Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. For Example, there are transcoding capable A.I such OpenAI Codex that can translate code, debug, test, and deploy. I think now is the time to transform DCS into a modern game. Scripting is limited and inneficient. Also, going into C++ expands the horizon on possibilities from Graphical upgrades, audio, better models, better physics, .... Codex also can help you guys code with new toys like Vulkan. I absolutely love DCS and would love more than anything see it evolve and come around as the most modern Flight Sim with the best engine in market. Quick programming language translation using OpenAI Codex https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUCUxFHtJvw&t=128s
  2. Actually the way DCS FM is made is the hard way since it does not use standarized engineering methods and processes.
  3. Its relatively easy to get the mathematical model of the aircraft, its purely academic research. What is hard is getting data from the game to build a comparative model. So far the best I can say is that its off by a little, thus the current Flight model does not represent an accurate version of the real thing. Maybe one day I can extract data from the game and build a comparative model and determine by how much and where. RB have their Flight model and could easily compare to the Data from NASA VSRA program. I would if I had a way to get data out of the game, that would be a good practice for academic purposes. Obs.: Flight model include the flight controls which on the Harrier case are software, response times on reaction control, thrust curve response time, and many other stuff that is not even debated on the manuals given to the military.
  4. Evolving into the topic, the state space model of the flight model does not correspond to the in-game model by a slight deviance that is above 10%. I need time to build the MATLAB model and put side by side with DCS. RB would help if they let us have their FM for mathematical comparison. NASA did all the testing and they have good resources about this topic. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19900012460/downloads/19900012460.pdf
  5. That is the challenge, getting the Langley test results or any flight model created afterwards. I only found academic reference on those. The FM is slightly off, its just incredibly hard to find academic information in something so old. How I know it is off. Well, RCS bleed flow curves are not factored among lots of other things, I would guess they dont have a fancy model and scripted most behaviors. Below I present a series of examples of modelling aircraft, very useful for very complicated models such the harrier and vectored thrust and high maneuverable aircrafts. For example:
  6. It is possible, and we wont know unless we can see their Flight model. VSTOL is extremely complex to model and I think RB missed lots of aspects by just using the USMC manuals. One of these probably is the engine power and Cd.
  7. I am a mechanical engineer and just like to spend my free time messing with simulations. To summarize: a flight model for VSTOL aircraft is a extremely complex topic and reverse engineer the aircraft from performance charts given to pilots is not ideal. This is a brief book on the Aerodynamics of VSTOL aircrafts from the time the Harrier was developed, it gives a glimpse about the topic. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD0688921.pdf There are lots of Books and publications specially on AIAAA and recently formed a VTOL journal. It is a complex topic and It is not that RB or the people is reading the graphics wrong, you are not exposed to the complete picture. It is necessary to dig some performance engine tests and apply that to the right Flight Model equations in order to derive a precise model of the Harrier. Currently RB team did the best they could with the USMC manual which is pretty good for a videogame but it is not quite yet good model for a simulation. The best way is to find Academic information.
  8. There is the Hardware which is the Aircraft and there is the software which has slight changes between nations, but the ATAS is almost plug and play. Hardware wise there is very little changes and there is even a mount fabricated for it. The USA did not opt for it. Romeo hellfire's are not compatible with the AH64D and that is understandable, I was not asking for that. APKWS is totally acceptable since there are still AH64D block 2 today flying around that could be using them given a doctrine change. All modern missiles have INS, I think you are debating semantics however that's how they are engineered, it is part of their flight control unit it might need the SAL or any other seeker to effectively hit the target but it does not change the fact it does have INS inside of it. What I think you believe I am referring is that AGM-114 K,L,M are little JDAMs which they are not. I found a jewel from 1983: The current countries that operate AH64Ds same aircraft as the United States, some have software upgrades: Egypt Greece Israel Japan Kuwait Netherlands Saudi Arabia Singapore South Korea Taiwan United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States
  9. The evidence is on the NFM-000 and NFM-400. I agree the older Flight Model was too off, however this one is aprox. 15% underpowered. There are other aspects to the graphics that is not listed, they are assuming 95% of the total engine output as safety margin. So even if the currently model was for the engine F402--RR--408 (Pegasus11-61) it would need to be slightly above of what the manual states to match what the aircraft would output. You can confirm on figures: Maximum Corrected Hover Capability, Remarks engine: F402--RR--408 on Figure 3-8 Hover Capability Dry, Remarks engine: F402--RR--408 on Figure 3-10 Vertical Takeoff Capability, Remarks engine: F402--RR--408 on Figure 3-12 Remember that the engine F402--RR--408 (Pegasus11-61) is capable of aprox. 22,200 lbs of static thrust running dry in optimum ICAO conditions. There are engineering tables which states how much loss of thrust according to the Reaction Control System required flow rates, and varying conditions (temperature, air pressure, ....). From those tables they derive (with a safety margin) what is given to the pilots and what you can see on NFM-000 and NFM-400. My personal opinion is that RB misunderstood the tables and made the engines slightly closer to the F402--RR--406 rather than the F402--RR--408. The only way to tell for sure is if someone help me extract their code and run on MATLAB.
  10. Well, that is incorrect. The AV-8B N/A also fields an updated version of the Rolls-Royce Pegasus 11-61 (F402-RR-408) vectored-thrust turbofan engine. It is also on the module description: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/shop/modules/av8bna/ The AV8B N/A is the version they modelled which is after 2010 and has the Pegasus 11-61. AV-8B N/A + also has the pegasus 11-61 and is basically the same airframe but the nose.
  11. The NFM-400 states that the Pegasus 11-61 produces 22,200 pounds without water injection. Exactly my point. The engine they modelled it is the Pegasus 11-21. I searched a lot as matter of fact.
  12. That is incorrect, now it seems the engine has the thrust curve of the Pegasus 11-21 and no longer the Pegasus 11-61.
  13. From what is possible to find about the AH64D block 2 is that the AGM-114 variants of the Hellfire 2 all have advanced INS navigation and the AGM-114L has Fire and Forget capability. The AGM-114R and the JAGMs came down the road and widely implemented the Fire and Forget among advancements in the warheads, multi-purpose warheads and much more. I would expect nothing less than the 4 variants and all the other weapons (APKWS, Stinger, AIM-9 Sidewinder, Mistral and Sidearm) which are integrated in all AH-64D Block 2. It does not matter if it follows the US ARMY doctrine or the Saudi Arabia Doctrine, it is about the airframe and what it is capable so we can create our own doctrines and missions on the mission editor picking the weapons we want. Boeing AH-64 Apache weapons A 30mm automatic Boeing M230 chain gun is located under the fuselage. It provides a rate of fire of 625 rounds a minute. The helicopter has capacity for up to 1,200 rounds of ammunition. AH-64D is armed with the Lockheed Martin / Boeing AGM-114D Longbow Hellfire air-to-surface missile, which has a millimetre wave seeker that allows the missile to perform in full fire and forget mode. Its range is 8km to 12km. The Apache attack helicopter can be equipped with air-to-air missiles (Stinger, AIM-9 Sidewinder, Mistral and Sidearm) and the advanced precision kill weapon system (APKWS), formerly known as Hydra, family of guided and unguided 70mm rockets. Plans to arm the Apache with the advanced precision kill weapon system (APKWS) II, a laser-guided version of the Hydra, were shelved in the FY2008 budget. The US Army awarded BAE Systems a development contract for the APKWS II in April 2006. British Army AH mk1 helicopters are armed with the CRV7 70mm rocket system from Bristol Aerospace of Winnipeg, Manitoba. The Longbow Apache carries the combination of armaments chosen for the particular mission. In the close support role, the helicopter carries 16 Hellfire missiles on four four-rail launchers and four air-to-air missiles. Hellfire II missile variants The Hellfire II missile is currently produced in five variants. AGM-114K is a high-explosive anti-tank missile equipped with a tandem shaped-charge warhead to defeat all current and projected armoured threats. The MMW radar Longbow Hellfire (AGM-114L) missile provides fire-and-forget capability even in adverse weather conditions. The AGM-114M is a blast fragmentation missile designed for soft targets such as buildings, bunkers, light-armoured vehicles and caves. The AGM-114N is a metal augmented charge (MAC) variant deployed against enclosed structures with minimum collateral damage. The AGM-114R multipurpose missile is the latest in the Hellfire II missile range. Also known as the Hellfire Romeo, the missile integrates capabilities of all previous Hellfire II variants equipped with semi-active laser (SAL) seekers into a single missile, defeating a range of targets. From launch to detonation sequence, the Hellfire Romeo incorporates a variety of technological improvements that enhance its effectiveness and utility. The first proof-of-principle (POP) flight test for AGM-114R was successfully conducted in October 2009, while the second POP was completed in April 2010. Lockheed Martin conducted the third POP test in August 2010. Sixth and the final POP test was conducted in March 2011. All the tests were successfully carried out at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida. Sources: https://www.army-technology.com/projects/apache/ https://www.army-technology.com/projects/hellfire-ii-missile/ https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/us-hellfire-missile-orders-fy-2011-2014-07019/
  14. The engine should have a maximum dry-thrust of 20,500 lbf at least varies with temperature and altitude. It is not being currently modeled properly. The current power curve is more like a Pegasus 11-51. PERFORMANCE Maximum thrust: 23,800 lbf (106 kN) Overall pressure ratio: 16.3:1 Specific fuel consumption: 0.76 lb/lbf-hr Thrust-to-weight ratio: 6:1 Pegasus: the Heart of the Harrier, Andrew Dow, Pen & Sword, ISBN 978-1-84884-042-3 Not Much of an Engineer, Sir Stanley Hooker, Airlife Publishing, ISBN 0-906393-35-3 Powerplant: Water Injection System, Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology, Vol. 42 Iss: 1, pp: 31 - 32. DOI: 10.1108/eb034594 (Permanent URL). Publisher: MCB UP Ltd Citations
  15. I figure it out, the light switches are near the power panel
  • Create New...