Lexx_Luthor

Timmy:: I'll start on that. Meantime, would you like to try my latest FM? I'm learning new stuff every day. STOP -- OKAY -- Meteor F8 uses a modded A-4 cockpit. This will work. Lemme look at making some Moves in the cockpit file. Be right back. Wrench has WW2 Soviet gunsight that we might use, but we need to find out for sure if its okay.

I would suggest the stock A-4B cockpit, although I'd like to modify the cockpit file first. In fact, I wouldn't mind Sovietizing the instrument panel. I like the A-4 for the round forward canopy frame -- very classic of that era. Another advantage is the A-4 is already in SF and WoV (don't know about WoE). Owners of only WoE would be in a pickle however.

British engine in the Ussian plane. German engines in the Russian plane. Thanks Fubar, I'll look at the kreelin aero program. --- Timmy, I'll be tinkering with this forever, so whenever you want it, take it. What cockpit are you using?

Fubar:: Woe Not bad. I'm using Cla=3.0 for Left/Right wing, and a Ymac=2.0 which are rough rounded guesses. I don't have a "mac" or reference chord. What are Ymac and mac? And what's with the significant digits in all the FMs? I always wondered if such precision indicated accuracy. If not, we can round and simplify wad of data.

Correct Fubar. I use "constant" CLa -- one value -- thus not using a CLa table to vary it, until I learn more what it does and how to use it profitably.

Thanks for the flaptip nele. nele:: Oh yeah...I've got near-sonic vibrations and elevator lockup nailed...and several methods are available...and one method I've found (elevator cmdc) offers game-induced variation of vibration with altitude in addition to airspeed -- that would be one way of ensuring a rough high speed penetration ride at low level. A large change in Xac value should offer pitch problems at a specified Mach number, but I have not gone there yet. Aileron reversal would be nice for Yak-28. Also, czech out Fubar's FM for MiG-17F near-sonic behavior.

Fubar THANKS for the CLa swept wingtip. I have wing Cla as constant right now. Other FMs have Cla that vary little over the flyable speed range (tables often extend far beyond max Mach), so I keep it constant for now. The high supersonic FMs do seem to have great CLa variation at higher speeds. I am TOTALLY subsonic right now. I want to do B-29 next as its very FM heavy and I want large formations, and it would be a good learn for heavy aircraft. My Xac tables are all constant until I start using them over the Mach range. I now have my L/R wing Xac positioned (=0.10) so I get a fairly smooth takeoff on the one wing but that could easily change with other changes. Question: In these ancient heavy metal fighters, like say F-84, how much pitch down did the pilot get by lowering flaps all the way?

I'm doing deeper experiments in simplifying. I'm trying to eliminate the left/right OuterWings as aerodynamic objects, but the 3D model requires they still be used for other purposes. (1) Less complex means easier to learn. I am seeing that both 3wire and 3party FMs copy and paste much of the A-4B data for wings. This indicates excessive complexity is being side-stepped. (2) The less complexity, the easier to generate correct overall behavior and correct relative FMs between different aircraft. (3) To save cpu performance if hundreds of aircraft fly across a game map populated with corresponding air defenses during, say, a mass strategic air strike against Siberia, for a purely random example. (4) The more I learn, and I'm only just starting out, the more complexity I can add to the FM. Right now, my file is just over half the size of a "normal" FM file. The thing is, I can delete a wad of stuff from most FM files and not see any difference in handling, feel, or performance. Other stuff, of course, must be used as core, and some are very tricky and present surprises if deleted. (5) The less complexity means its easier to add in some extra complexity as desired to attempt modelling behavior that may be unique to some aircraft. So I'm now experimenting with using just LeftWing and RightWing, but using the outer wings for things like vortex and child control surfaces (ailerons). I started using a more interesting CDL table formula. Alot of FMs just copy the parabolic A-4B formula -- CDL(a) ~ (a^2). I like this better... CDL(a) = 0.5 [e^(0.2a) -1 ] ... the table looks like ... CDLAlphaTableData=200,74,27,9.5,3.2,0.86,0,0.86,3.2,9.5,27,74,200 with 5 degree data bins -- easier to count out than 4 degree bins. I wanted more energy bleed in tight turns, and this helps.

Ah, raising these just a bit helps lower the landing speed. AlphaStall=18 AlphaMax=20 AlphaDepart=22

Hi Timmy. Yea I'm still tweaking but enough is enough for now.

Thanks nele. I'm flying this thing only on "hard" and the AI also seems okay with what I have so far. I have not tried AI landing yet. I'll have to see what happens. I'm ready to wrap this up. Its my first learning FM and I've gutted a number of variables and tables that I didn't see make much difference for my purposes (uh oh). I can always add these back later. Timmy's missing. There were some skin modders who had the MiG model. They could be used for testing FM for me.

Nap, the links I found all state turbojet thrust decreases with altitude. I guess I was thinking of air temperature which does effect fuel consumption in a positive way with altitude, or so I figure. Now, the DryMachTable would offer a method of increasing takeoff distance, as it seems that max thrust happens at higher speed than zero. I wish TK would offer a specific fuel consumption altitude table.

Wing Cla seemed to fix the landing speeds. Now, takeoff run is a bit short and climb rate is a bit high -- and fluttery -- I think I climb a tad too well at fairly low airspeeds, and I should not. Also, I found no way to really control how top level speed varies with altitude. For the MiG-9, I would like... 0km -- 860km/hr 5km -- 910km/hr 10km - 850km/hr I have good results except for the sea level speed being higher than 900km/hr. Both issues might be addressed by the following: The sea level speed is above 900km/hr. I'm thinking, maybe early turbojet engine static thrust peaks at some altitude above sea level, although every aircraft FM I've looked at, both 3wire and 3party, all have the engine altitude table max of 1.000 at sea level. Maybe that max static thrust should be at above sea level. Probably not, but if so, would this be correct thinking?

Better... CD0MachTableData=1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,20 Okay, landing speed is too high. Must figure this out.

AwSim nice FastCargo. Found this some time ago ~> http://www.s-200.de/

Wow. Weird. Map rudder to the keyboard just to see what happens. Would that be helpful thinking? Keyboard is like the most basic of basic computer controllers.

Move on. Do we have a houndDog and Rascal? I need S-25 and S-200 missiles. All these would be ~firsts~ in all the combat flight jet The Sims.

Rambler I "forgot" ... THE WOV also gets you the best ThirdWire cockpit made -- F-105. Amazon eh? I might could get THE WOE just for Hunter cockpit.

Rambler get THE WOV for THE NAVY cockpits. TK still sells it online I think.

With the experimental setup below, at 5km I max out at Mach 0.81, about 930km/hr TAS which is close (Yefim - "920"). In a dive, I can only get to Mach 0.85. I have MachLimit=25 ... or infinity...no matter, the steep rise in drag in the last data bin keeps airspeed in check. [Fuselage] : : CD0MachTableNumData=10 CD0MachTableDeltaX=0.1 CD0MachTableStartX=0 CD0MachTableData=1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,10 : :

What? MachLimit does not seem to work well for limiting dive speed here. I may have to do a detailed CD0 (drag) Mach table, just for Fuselage, to do this one thing. I think I can have the drag value jump almost vertically at the correct Mach. That should limit dive speed, I think.

Nap, I am going to need the MachLimit. Thrust and drag variables can help limit level top speeds, but not dive speeds. For that I will need the artificial limit. However, this may be needed only for aircraft that failed to cross the speed of sound in a dive. Just a guess.

Xac tables I am made mostly constant for now. If I want to create some Mach related pitch instability, I can make the Xac vary. I made some wing stall variables that, in combination with elevator variables, gives a safe but nauseating stall. Yefim says the MiG had a combination of airfoils along the span that prevented spinning from stall. Or so I figure. Right now, takeoff is good. Climb is too high -- thrust/altitude table needs work. Need more energy bleed in turns I think. Induced drag variables might handle that. With suitable drag tables, I *think* I eliminated the artificial MachLimit. Not sure. Testing with MachLimit=25.0 shows I am limited to about Mach 0.8 no matter what, getting nowhere near Mach 25.

pffft this is easy. ...after pulling my own teeth out. I went through the F-80 file and tested all the C variables to see what they do. I'm making my own now, deleting lots of variables that seem too subtle to be worth worrying about in order to simplify the thing. Variables that I think could be useful later I left as zero. Playing with Xac tables are next I guess. Its working great but then I must tweak everything to match MiG-9 flight performance.

I'm trying to make FM for Timmy's MiG-9, and its my first time. Its not that hard to get started like I thought. I was really afraid of it -- pffft. The most intimidating part for me was all the C variables and tables. Just start at the top with Fuselage and play with the basic numbers (worry about tables later). Test any changes you make -- you will crash and blow up alot until you get a feel for the numbers. It takes alot of time. It helps if you are familiar with basic aerodynamics and basic concepts from physics, and being comfortable with working with numbers. Like riding bycicle, you have to teach yourself and fall down alot.