F-86J V0.09 Discussion - Printable Version

F-86J V0.09 Discussion - 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 Discussion Section (https://allaircraftsimulations.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=311)
+--- Thread: F-86J V0.09 Discussion (/showthread.php?tid=71163)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Re: F-86J V0.09 Discussion - Guest - 08.08.2010

Docholiday perhaps there are Corrupted Java files? Try downloading it again. I thought corrupet classes created 20% CTD.

Re: F-86J V0.09 Discussion - US_GRANT - 08.08.2010

Well, I am up and running with v009. Still need to do some more shooting with the new AIM-9 Algorythms, but what I've seen so far look good.

Re: F-86J V0.09 Discussion - Jimdandy - 08.08.2010

I noticed that while flying several different aircraft i would get a aim 9 disingauged message or aim -9 engauged message. There were other pilots in the J flying when this happened and we were using the zuti Mds mod.

Re: F-86J V0.09 Discussion - Storebror - 09.08.2010

George Formby Wrote:why not just remove the whole embedded code thing and end this controversy.

Hi George, kindof CC from SAS but users should join that discussion both here and there as I think:

you seem to have a good nose for things bearing the potential risk of irritating end users, looks like I should ask you in advance before I drop new inventions in :wink:
What do you thing about the following 2 changes:
1a.) The 20% stage message changes from opt-out to opt-in, meaning that it will be shown only in the user manually adds a line to the conf.ini? or...
1b.) The 20% stage message gets shifted to the eventlog.lst, so it will not be shown on boot time but can be investigated in the log file if necessary?
2.) The file checking mechanism (which is already not being used in V0.09 anymore) will be left out until further notice and we'll discuss the contents of the file checking mechanism in public before bringing it back in possibly?

A last word to the 20% stage message: This is just meant to make life easier because of the known incompatibilities of the DiffFM mod (which e.g. is incompatible with the Advanced Engine Management mod at the moment). It's just there for BETA testing and has never been planned to reside in the final version. Any branding will be removed here as well (I just noticed that the three letters are in there currently, too - sorry for that).

Best regards - Mike

Re: F-86J V0.09 Discussion - 8FS_Bulau - 09.08.2010

Docholiday Wrote:...I can use my game only with deaktivated MOD-folder...

You can try deactivating each mod separately, one at a time (take care to edit air.ini also as required) and try to isolate if it is a particular mod.

What about the Diff-FM? Do you have that in MODS folder?

Re: F-86J V0.09 Discussion - Docholiday - 09.08.2010

Verhängnis Wrote:Docholiday perhaps there are Corrupted Java files? Try downloading it again. I thought corrupet classes created 20% CTD.

I am so stupid ! I had the JSGME "Warbirdsofprey" activated. With this I can`t use the MODS-folder. Now everything works fine !!

Thanks Guys for Your Help Smile

Doc

Re: F-86J V0.09 Discussion - Fireskull - 10.08.2010

Good day, everyone

Oh, don't mind me: Just doing my job again, watching how things develop. I see things are progressing nicely. 8)

Fireskull, Administrator Smile

Re: F-86J V0.09 Discussion - mati140 - 10.08.2010

Hello, good job on this new guidance alghoritm. I have some suggestions though:
1. Can you make the "Engagement OFF" mode the default one? IRL it's impossible to arm guided missiles on the ground, here - it's impossible to disengage them when on the ground and an ready-for-strafing-enemy is in sight.
2. Can you make AUTO mode removable by user? I'm only engaging it manually, and AUTO mode is just some kind of "pain in ass", especialy when I forget double-pushing it when disengaging.
3. AIM-9 is actually an close combat missile. I think that fallingdown first after accelerating and then going up isn't good flightpath for it. It's carried on the rail for a reason. It should go straight from rail, deatach from aircraft at the end of rail and start guiding to target imediately after deatachment. i know that aircraft can blow up itself this way but AFAIK this missile had arming delay, so it didn't blow up if it was too close to aircraft which launched it. As weopons in IL-2 don't colide with anything like other objects and if they don't blow up they can go through aircraft, if delay will be modelled there won't be any problem I think.
4. Finally, are you going to do some RWR an countermeassures in future? Korean ere planes - late MiG-15bis, MiG-17 and all F-86F had tail RWR wich warned pilots if there was enemy using RR gunsight behind them and sighted on them. Of course it requires new, integrated RR mod. I don't know how about countermeasures but as MiG-21 is comming you should consider doing it on first place after this mod. Especialy with this new guidance alghoritm which is a bit to "uber" for AI to avoid it

Re: F-86J V0.09 Discussion - Storebror - 10.08.2010

mati140 Wrote:Can you make the "Engagement OFF" mode the default one? IRL it's impossible to arm guided missiles on the ground, here - it's impossible to disengage them when on the ground and an ready-for-strafing-enemy is in sight.

Well, it's a bit hard to judge which mode fits best for everyone.
Regarding the ground issue, one thing I could do easily is implementing a lock which leaves the missiles disarmed as long as the A/C is on ground (maybe even including a delay before arming after takeoff).

mati140 Wrote:Can you make AUTO mode removable by user? I'm only engaging it manually, and AUTO mode is just some kind of "pain in ass", especialy when I forget double-pushing it when disengaging.

Just like the difficult decision which fits best for everyone, the AUTO mode of course isn't realistic, it's just for making the missiles easier to use for less experienced users. I guess there's a reasonable number of users around which never ever do land an A/C and never pressed the brake key, they might even not know which key it is. That's why the AUTO mode is in.
Of course I could make it possible to disable AUTO mode completely with a specific line in the conf.ini, but in the past we made some bad experience with leaving users having to edit their conf.ini in order to get a mod to work in a specific way.
I currently don't have any reasonable idea how to fulfill all the eligible request regarding the engagement modes, maybe someone has some brilliant idea to share?

mati140 Wrote:AIM-9 is actually an close combat missile. I think that fallingdown first after accelerating and then going up isn't good flightpath for it. It's carried on the rail for a reason. It should go straight from rail, deatach from aircraft at the end of rail and start guiding to target imediately after deatachment.

While that's true for later versions of the AIM-9 for sure, I watched a set of videos showing launches of early stage AIM-9 and AIM-7 missiles, and those which have been mounted underneath wings did drop that way for real.
There's a significant difference to later version AIM-9s mounted e.g. on wingtip stations. Those missile's had their rocket engaged prior to releasing them from the rail, thus they "swooooshed" off the rail. In contrast, the very early guided missiles didn't seem to have rocket motors reliable enough for that task, hence the drop to stay clean from A/C in case of rocket motor failure.
However you're right for any later version of the AIM-9. An AIM-9D for instance couldn't leave an F-8 with such kind of drop pattern, it has to have it's rocket engaged on the rail.

mati140 Wrote:Finally, are you going to do some RWR an countermeassures in future? Korean ere planes - late MiG-15bis, MiG-17 and all F-86F had tail RWR wich warned pilots if there was enemy using RR gunsight behind them and sighted on them. Of course it requires new, integrated RR mod. I don't know how about countermeasures but as MiG-21 is comming you should consider doing it on first place after this mod. Especialy with this new guidance alghoritm which is a bit to "uber" for AI to avoid it

The guidance algorithm currently is a bit "uber" less due to it's pattern in general, but due to the missing restraints of the flight envelope. There are some limitations waiting to be brought into the game, like the missing look-down/shoot-down capability, the tendency to track sun ray etc. However, AI is fairly capable to avoid the missiles, on veteran level the regularly do a good task in breaking off and leaving the missiles passing them by, at least to me in my quick tests.
A radar warning system is one thing to be implemented, but it wouldn't help against IR-missiles.
Chaff/Flare is another thing, plans already started but they're at early stage. However, until late 70s there's been no other way to get notified of approaching IR-missiles than seeing them be oneself or being warned by wingmen.

Best regards - Mike

Re: F-86J V0.09 Discussion - mati140 - 10.08.2010

1. Maybe you can map the shift between automatic - manual only mod to one of difficulty level options? For example "limited ammo" or "no padlock" ?

2:

Quote:While that's true for later versions of the AIM-9 for sure, I watched a set of videos showing launches of early stage AIM-9 and AIM-7 missiles, and those which have been mounted underneath wings did drop that way for real.
There's a significant difference to later version AIM-9s mounted e.g. on wingtip stations. Those missile's had their rocket engaged prior to releasing them from the rail, thus they "swooooshed" off the rail. In contrast, the very early guided missiles didn't seem to have rocket motors reliable enough for that task, hence the drop to stay clean from A/C in case of rocket motor failure.
However you're right for any later version of the AIM-9. An AIM-9D for instance couldn't leave an F-8 with such kind of drop pattern, it has to have it's rocket engaged on the rail.

Are you sure it did deatach like this though it was mounted on rail? Maybe it didn't use rail but pylon? And maybe after modelling the few seconds arming delay after launching missile maybe there will be no risk of being blown up by own missile?

3. I'm afraid that one of things that are uber for early version is the missiles FOV. You said it has 4* seekers FOV but with mirror the FOV is 25* (or 30*, I don't remember). However, althuogh the whole field that mirror can observe is 25*, the angle that it can see at one time is only 4* that seeker looks in at the moment - and at the begining it looks straight. It won't even know about the enemy inside 25* FOV untill it pass trough the central 4*, gets spoted by seeker and starts being tracked - the lock want be broken as long as enemy stays inside 25* FOV then. Am I wrong?

Re: F-86J V0.09 Discussion - Storebror - 11.08.2010

mati140 Wrote:Maybe you can map the shift between automatic - manual only mod to one of difficulty level options? For example "limited ammo" or "no padlock" ?

While that's a good approach to QMB users, I guess it will not suit others fine.
Currently I'm thinking of providing two different options for the Sidewinder ordnance, one with automatic engagement and one with manual mode selection. That way the user can choose between those options by selecting the right ordnance collection.

mati140 Wrote:Are you sure it did deatach like this though it was mounted on rail? Maybe it didn't use rail but pylon? And maybe after modelling the few seconds arming delay after launching missile maybe there will be no risk of being blown up by own missile?

I'm not sure, I can just guess and estimate according to things I can find on the internet :wink:
One thing which points into the direction of being right with the drop pattern is that the F-86 likely would have suffered from flameouts if the Sidewinder would swoosh off the current rail positions. They even had this issue when using the experimental 20mm cannon equipment in Korea, and the gas emission of the cannons is likely less than what would have taken in from the Sidewinder's rocket engine emissions.

mati140 Wrote:I'm afraid that one of things that are uber for early version is the missiles FOV. You said it has 4* seekers FOV but with mirror the FOV is 25* (or 30*, I don't remember). However, althuogh the whole field that mirror can observe is 25*, the angle that it can see at one time is only 4* that seeker looks in at the moment - and at the begining it looks straight. It won't even know about the enemy inside 25* FOV untill it pass trough the central 4*, gets spoted by seeker and starts being tracked - the lock want be broken as long as enemy stays inside 25* FOV then. Am I wrong?

I'm not entitled to judge what's right or wrong here, I'm not the leading engineer of the Sidewinder construction team.
However I read the functionality of the combination of mirror and seeking head different.
First of all, later versions of the Sidewinder were equipped with seeking heads with significantly narrower FOV, e.g. 2.5° or even 1.25° depending on the version. If the target in question always would have had to pass that FOV area, this wouldn't have been an improvement, but vice versa.
My understanding is that the mirror reflects the signals by rotating in front of the detector, and it reflects signals from it's whole FOV of 25° to the detector. The "decision" whether the target is close to the center or off from it depends on the length of time it is visible to the detector. Targets being at the edge of the 25° FOV are being reflected to the detector for a short period of time during the turn only, while those being right in the center will hit the detector all the time.
The 4° field of the seeker comes in place where we're talking of separating different targets from each other. That's why having it narrowed was an improvement to later versions of the Sidewinder. The AIM-9B just cannot distinguish between two targets being within an angle of 4° or less from the missile's POV, they just look like one single target to the missile.

Best regards - Mike

Re: F-86J V0.09 Discussion - Guest - 11.08.2010

How about you make a Realistic Version and a Simplified version to suit the Different Users.

Re: F-86J V0.09 Discussion - mati140 - 11.08.2010

OK, i found some bugs:
1.
[Image: 1108201013-41-39-2.jpg]

As you can see on those images, when I select the Mk 12 + 2x120DT + 207DT + 2xAIM-9 and US country, the outer pylons are too close too each another and one of added pylons (the right one) is away from the wing.

2. When AIM-9 is armed and I change to external view and back to cockpit view, then I can't hear any "roror" sounds anymore 'till I disarm and arm missile again.

3. It's impossible to lock enemy when you are in front of it, even if it goes straight on you.

4. I checked all directions, all ranks, all speeds and all altiudes - AI didn't avoid any of my missiles if they locked. But it's a less important thing about it. I can't avoid them too! I tried breaking and going 90* from missile and I avoided it only once - when I flown 800 kph and strooooongly pitching up (missile was fired from above) when it was close (of course I got black out - it was about 10 g - and while I was unconscious I got killed by next sidewinder). When I tried this manouver on lower speed I got killed everytime. I think this new guidance system is too uber too.

EDIT: I think conf.ini entry is the best idea (don't care about George Formby, after that incident with logo he found you a good target for blaming and he will blame you whatever you do) bc if you make them as different weopon 1. The weopon selection menu will be one big mess. 2. If some one makes a mission with "user's weopons disabled" there will be no way to change it. This (conf.ini) method is already used by "CarrierTakeOff Mod" and "BombBayDoor Mod", so I think it's good choose.

However I can't see any problem when playing Single Mission/ Campaign if it will be changed with Difficulty level option.

Re: F-86J V0.09 Discussion - Storebror - 11.08.2010

mati140 Wrote:OK, i found some bugs:
(...)
US country, the outer pylons are too close too each another and one of added pylons (the right one) is away from the wing.

Thanks for the report, sorry for that, you're right, when I tried to fix the mapping issue for US by mistake I put an old set of hooks in.
Bugfix files can be found at:
http://www.adrive.com/public/4df2c6b3fc ... cf74f.html
Extract it to the F-86J mod's folder (usually MODS\F_86J in your IL-2 Directory) and overwrite the two existing files when being asked to.

mati140 Wrote:When AIM-9 is armed and I change to external view and back to cockpit view, then I can't hear any "roror" sounds anymore 'till I disarm and arm missile again.

Yes, confirmed. I've added this to my internal buglist, with the next release a bug tracking will be available.
I'll investigate in that soon, currently I guess it should be easy to solve.

mati140 Wrote:It's impossible to lock enemy when you are in front of it, even if it goes straight on you.

Yes, that's historically correct. The AIM-9B was missing any head-on capabilities.

mati140 Wrote:I checked all directions, all ranks, all speeds and all altiudes (...) I think this new guidance system is too uber too.

Hmm... can't confirm that from my side yet.
However we should consider that the AIM-9B is pretty successful when being launched from within it's engagement envelope. Most of the Vietnam AIM-9 misses were due to the missiles not being launched within it's parameters, whereas the vast majority of the missiles which have been launched within their engagement envelope eventually hit their target.
Two factors will tone down the success rate significantly, one being the lack of Look-Down/Shoot-Down capability, the other being the risk of AIM-9Bs tracking the sunray suddenly. Both limitations will be part of further versions, the targeted pilot can then decide either to turn towards the sun or towards the ground, depending on the current altitude, in order to shake off the missile.
Additionally I'm thinking of implementing some random error rate. Will have to see how this can suit the requirements...

mati140 Wrote:don't care about George Formby

I'm perfectly fine with George.
The decision whether conf.ini or enhanced ordnance list suits better will take some more days.
Maybe somebody else can tell his opinion on that, too?

Best regards - Mike

Re: F-86J V0.09 Discussion - lm2f - 16.08.2010

The F-86J seems to be conflicting with histomod V2, is there any way to make it work or incorporate the sidewinders onto the histomod sabres?