GOOIE Things

It’s been awhile since I found time to add to the blog, that’s mainly because I preferred to spend my free time fixing a myriad of issues with TRs functionality in hope to attract that help we so desperately need.

In the past 12 months much has happened, not all of it is noticeable at first glance but I think the late nights and early mornings I spent mopping up the TR package will be worth it. I’ll run over some of the things that have changes or been corrected in the last 12 months.

• the Scenario Designer (SD)

This was originally built by Yak as a 3rd party GUI that can be used to build scenarios for the TW engine. One of the requirements of this software is a collection/library of maps for each field or area you plan to populate with targets. Now these maps need to each be aligned to coordinates that link the bottom left corner of your map image to a position on the master SD terrain map. As you can imagine, if you want to use screen shots of actual in game terrain you need to compensate for distortion, allocate a scale size and then position each screen shot using the map co-ordinate library in the SD.

Simple explanation is that you take a screen shot from either 960m, 1920m, 3840m or 9680m dependent on how much area you need displayed in your SD map (obviously the higher you get the less detail we see).  You re size this image to correct any distortion 117% x 100% (approximate) and then you crop to a factor of 1024 pixels. I determined the SD map library requires  you to set parameters for the scale sizes as below:-

1024px  = 1000m @ 960m
1024px  = 2000m @ 1920m
1024px  = 4000m @ 3840m
1024px = 8000m @ 7680m

You then input the correct scale size of the images into the library data base  (in meters) eg 1024x 1536 px cropped screen shot taken from 960m = 1000m x 1500m.

Then comes the fun part, you need to align this  map by trial and error (yes trial and error). Create a test scenario for the field map you are placing.  Then open this scenario in TR (leave the SD running). Fly over the field map area and estimate the co-ordinates of the left lower corner of you map using the HUD location readout. Input these into the SD as the maps location co-ordinates then close and reboot the SD.  Place a target (target 1) on a visable referance point (road intersection etc) and reload the scenario in TR (leave the SD running). Take visual note of where this reference target is displayed and approximately how far off correct position it is.   Re enter the SD program and place a second reference target (target 2) trying to place  it visually correct in game to you reference point (road intersection etc). You keep moving this second target until it lines up perfectly in game on the chosen reference position. Using the SDs actual target positions subtract position of target 2 from target 1 , the result is the difference from the proposed to the actual position. Correct the SD locations  library by this amount and your map should be aligned. At this time check the maps distortion is correct and adjust as necessary.

All this takes about an hour when you get good at it, faster with some luck.

The other thing I did was to create about 50 new fields and correct perhaps about 50 others for alignment and terrain level. I wont explain how to level terrain, you can read the Dev Guides for that (Mm the reminds me, I placed new web style dev guides on the TR web site)

Some of the other things I’ve been tinkering with include new engine damage parts, actually the same parts just re sized. The mini engine I created were too mini and it seems no engine could be damaged. Because the engine is actually a prop location in TR, we cannot get real damage locations for the engine, so a comprimise is a smaller prop part (1.0 x 0.2 x 1.0m) and that should give us the correct damage feel once more.

Whilst I was adding fields I fixed some terrain issues, the grid lines are gone from the Popgirl terrain tiles, many of the missing coastal tiles have been fixed and I also did a lot of realigning and leveling of the terrain where the water bled above the high water mark. I also created a new layer for roads/taxiways and have placed a couple of examples in for Rabaul and Henderson areas.

I did a quick test on creating tree forests and plantations using some existing palm trees  imported over and over into a single AC3D file until I had a nice looking cluster. This was then linked to one small acm target part and it seems to function quite well. We need more trees that we can repeat this process for, hopefully that will come soon.

New planes (Ki61), new gauges, bug fixes, 2D and 3D fixes , all these kinds of things have also been done.

The reason for all this was functionality so we can attract and hold peoples interest in TR, it is viable under 0.64 if we can just get all the assets needed to make it work functioning.

Hopefully we are well on the way now to achieving this goal.

Bye for now.

Rabaul Harbor

The Rising Sun

I have spent the last few weeks slowly modifying the Ki series of aircraft to match current techniques. In the process I corrected some errors in the aircraft that overall have improved the accuracy of the Ki fleet. I noted the new series flex guns had not been added, so the Ki-48 and 45 have a bit more defensive bite now. The Ki-43 and 44 have been given the once over and new gun sights added. These sights have been fitted to work with the raised barrel angles on the 44 and J2Ms.  Overall the pilot seating positions are slightly higher in all models (axis and allied), the new gun sights (all shared to same scale) seemed to require this change be done, and it sure feels slightly better now. The fixed trim used on a lot of the Japanese planes have been synthesized, as a result of the FM rebuilds trim changes needed are also reduced.

Generally from my POV the Rising Sun planes are feeling really nice now, harmony in flight is a phrase I could use here. Obviously accuracy increases as data is located and although there will always be things that can be improved the changes from here on in will be more subtle. This current rebuild is the last of the ‘major’ build FM changes I am planning and generaly after the next release, it’s going to be fine tweaks and error correction from my end.

Q. What does all this mean???

Well, I think it means it’s time for someone else to step to the plate in here and start making their mark. I am not a guru in all areas and if people want to continue seeing TR grow it will needs a scn writter, some 3D, some 2D to all step up a bit. It frustraits me no end to spend 1000′s of hours building FMs and have very little matching improvements or ‘PASSION FACTOR’ in other areas.

This sim was created to give tinkerers and those disapointed with the focus of other sims a place they can leagally hack, build, change modify. Yet we see these same guys hacking IL2, WarBirds, AH etc when TW is leagally hackable in most of the areas these guys tinker. I don’t see the point?? What we should be seeing is lots of people building, tweeking and generally improving TR.

Build it and they will come?? Well I’m building it and the rest is not happening, why?

Taking a Stab

Been awhile since I updated this blog, I guess times gets away from you when you are on a roll.

A number of projects have been completed and some discoveries made along the way, take Vstabs for example. Whilst working on spin stability issues I noted the the Vstabs had a an increased stabilizing effect if their angle was reversed from 90 dreg to -90deg. Testing seemed to indicate that due to additional sweep angles I have been applying that the angles of a Vstab were becoming important. With past building techniques no sweep angle was applied to the tail surfaces, and that meant the Vstab was the same no matter which angle was used BUT, which was correct.

The TW engine is a smart bugga and it seems to know when a Hstab is left or right of the datum and you need not make one 180 opposed in direction but what about a Vstab set ON the datum, is it presumed -90 or 90 for vertical up? Testing confirmed improved stability at -90degs when sweep was used so a simple proof test was created to determine the ‘correct’ angle. I created a lifting surface so Vstab the airfoil would move the rear of the plane towards the low preassure zone. From this I was able to determine all current Vstabs are installed UPSIDE DOWN. I have started to corerct all TR planes to -90 with the new rebuilds and the spin recovery is much improved.

Today Mossie created one of the 5 or so new shared reflector gun sights we needed for TR. I have stared fitting these to all TR planes and expect we should have these all in for the next release. I am very aware that some of you were disappointed TR didn’t have these fitted so this should prove very popular and get you off my back.

Dughor has also chipped in with some refinements to the F6Fs and he is working on a fresh new, and ‘correctly sized’ F4F. He has fitted some very cool retract mechanisms that are an animation standout, looking forward to replacing the old F4F with this new beauty.

Mossie has commenced the anm of his new P40 series, he is happy it is going along well but at the same time disappointed no-one seems to want to skin this NEW P40. ‘Serious’ applicants apply within.

That’s about it for now, I continue to update the FMs to new spec and can’t wait to release these upon the TR world.

Bewildering B-25s

Working in applying the new techniques to the B25s, what a bastage to build this plane is. I’ve had some tough planes but the B25 takes the cake. The airframe has some strange elements that just make it very difficult to get the right feel out of the plane. It also has some key data gaps which I’m struggling to fill, wing section has NACA 4409R, R= reflex, but what and how much reflex?? The wing has washout, it appears for be about 3 deg washout, but again I have no real proof, just some polish references to 3 deg incidence and something about wing also 3 deg.

I find the Japanese planes seem to have good and well documented data, at least the data makes sence. The US data you think would be easier to obtain?? It seems we have a LOT of US data that conflicts, to much information with lots of guessing and errors involved from said ‘experts’ who know everything about allied aircraft. Short of getting the original US blueprints it seems other data is full of estimations, or drawn from memory, which is obviously faded. Even the engine data sheets conflict with the graph that came with the manuals, totally unbelievable, perhaps the Imperial Japanese sabotaged the US documents library?

I have been stuck on the B25 for two weeks, it usually takes less time to build a plane from scratch than that. These are some of the issues a FM builder has to put up with I guess.

Any way, I ordered the 2600-13 manuals, lets see if that helps.

Back to work.

Creating Havoc!

Over the past two weeks I concerned myself with rebuilding the A20 series to the new spec, including prop and fuz alterations. I’m happy to report that it flies very well and the feel is great, edging on outstanding, if I do say so myself. The GR2600 engines seem to use a sliding pressure/boost scale, I have seen this before and without the data sheets it’s impossible to get a grip of the boost used and at what alts it was available. I had to order some manuals from the USA to get the engine info I need, these should arrive in the next week and I’ll then be able to quantify the engine spec.

I find most of the ‘Down Wash’ changes we are making work really well on longer tail moment planes, buffs especially well. The new props and the fuz lift and profile changes have totally changed the old feel of sitting on a floaty stick, to one of ‘flying’ in the planes. I have also implemented the flex gun code from the ships into the buffs, I’m itching to see how well this works, because of the success with the ships I expect more of the same.

Stiglr asked me if I would build a G3M FM last week, this was a plane I’d been gathering info on and the timing was right (week off) so I assembled the airframe based on what data we could find. I’m very happy to report it’s an impressive feel. I find no large trim changes needed at any speed and it will take off on it’s own with 4 notches of up and smoothly climb away, easily coping with it’s rated loads at rated power. I have completed the G3M2-22 and the G3M3-23, both feel great and I’m currently just tweaking the weights and powers based on data from FAOTW, Fancillion and TAIC data.

I continue to expand the latest changes into the other aircraft, as soon as I can complete these I’ll release this work onto the server. I’m sure you guys will understand I don’t like to upset balance and so can’t release panes with a performance fix into an arena with mixed performance.

All going well it should take a month or so and we’ll be in business, new web site and all.

‘Jack’ and fuzzy drag

This week I started to implement the new props, these seem to be working as expected in most cases and I’m fining good improvements now with these prop changes.

I decided to tackle one of the tougher planes in the fleet, one which we have just completed new 3D for the turbo version, the J2M ‘Jack’ series. I have never been happy with the flight feel or the performance of this plane, based on reference data I use it was slow and suffered roll/yaw issues. It seems very draggy and I always had trouble even getting the plane up to speed spec. Even with the repaired canopy a number of symptoms still existed. This plane was a toughie and even with the new prop it was not adding up the way I liked.

Anyway, it was not right, but why??

A few days ago whilst testing max speeds at alt I stepped out to get a drink, I returned to hear the unmistakable sound of stress loads on the airframe causing damage. I checked the log to find negative ‘G’ loads on the wing had been stressing the fuz and wing at high speeds (i.e. the fuz was lifting in one direction and the wing the other). As you can imagine the forces here would obviously be causing a ‘large’ amount of associated drag (the smoking gun). This was a direct pointer that helped guide me to lowing fuselage lift area and effectively reducing the high drag.

For a long time now GH has been working at this same thing and his findings proposed lowing the values of fuz lift and profile by a ratio of ~0.25 – 0.16 based on area. I have been using 0.6 as a ratio for awhile now, preferring to take it slowly until I could establish the need for this change myself. With the latest developments re the Jack I started to revisit the issue as a way to trim the Jacks drag issues. It was instantly apparent that the lower lift area also assisted in reducing high speeds at alt, good new indeed. Often in the past we used prop mach as a way of slowing planes that were fast above FTH, the combination of prop and fuz area changes has vastly reduced the need to do this.

I used the calculated prop solidity for the Jack as 0.14 (broad 4 blade prop), lowered lift and profile areas by 0.16 ratio, added some minor aileron tab trim to wing outer panels (0.6deg), fitted a new fin and i’m now having heaps of fun in the rebuild Jacks.

The process seems to indicate that GH is indeed onto something with the lower lift and profile areas. Together with the prop alphas fixed at 0, and the solidity as a proportion of the disk, the end results are very pleasing. I’ll start to rework the N1Ks next as these also have high speeds issues, I am confident that large improvements to these will be the outcome.

I can’t wait to get these latests changes in game, the feel is much tighter and pointed and I find flying these altered planes much more realistic. There are a number of other issues we discussed (chatted via skype for 4 hours) as we continue to improve the feel and performance of TW planes. These are related to wing stall progression, another topic for another day.

Back to work.

Japanese Airfoils, Tora Tora Tora!

Over the last week or so i have been revisiting some of the unknown information I have and trying to fill some data gaps. I went over the data for the Beaufighter VI and rebuilt the engine and props to match what I could find now. I’m happier it’s an improvement with the changes and now very close to max speed specs at all alts.

I invited Tora to pop over for a translation session, we went over my data sets and he brought over a few Maru books we could search in for Airfoil data. Japanese airfoil data is one of the hardest things to get a hold of, I have managed to track a number of airfoils and today we filled in another gap, the NN-5 Airfoil. Tora found a nice diagram of some NN series airfoils, with a loose descriptions referring to the NACA 2200 series. Tora pointed out that at the time of these being designed, the Japanese did not like to refer to anything in it’s American name. ie. NACA 2200 series was American so the Japanese used their own naming convention instead, NN-X.

The NN series (Nakijima Airfoil) had a number of clues which we found in the text associated with the diagrams. The listed the NN-5 2.5 16 and the NN-5 1.4 8 were seeming based on a 2200 series airfoil, the numbers listed seemed to indicate camber and chord data. Reference to thickness at 30% also pointed to 2200 series airfoils being the base and i did some quick plotting in Profili to see how they looked. Lucky for me I had found the NN-2 data plots already and could referance the plots against the 2200 series with chord and camber changes. BINGO The plots agreed with the naming convention we had discovered for the NN-5, it was a 2200 series foils with 2.5 camber, 16% chord thickness and 30% chord position. OK, so now we have another wing airfoil gap filled, the B5N now has a wing I’m happy is very close to as it should be.

We have resolved the A6M wing, the G4M wing, the Ki-44 wing and now the B5N wing, a few more exist yet but I am hopeful I can eventually get this information. I continue to scour the net for data and books, the gaps are slowly getting filled and every week I learn something new and refine a bit more my skill and data levels with all different manner of aircraft.

TW is about the journey for me.

My Boomerang Won’t Come Back

I thought I’d work on some props today, to do this I targeted a plane which I have good data for but one which had a troublesome prop in the past, the CAC Boomerang. Yes I know, what Boomerang you say, well I have had a working FM for, oh, about 3 years now, every now and again I dust it off and improve it. Currently I fly it using the F4F 3D but one day I hope someone will build a correct 3D to match, I live in hope.

Anyway, I chatted with GH again today over the prop solidity and how this effects speeds. I discovered that the highter if you fix solidity, less speed range you have available before the prop engine will over rev. ie. whilst 20 deg prop pitch was enough at solidity of 0.065, when I increased the solidity to 0.095 I found I had narrowed my available engine speed operational range. So now the Boomer was more prone to over revving in a dive, which may be more correct, or not? I did some reading and some tweaking, I set the HP of the Boomer, rebuilt the wings to new ideals, trimmed the weight distribution and worked the prop over. I got a good speed curve, after a lot of debugging, that seems to allow correct solidity figures of 0.095 (% of disk area) and much more realistic drag and mach figure used for the prop of ~0.8.

I now await the 3D knight in shining armor to ride in and build a matching airframe. In the mean time I’ll expand these new props over more aircraft and hopefully I will see the same kinds of positive outcomes.

Props are wings too

Chatted with GH today about props, he has been working on these with his 109. I tinkered with props a lot but usually in a manner that was more learning than outright looking for bugs. I have long known that speeds at high alt, from my builds at least, are greater than they should be. I initially looked into props as the source but I could never prove a link to this phenomenon and the TW prop code. GH has started applying a bit of logic to the issue and has had some success with the 109s by placing the zero alpha reference = 0. The basic theory is to minimize the errors of zero alpha by placing it as 0. Then moving max and min alphas to preserve the same lift characteristics as the original. eg. max = 10, zero = -3, min = -10; would become; max = 13, zero = 0, min = -7.

I’ll trial this with my TR planes and see if I get the same pleasing results, I am hopeful at the very least it does minimize any errors.

I also did some thinking myself about the gyro effect in 0.68a that I trailed a few years ago, the effect seemed over done, and although I was assured it was correct, I was not convinced. Well, it may have been correct mathematically, but not in end results vs RL IMHO. I think the TW engine is using the flat disk area of a prop and applying the total mass evenly to calculate the centrifugal loads for gyro effects. However; a prop is not equal in weight distribution, it has a lot more of its mass towards the center of the prop than the tips. This could be why the trials I flew seemed to over amplify they gyro effects, worth investigation at the very least.

Doc 9 has offered to take a look at the older AC and fix some of the outstanding 3D issues. He also took charge of the old Ki67 files and will be working on getting this plane up and away. It’s good to see interest growing in improving TRs aging 3D, thanks Doc.

Akitoshi is translating some files for the B5N, i’ll hear back from him soon. I have trailed the washout and incidence changes and it seems much nicer now, although I’m not 100% happy it gets better with each refinement.

But the winner of the day is GHs prop theories, which I’ll tinker with next.

B5N Stuff

Tinkering with the B5N today, recalculated the wing shapes, and will try reducing the washout from 1.5 to 0.5 deg. I sent out some data to be translated which should help establish correct tailplane areas, which at this time are calculated from the Maru drawings. CoG was a long way out due to me not allowing enough for the rear gunners weight. ie. I wonder if Japanese gunners were lighter than allied ones?? It seems to need a lot of weight up front to balance the crew weight, this plane may have been nose light with a full load. Perhaps the gunners leaned forwards?? Silly I know, but believe it or not that did happen with the G4Ms crew on take-off (T/O), they all moved forwards for T/O.

Anyway, progress is being made, Razer tells me he is onto the Ki61 cockpit, I have advised him we do need a Ki84 as well, and a Ki100, and a a ….. you get the picture