Do335

best Hud indication for me is: 1. Aircraft callsign -> so i can babysit my wingmen. 2. [Primary target] or not. The others are indeed "too much info". But i've looked and it doesn't seem able to be configured that way.

mue: i reckon it is likely a limitation of SF campaign engine's basic design, the target area is a black hole where everything get sucked into it and fights it out. The best one can have is secondary target areas but that's basically a smaller... black hole and i haven't found any variables that directly controls it. The real time sortie generation like your old EECH, falcon4, bob2 is something on a different level there... But if disliking the "jet stream", i think worth giving RandomCAP=False a try that Tk uses for Sf2V camps. It makes the missions less "target rich" but easier to survive if you fight at target areas.

I usually change it from 2 to 1. Will try 0 and see what happens!

Speaking of.. I always think at the basic level, having a "mission objective" for a "Fighter Sweep" is weird.... Fighter sweep is to clear out a patch of sky or a flight route of bandits until you run outta fuel/ammo. It's not like you fly into enemy airspace to hunt a specific target asif it's General Yamamoto. But i reckon it's a realism vs game mechanism thing so digress.... And yea you certainly impose strict "ROE" on yourself. Ironman mode.

File Name: SF2 KAW Tu-2 "Bat" by Cocas File Submitter: Do335 File Submitted: 10 April 2016 File Category: Other The Tupolev Tu-2 was a medium bomber used by Soviet Air Force in WW2. Surplus Tu-2s were delivered to Chinese PLAAF post-war and organized into 3 bomber air divisions. During the Korean War, the 8th and 10th division conducted 3 air raids on Nov. 6th, 29th and 30th, 1951, against UN troops on Taehwa-do island, located about 70km southeast of the mouth of Yalu River. The first raid was most successful achieving acclaimed 90% hit rate. The third raid was intercepted by 4th FIW Sabres with heavy losses. Daylight sorties with prop driven bombers were thus phased out by both sides in the jet age. **** Mod contains: aircraft Lod, cockpit, Data, NKPAF and PLAAF skins, damage textures, loadout icon, Decals, Pilots, engine sound. **** Install requirement: None. Works on any SF2 install. **** Credits: Aircraft model by Cocas Skins by Kulbit80 Flight model by Baffmeister Engine sound by Jiver (from IL2 SAS) Cockpit by Kesselbrut Damage dds and ini adjustments by Wrench Damage model by Do335 (Plz ping me if I missed anyone:X) Click here to download this file

eh thnx for the notice Kulbit80. I'm on it.

and tried 2 test matchup/dact 1v1. Nothing fancy at all, just straight simple flat turning at 15,000ft. I generally use it to test aircraft effectiveness for embryonic AI "brains", and worst case scenarios for player when there're no options left except turning with the AI. 1st engagement I merged at ~mach .9 so got quite an energy advantage and wasn't difficult at all to get on AI Mig-15's six just by pulling on the stick. 2nd engagement used some speedbrakes to slow down to match the AI's speed, so same energy level at merge in this one, and should be more representative. The fight drags on longer and had to go into deep buffeting to get on him, but even post buffet the Mystere has a slight turn rate advantage. But surely, in a multi vs multi environment as in campaign mode, tis really not recommended i reckon, for it leaves you on low energy state. Also the tiny bit rate advantage means it is likely insufficient to shake off a mig on your six. https://youtu.be/9V8sxoPDjmw I later flew a 2 v 4 and the AI wingie got 2 kills in quick succession, the 2nd one a deflection shot, much to my surprise Rough glances at aircraft config, Mystere is heavier with a higher fuel load (almost 50% heavier fuel!), has a more powerful engine, has a higher top speed, and a higher wing sweep, and also more effective armament. It is quite obvious that the Mystere is the energy fighter between the 2. So, BnZ away.... The only thing I dislike about it is not quite a stable gun platform or as nimble as the hunter or sabre. I also think it is a good guess that Mig-17 outclasses it a2a wise. But should still be a nice plane, especially as fighter bomber or against older foes!

hmm I think this one likely is? especially GunnerFireChance should help with fps I reckon GunRange=1000//2000...........................Seemed like the gunners were using all their available ammo during running battles so I reduced the engagement range. GunnerFireChance=40//80............TW default value is 80. The He-111 waist gunner manned 2 guns so thought it was logical to reduce this by half. GunnerFireTime=2.0//1.0................TW default value is 1.0. The machine guns don't have much hitting power so bumped this up to 2.0. GunnerAimOffset=0.050.................TW default value. GunnerAimAccuracy=20//60...........TW default value is 60. Reducing this number will solve your problems Arthur. For WW2 bombers I find the 20 entry reduces the accuracy enough to cover up the lack of imagination the AI exhibits during bomber attacks.

I've found out myself that 50s jet dogfighting in campaigns, BnZ is pretty much necessary to survive indeed if the oppos are similar in performance. ...Even then it can get too hard for AI wingmen and it's pretty much wingmen shortage after 6 or 8 missions. The best trick I've found is not to fight at/around the target waypoint (WP 5) as all reds converge to that point. If you do you are essentially facing a jet stream, old enemies disengage while new ones arrive with altitude/speed advantage to bounce on you at low energy states --> very bad. Instead I pick out an enemy flight that is likely at an isolated airspace and engage them there, rinse and repeat until most enemies are going home, then find out mission objective flight and pick them off so as to get mission success. It gets less exciting then huge enemy formations at target WP but it's much easier for wingies to survive.

Well keep up the good work bm. I occasionally check out Il2bos foras and take in some of the FM complaining and thought thankfully TW FMs are completely open, we're not as pro but we make it as seen fit, it's like Ivan Kozhedub said if you want something done, better do it yerself.....:D Something about TW CDL tables i found they are Y=b(X-a)^2 tables. If the component has Cl0 then 'a' would be none zero. So it's not hard to convert 4 deg tbl to 1 deg tbls and such. Also probably just formatting this one, all the mach table data, the value at mach 0.4 is always 1.0 so TK probably normalizes it that way. I dunno if it has any significance but interesting. About the mach tuck, i think it is a real problem.(?) It would be great if TW stock FMs all simulated it, it would make it easier to model sabre's 6-3 wing effect but it was not to be.. I think yes learning by doing can be quite time consuming... It is ok if you are just doing a few during a couple years time but more would mean not very time efficient, as i've found out myself it takes a lotta time to test stuff out if i don't have an academic basis for the numbers i'm using. So... depends on what one likes, i like campaigns and while FMs are integral part of it, dedicated aerodynamics expert is certainly beyond me... But if u have the capacity to go further, it certainly is extremely cool to say the least!

eh good to know Fubar. I had only known the aero center usually bases around 25% mean aero chord and goes from there. As said my aerodynamics knowledge is crappy:X I think you and BM have good stuff to talk about! oh PS! mac length I've been searching for a long time on the net. F-86A/E (early slat wing): MAC 97.03 inch @ wing station 98.71 inch F-86F (6-3 early) MAC 101.94 inch @ wing station 103.1 inch F-86F (6-3 with 12in tip ext. and slats) MAC 100.66 inch ...wing station i didn't bother as not present in korea.. and Stabs MAC 34.71 inch @ h. tail station 33.54 inch

Fubar: as forces go they would all need a section number. The fuselage may not be LiftSurface for example, but still generate up/down/left/right forces. So they would need a section value there??.... Not to mention stabs as they indeed are Liftsurfaces.... Xac is lift center and determine location of the force --> then produces moment no? How does Xac come into play with section value here? You are not making sense....

BM: yes indeed for the real aircraft...have done some deep google-fu and seems a few issues with the 6-3 on the real thing as well. Funnily apparently the real guys changed the fuel sequencing on the fuselage fuel cells (aft cell empties first) as an attempt to move the CG forward a bit...... For bounding boxes it is for a while I suspected, TK use them for [system] hitbox damage modelling like ailerons etc. But then there are cases when a component doesn't even have a node name. Haven been wondering for months of how it was and at last realized it's occam's razor as one Referencearea fits all. It then all fell into place. Simple example i guess CLa of [left/rightstab], they're all scaled down to fit the global ReferenceArea. edit: Wait.... I think you knew this one BM? In your FMs you usually note CD0 total = xxx and stuff. CD0 of all parts summed together = CD0 of entire AC so all components would use the same cross section there. I think i used it as evidence to confirm my understanding. but while I reckon i've come to good terms of game engine in these parts, my knowledge of real aerodynamics is meh... probably a good idea to leave real aero there to you guys... they are certainly complex!

The question then is how are forces/moments calculated on other components, if that is the case:| Moreover how does the FM engine tell if it is the "wing", vs "stab", "verttail", etc, afterall it is all just char type variable to the code, these component names?... http://bbs.thirdwire.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=5658&p=34556&hilit=referencearea#p34556

Fubar! eh got full party of FM meisters here:D BM: my take on the ReferenceArea: 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:|

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.

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.

got links from SimHQ's 29 page (and counting) win10 thread. never10.exe that stops Windows Update from auto install win10 http://www.zdnet.com/article/never10-a-new-tool-for-turning-off-microsofts-windows-10-update/ link here https://www.grc.com/never10.htm and if not comfortable using a third party exe, the direct registry edit method http://www.zdnet.com/article/how-to-block-windows-10-upgrades-on-your-business-network-and-at-home-too/ (used never10.exe myself and will see if those suspicious KB-XXXXX pop up in optional updates again)

Spectre: good sorted then but also, stock A-10A_data landingspeed=49.65 and A-10A_78 landingspeed=49.68. and other values in [flightcontrol] section differ from stock including stallspd, I reckon might be worth fixing if ur A-10A_76 doesn't have a brand new 3rd party FM.

may or may not help but did a lot landing tests, and if AI pulls up in the last second it's usually too high value given at LandingSpeed= dunno why the same aircraft does it differently depending on terrain tho