PACK MOD COREA - Printable Version

+- All-Aircraft-Simulations (https://allaircraftsimulations.com)
+-- Forum: IL2 Work In Progress MODS Download & Discussion (https://allaircraftsimulations.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=268)
+--- Forum: WIP-BETA-MODS DOWNLOAD (https://allaircraftsimulations.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=309)
+--- Thread: PACK MOD COREA (/showthread.php?tid=66373)

---

- AIRdomination - 03.12.2009

HolyGrail Wrote:I believe the main problem is :

Korea mod = same class file edited ( different entries )
Bomb Bay door mod = same class file edited ( different entries )
Pat Smoke and Camera mod = same class file edited ( different entries )
Uranium mod = same class file edited ( class entries fixed , now compatible with bomb bay door mod )

Uranium effects mod class file have been fixed by editing bomb bay door class file entries in to Uranium class file
but that's about it thus far and unless there is one united class file with all entries edited from all mods
to be compatible between each other , there will be problems and game crash happening .
Thus far PAT smoke & camera mod and Korea mod is not compatible for example with Uranium effects mod
and bomb bay door plus mod , hopefully I am not wrong about it .
I don't see how to make this all work and not to force everyone to use or install all mods with edited same
class file in order for game not to crash :lol:
Freddy would have to inlude in his class file also all custom entries from other mods class file to be compatible
between each other but then again you will have to install all 4 mods in order not to crash as united class file entries
will be looking for these other mods during game loading .

That's my $0.02

S! HG

It would make a lot of us really happy if someone can make these 4 mods compatible! I have them all, and I'm getting by so far, but without baydoors I'm better off with PAT mod than the baydoors, so thats my sacrifice. But I would love to have them all compatible again ^^

---

- Chaoic16 - 03.12.2009

8FS_Bulau Wrote:

Chaoic16 Wrote:A..When I open bomb bay or turn smoke on (wing tip smoke), the game crashed ...So for now I am keeping F-86 and MiG-15 from going near 680 mph for now while I am enjoying these Korea War mod....

Wouldn't it make more sense to disable the Bomb Bay Doors Mod instead (and not use smoke)?

For me, it make perfect sense to have a fully stable IL-2 1946 without any problems. I would rather to have working IL-2 1946 without any 'heavily bugged/glitched IL-2 1946. So that is I disabled FM folder until patches that will fix these problems are released. Besides I use bombers a lot in IL-2 1946 along with fighter and attack aircraft. Besides I am using UP v1.8 + SAS and bomb bay plus are packed inside UP v1.8 where you can't find them in MODS folder. I rather not to dig all way deep into IL-2 1946 Files or HSFX and try to find bomb bay because if I do anything wrong, I may destroy my IL-2 1946 + UP v1.8 + SAS where I spend a very long time adding, tweaking, and customizing.


Chaoic out...

---

- Birdman - 04.12.2009

Chaoic16 Wrote:A warning for everyone who uses UP v1.8, when any of you install Korea War mod, please make sure you disable FM folder because these folder causes serious bugs in UP v1.8. When I open bomb bay or turn smoke on (wing tip smoke), the game crashed with memory error messages. I will be waiting for Freddy to fix this issues, it got me frustrated because this FM folder removes plane exploding when going over 680 when I want to go mach one in steep dive in F-86A to F Sabre. So for now I am keeping F-86 and MiG-15 from going near 680 mph for now while I am enjoying these Korea War mod.


Chaoic out...

Does your F-86 explode at 680 mph? I also have the Corea pack on top of UP 1.8 + SAS buttons with the FM folder disabled. I don't have the new G-effects and my Sabre doesn't have ejection seat, but I can lose my control surfaces and wings in supersonic dive at 1300+ km/h without explosion.

---

- 8FS_Bulau - 04.12.2009

Chaoic16 Wrote:...I am using UP v1.8 + SAS and bomb bay plus are packed inside UP v1.8 where you can't find them in MODS folder...

Rgr! Understand that.

---

- Chaoic16 - 04.12.2009

Birdman Wrote:

Chaoic16 Wrote:A warning for everyone who uses UP v1.8, when any of you install Korea War mod, please make sure you disable FM folder because these folder causes serious bugs in UP v1.8. When I open bomb bay or turn smoke on (wing tip smoke), the game crashed with memory error messages. I will be waiting for Freddy to fix this issues, it got me frustrated because this FM folder removes plane exploding when going over 680 when I want to go mach one in steep dive in F-86A to F Sabre. So for now I am keeping F-86 and MiG-15 from going near 680 mph for now while I am enjoying these Korea War mod.


Chaoic out...

Does your F-86 explode at 680 mph? I also have the Corea pack on top of UP 1.8 + SAS buttons with the FM folder disabled. I don't have the new G-effects and my Sabre doesn't have ejection seat, but I can lose my control surfaces and wings in supersonic dive at 1300+ km/h without explosion.

Yes my all F-86s explode at 680 mph no matter how steep I dive and I was around 10,000 ft to below that.


Chaoic out...

---

- HolyGrail - 04.12.2009

AIRdomination Wrote:It would make a lot of us really happy if someone can make these 4 mods compatible! I have them all, and I'm getting by so far, but without baydoors I'm better off with PAT mod than the baydoors, so thats my sacrifice. But I would love to have them all compatible again ^^

Indeed you can have them all but it depends in which order your mods are loaded by game .
If Korea mod is loaded before Uranium mod , then all extra custom aircraft damage smoke
addition will not work as game did already read Korea class which don't have these extra entries .
Problem is that guys think everything is working while effects mod is without extra new damage aircraft
smoke and for the first time ever game stock jet planes got separated engine at full power smoke from
prop aircrafts damage smoke which was previously shared between each other and now not anymore :-?
That was one of the main point why Uranium mod was released to have Uranium class file used in
order to get these new effects goodies .
If Uranium mod is loaded before Korea mod , then Korea mod will not work as Uranium class file
which is for example now read by game as first will not read anymore Korea mod class file and its entries .
There is nothing worse then configuring stuff and then portion is messed up and left out because of various
conflicting mods installs in different order .
It's pity after doing all this work to find out that so many still even never saw new damage smokes and separated
jet engine full power smoke because their game install is not reading Uranium required class file but other
mod's class file which don't have these smoke effects entries included and guys have no idea that
portion of effects is left out in cold :lol:

Uranium effects mod was created for all ingame aircrafts and ground objects .
Korea mod is separated road with class file entries focusing on Korea mod jet planes operation and effects
for these jet era planes .

S! HG

---

- Freddy - 04.12.2009

Quote:Uranium effects mod was created for all ingame aircrafts and ground objects

I will try this Uranium Mod .... Perhaps I ll make Korea mod compatible with it , but I want to make some tests before ...

---

- HolyGrail - 04.12.2009

Hello Freddy

give it try , nothing to lose , if you don't like it you will say so
I don't know what game install version you're running , hopefully you get to see all effects correctly .

S! HG

---

- Chaoic16 - 04.12.2009

Freddy,

Are you also making UP v1.8 + Uranium mod version as well, in order, to make Korea mod being compatible with both of these? The reason why I ask is because there are many UP v1.8 user that also use these effect mods and I have been looking forward to your patch fixes for UP v1.8 + Uranium mod so I can finally use the FM features that you and your team have created for IL-2 1946.


Chaoic out...

---

- fallout3 - 05.12.2009

I use modded 4.09m,without any mod packs.
Have SAS3.0 buttons,MiG-15bis and F-86A5.
Installed Mod Coree,all other planes work well,but when using F-86A and F-86F,the game just stops when loaded 100%.
Could anyone help ? Thanks in advance.

---

- ACE-OF-ACES - 05.12.2009

Sorry for taking so long, we got a lot of snow last week and I didn't have a lot of free time between shoveling snow and the power going out.

But as promised I did a series of climbs at different climb speeds to determine the best climb speed (BCS). I did 5 tests, starting at an IAS of 250mph up to 450mph at 50mph increments.

As part of this test I also wanted to see if there was a climb speed that would produce the 10,000fpm ROC that IL2Compare reported.

First lets take a look at the 5 different time to climbs (TTC) graphs



Looking at the graph you can see the 300mph BCS reaches 20kft sooner (in less time) than the other BCS speeds.

Now lets take a look at the 5 different rate of climb (ROC) graphs



Looking at the graph you can see it agrees with the TTC graph, in that the 300mph BCS produces the largest ROC. At least it does up to 20kft. Note at 20kft the 250mph BCS starts to overtake the 300mph BCS wrt ROC. In English, if you were flying, you would want to climb at ~300mph up to 20kft than switch to a BCS of ~250mph as you continue to climb.

As you look at the graphs, keep in mind that in the real world the raw data will have a best fit curve drawn threw the data points (see next) to account for the settling time of the pilot. Also note, these ROC graphs show a bit of a curve (concave) to them. Thus a straight line fit of these data points is not the best method, but it is the simplest. With that said I applied the straight line fit to the middle of the data, which means the end points (i.e. Sea Level (SL) and 20kft) are going to be a little less than they actually are. But, looking at the graph you should be able to imagine the 'curve' beyond the 'straight line' fit at SL and 20kft.

Now lets take a look at the best fit, straight line fit of the ROC data @ 300mph BCS.



As you can see, the straight line fit matches the slope of the data best at the middle, where the straight line fit is going to report lower than actual ROC values at the end points.

Now lets graph the best fit curve to the real world data (RWD)



As you can see, as predicted by IL2Comp, the in-game F-86A has a much larger ROC than the RWD! Granted it is not the 10,000fpm @ SL that IL2Comp predicted, the straight line fit only shows 9,400fpm @ SL. But keep in mind the straight line fit is a little less than the actual ROC at the end points. Looking at the graph you can imagine the actual ROC is ~10,000fpm.

So in summary, the theory that Freddys' modified Java class might be hiding something from IL2Comp does not appear to be the case. In that even if you only use the straight line results you can see the % error is around 25%.

Now that I have the BCS per altitudes I can do a full up ROC test where I adj the BCS with altitude, for example at 20kft I can switch from 300mph to 250mph, with the goal of obtaining the best TTC values. Which I can than compare to the real world TTC data to find the % error. In that an error in ROC only affects the ROC at that alt, but, an error in ROC has an cumulative effect on the TTC values. Which result in a plane being able to reach a specific altitude much sooner than it could in real life.

Here is the RWD I used, it is from the F-86A Flight Manual


Here are the track files of each test
ROC @ 250mph BCS
ROC @ 300mph BCS
ROC @ 350mph BCS
ROC @ 400mph BCS
ROC @ 450mph BCS

Now I have to go shovel some more snow! ;(

---

- Freddy - 06.12.2009

Quote:So in summary, the theory that Freddys' modified Java class might be hiding something from IL2Comp does not appear to be the case

The modified things are in the next update ....
I ve said to you to wait for the next update and to make your test again ....
This next update is coming probably this week but it s a very large project and to prevent from any bug it takes a lot of time ...
I ve made a lot of changes to make these planes very close to the real ...
I ll post the list of these changes when the update will be available

---

- ACE-OF-ACES - 06.12.2009

Freddy Wrote:The modified things are in the next update ....

The modified things?

Freddy Wrote:I ve said to you to wait for the next update and to make your test again ....

Not that it maters, In that I don't need anyones permission to test anything. But I didn't see your post where you admitted there is a problem with the ROC until after I posted those results. That and the purpose of this test was two fold, One to show there is a bug in the ROC and two to see how well the 'real fly' test results matches the IL2Comp results.

That is to say you said awhile back that you think the IL2Comp graphs are wrong, in that you 'think' IL2Comp is not taking into account your Java changes. That is to say you 'thought' the 10,000fpm ROC that IL2Comp reported is not valid. But, as you can see from my 'real fly' testing agrees with the IL2Comp results, thus, it appears IL2Comp 'is' taking into account your Java changes.

Freddy Wrote:This next update is coming probably this week but it s a very large project and to prevent from any bug it takes a lot of time ...

I understand, I am just glad I was able to help by pointing out the ROC bug, that you are now going to address in your next update!

Freddy Wrote:I ve made a lot of changes to make these planes very close to the real ...

Well, I have heard that before! Thus only time will tell! At least now we know the IL2Comp results will be close to the 'real fly' results, thus providing quick 'ball park' feedback on how well the plane is simulated.

Freddy Wrote:I ll post the list of these changes when the update will be available

Cool, looking forward to it!

---

- Freddy - 06.12.2009

Can you answer some day without using a million quotes ?

And it seems you don t understand what I say ...
Yes for me IL2 compare is not good to make a FM ... It s good to see the difference between two planes in the game , and that s all ... Yes it makes errors ...
But it s not very important ...

Read what I ve said from the begining , Corea Mod is work in progress , the fm will change ... About the java class , I ve said a large part of the FM is written in the Java class , but I ve said to you to wait for the update to see these changes ....
From your first post , you are looking only for the climb rate , but it s just 0.5 % of the FM ... At last not the most important ...
My opinion was born when I ve talked with some pilots , in Il2 you have not the real feeling of a warbird ... A pilot said to me , in il2 , it s just like if you was in a Cessna , but not in a warbird , a warbird is very different, very nervous , ....etc ....
In Il2 , you have to make some compromise , you have the choice , sometimes you have the choice between the good numbers on the paper with an horrible plane in the game , or some change with the numbers on the paper and a good plane in the game ...
For example the F-86 was too light in the game ( not on the paper ...) It was able to have a very good fly without engine ... It s always my first test ... I get altitude and I cut the engine and I look what happens ... Not good in this case ...
So I ve made this F-86 more heavy ... But making that , the engine power was too poor ... So I increased the engine power a little ... But making that , the climb rate was a little overmodelised .... etc ...etc ....etc .... It s very difficult as you can see !
I m working to fix all the bugs , perhaps this F-86 will be not perfect , but if it s a little more close to the real than the others , I will be happy ..
It should be easy for me to make a good FM with the default values , but if you let the stick to a real pilot , he will say to you : you are not flying a F-86 , your curves perhaps are perfect ( you think they are perfect ) but your plane is very very far from the real when you fly with it in the game ...

But at last , before any other talk , wait for the update ...

---

- ACE-OF-ACES - 06.12.2009

Freddy Wrote:Can you answer some day without using a million quotes ?

Not likely, in that I have found I make less errors by replying to what people say in smaller chunks.

Freddy Wrote:And it seems you don t understand what I say ...
Yes for me IL2 compare is not good to make a FM ... It s good to see the difference between two planes in the game , and that s all ... Yes it makes errors ...
But it s not very important ...

No I understood your initial statement on IL2Comp..

I just don't agree with your assessment of it only good for comparisons.

And my 'real fly' tests prove it!

Thus I think it is you that may not understand what I say/said.

The part where I said IL2Comp is not 100% accurate, but, most of the time it is very close to the 'real fly' values.

Freddy Wrote:Read what I ve said from the begining,

Oh I have, as a mater of fact I am one of the few that has read everything you have said from the begging. Such that I am one of the few people here who has actually done what you said, as in test the FM for ourselves.

Freddy Wrote:Corea Mod is work in progress , the fm will change ...

Now that is what I call progress!

Look how far we have come! We started out with you calling me names and claiming your F86 ROC 'performance' is more real than anyone else, to you talking civil and admitting your ROC 'performance' has a bug in it and will be fixed in the next update!

Freddy Wrote:About the Java class , I ve said a large part of the FM is written in the Java class ,

Actually I all ready knew that before you said it. Keep in mind there are two parts to the simulation of an aircraft 'performance' One the 6DOF math that is typically used by more than one aircraft, and the coefficients that are plugged into that 6DOF math that actually defines the 'performance' of the particular aircraft. With that said, the combination of both is what most people are referring to when they say the 'FM'. If your tweaking the 6DOF and/or the coefficients data base in Java I don't really care which as long as the result of those tweaks match the real world data (RWD) performance results.

Freddy Wrote:but I ve said to you to wait for the update to see these changes ....

Actually that is not true..

You had a little snippet 'about' me in a reply of yours to =DFA=BeoWolf and GaryR of how you would have responded to me had I said something a little differently. That is not something you 'told me'! You may be surprised to here this, but I don't read every reply to/from everybody of every post here. I don't have time for that! Thus I only read things that are addressed to me. Which goes back to the reason I QUOTE everything, so the intended person is sure to see my reply to them. So, with that said, if you want to reply to me, QUOTE ME and reply TO ME! That is to say, don't expect me to read all your posts to everyone else for the one sentence that you might have intended for me. Better yet, PM me if you want to be sure I get your message!

Freddy Wrote:From your first post , you are looking only for the climb rate ,

Nope.. I look at many things. But I tend to stick with the things I have RWD on to compare to.

Freddy Wrote:but it s just 0.5 % of the FM ...

If you say so.

Freddy Wrote:At last not the most important ...

Oh I totally disagree!

It may not be the most important thing to you with regards to all the things you do.

But performance wise the ROC is one of the most telling things about an aircraft's performance!

Even more so that it's top speed IMHO (within reason)

The ROC tells you, indirectly, just how much excess power a plane has. As in modern energy methods it can be related to the climb, speed and turn performance of a plane.

Which is why I think the ROC is one of the most important performance factors!

And why it is so important to get it right!

Freddy Wrote:My opinion was born when I ve talked with some pilots ,

Mine to

And

Many books on the subject of aircraft performance!

Freddy Wrote:in Il2 you have not the real feeling of a warbird ... A pilot said to me , in il2 , it s just like if you was in a Cessna , but not in a warbird , a warbird is very different, very nervous , ....etc ....

Hence the name simulation and not reality!

Freddy Wrote:In Il2 , you have to make some compromise , you have the choice , sometimes you have the choice between the good numbers on the paper with an horrible plane in the game , or some change with the numbers on the paper and a good plane in the game ...

I totally disagree!

The things that are lacking in a PC like the 'feel' you spoke of is always going to be a short coming between a flight simulation and the real thing. But there are many ways to make up for for the lack of 'feel'. For example, some air force flight simulators I have seen use the seat harness to simulate 'g' forces. In the case where the pilot would apply the air brake, they simply pull the harness tighter. Thus the pilot 'feels' like he is being thrown forward against the harness when in fact it is the harness that is being pulled backwards into his chest.

Thus there are many ways to make up for the lack of 'feel'

But, allowing the performance of the plane to vary from it's actual values by 40% is NOT one of them!

Freddy Wrote:For example the F-86 was too light in the game ( not on the paper ...) It was able to have a very good fly without engine ... It s always my first test ... I get altitude and I cut the engine and I look what happens ... Not good in this case ... So I ve made this F-86 more heavy ... But making that , the engine power was too poor ... So I increased the engine power a little ... But making that , the climb rate was a little overmodelised .... etc ...etc ....etc .... It s very difficult as you can see !

I don't think you understand me. In that I all ready said I don't care if you have to tweak the numbers away from their actual values, be it weight, thrust, drag (i.e. the coefficients feed into the 6DOF math) as long as the performance that comes out of it all is correct! I fully understand that it is a balancing act, I have for years! Back in 1992 when I tweaked my fist FM to make a plane hit the performance numbers more accurately (read RBI, AOTP, AOE, etc). Granted most of those were tabled based flight simulations (read non 6DOF) but the idea is the same. You tweak the inputs to make sure the outputs are correct.

Freddy Wrote:I m working to fix all the bugs , perhaps this F-86 will be not perfect ,

As I have said many times now..

No sim ever was, is, or will be perfect.

Maybe if you actually replied to something I said (i.e. quote me) you might have noticed me saying that a few times thus far, same goes for me saying I realize you have to tweak the inputs to get the right outputs.

Freddy Wrote:but if it s a little more close to the real than the others , I will be happy ..

Well one thing is for sure

Anything less than 35% error is better!

Freddy Wrote:It should be easy for me to make a good FM with the default values , but if you let the stick to a real pilot , he will say to you : you are not flying a F-86 , your curves perhaps are perfect ( you think they are perfect ) but your plane is very very far from the real when you fly with it in the game ...

That is true of every flight simulation!

Be it the $40 variety or the $40,000,000.00 variety!

No sim ever was, is or will be perfect!

But that is no excuse for a 35% error in the performance numbers!

Freddy Wrote:But at last , before any other talk , wait for the update ...

Well any other testing at least!

---