is radically different.

1 hour ago, dtmdragon said:

https://combatace.com/files/file/17310-third-wire-mig-23-fighters-made flyable-updated-for-sf2/

Ahh, that's cool but I use Mirage Factory 23s... I guess I can loan the decals from this pack and adapt them

But regardless, the book has markings for other aircraft too

The book on Soviet paintschemes and markings during Afghan War.

Could be useful for skinmakers

https://homeread.net/read/kamuflyazh-i-bortovye-emblemy-aviatehniki-sovetskih-vvs-v-viktor-markovskiy?page=2#tx

MiG-23 markings for example

On 08.06.2024 at 9:49 PM, toot said:

cant i scale everything and then ctrl-a and press on scaling?

Yes

Mue's extractor doesn't like scale being any other than 1, so make sure to ctrl-a any object you actually scale. Then it's no problem 

Secondly, Mue's LOD viewer could be used to show the ingame size of the model

When you put the cursor on any part of the model, it shows coordinates - which should be in meters

Just make sure that, let's say, the forward most and rear most points of the model sum up to a correct (or so) length

23 hours ago, EricJ said:

It's just finding the right folder. It should have something like "F-4D_75_AVIONICS.ini", so it corresponds to the right aircraft. It's easy when the folders are already there in the Mod Folder for you to add your custom ini. Just place it in the appropriate folder and then and go fly with the new changes. That's the coolness of the mod folder anyway as you can have your own edits for the game, even the stock birds.

TW extractor should not be even touched when Mue's one exist

Search function solves the issue

Use * to denote misc entries

F-4D*AVIONICS* will return relevant files for all the D versions

F-4*AVIONICS* should show all Phantom's avionics files

*AVIONICS* should show avionics files for all stock aircraft

5 minutes ago, Mr_Tayto said:

So I guess I should just do my best and hit what I can. Wingmen are usually a lot more aggressive and precise at hitting SEAD targets than I can ever be, in any case.

I play with red target square only - as a compromise.

In real life, your wingmen will help and duly report the targets they spot so other can engage them. No such thing in the game, they just yell about being shot at

Real life terrain also has more details which will helps to communicate where the target is. Default SF terrains are fairly barren so even if you spot something, good luck remembering where it was after maneuvering

The game engine also has some rendering issues, so objects may simply not render if you are not close enough.

Even if you don't want red square, the padlocking should still work

On 06.06.2024 at 9:39 PM, Gepard said:

An other interesting fact about the soviet standard recon pod for MiG-21 is, that it had included two flare dispenser ASO-2 with 32 flares each. I dont know, wheter it is possible to bring this feature in SF2.

For player, kinda possible.

Create a ghost station where you want the flares to be. Creates a lod-less flare dispenser; pair dispenser and the ghost station through specific station code.

On loadout screen, load pod into the regular station, then dispenser into the ghost station. Voila, you have both functions.

Don't cheat though, don't load dispenser without pod, mkay?

19 minutes ago, Mr_Tayto said:

- Finally, I have graduated(!) to flying without the HUD now I'm comfortable with the instruments in all aircraft. However this makes SEAD very difficult in terms of rendering targets. A good example of this is SAM sites; these are not displayed in game as they were in real life, with obvious "star of David" patterned installations. Often, the first time you see one is the launch tail. It's even worse for gun sites, where you can have a momentary flash or a puff of smoke, but you have to be very low to even see the smoke let alone the gun, and I'm trying to operate above 6000ft until making a run.

It's simple, you don't. Why do you think US took such heavy casualties from AAA fire?

Things like ZU-23 or ZPU-4 could be camouflaged so well that you wouldn't be able to spot them until they fire. And mind you, in real life Vietnam has lush vegetation, meaning that you are looking for a small AAA in the midst of endless bushes and tall grass. Not on a flat texture like in the game.

The basic idea was that if one pilot sees something that he thinks is the gun flash of NVA AAA and then dumps there a load of munitions, hoping to hit something.

Speaking of SAMs, your best friend here is RWR.

The "star" pattern of S-75 deployment was abandoned fairly quickly in favor of more camouflaged approach.

Just let them track you, RWR will tell you where to go. AI is not taught to switch off the radars so you can get as precise as you want.

You can take the easy way though, find the mod that removes the HUD but leaves red square in place.

7 hours ago, FLOGGER23 said:

Nope, for the side ones.

Ahh, I misread the schematic.

The only way to say for sure would be to see it in the official technical description of the relevant 21 model. Book 3 preferably, this is where it should be

Online, I have seen book 3 only for 21UM and it has no mention of these plates

This thing?

15 hours ago, Schattenreich said:

I am testing some of my mods and have noticed that on every sortie my soviet IR missiles start to look as if they are tracking then just stop and head off straight.  I have not yet tested the fox 1s yet.  Enemy fighter is not flaring and I am not shooting into the sun.  I should also me meeting or exceeding launch parameters like g-load and such.  Any ideas what I am doing wrong?

Post data file for missile in question

With engine limitations, two things are quite possible:

- a playable SAM battery

- a playable unarmed ground vehicle

In the first case you will sit in one place, use radar to lock targets and shoot missiles at them.

In the second case, you will be able to drive around and that's it

Not much possibilities otherwise

RE: oh, you could also make a SPAAA like Shilka or Avenger, but you will be only the driver with gunnery done by AI