Jump to content
COMBATSIM Forum
Krycztij

TFXplorer

Recommended Posts

Great!

A couple of issues with features you've introduced (or I've forgotten they were already there):

F12:
You show a picture of an airliner, but F12 for me toggles between the F22 near its spawn point, and a second F22 where I've 'explored' to.

LEVEL=:
I can't remember if there is an 'official' TFX2 extracted data set, so for the Iceland, Korea etc maps, the terrain looks very wrong when using did.dat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The airliners don’t activate properly, and I didn’t fix that bug in time. Sorry! Here’s the workaround:

  1. start TFXplorer
  2. SHIFT+Q, X to switch to explorer mode
  3. turn left to heading 300 (the number at the top of the screen)
  4. hold left mouse button until you’re above the Gonder airport
  5. look up into the sky – you should see some contrails
  6. press F5 to start the game
  7. press F12 four times
  8. here’s the airliner

By the way, you can fly to the Red Sea until you see ships and hit F12 to view the ships as well.

SmartView is very buggy at this stage. It’ll improve with a future update.

Regarding TFX2: Yes, it’s often buggy – but it works surprisingly well for something buried so long :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the workaround! Working great now.

Seeing maps like 'Korea' and 'Hasbro' makes me wonder whether DID were (or trying to give the impression they were) in the frame for the Falcon 4.0 development contract.
We will probably never know...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This version has a lot of improvements. I find it more challenging to takeoff and land and the virtual perception of power and thrust of the F22 are heightened. Much to explore, however, I am currently focused on the new Ef2k hidden levels project ;)

On 9/10/2017 at 6:02 AM, mikew said:

LEVEL=:
I can't remember if there is an 'official' TFX2 extracted data set, so for the Iceland, Korea etc maps, the terrain looks very wrong when using did.dat.

There is a significant difference between allowing the did.dat to control the process as compared to manually placing the specific files in the lev directory and using game.cfg to call the various theaters via the new TFXplorer. I would add Faeroe and Clouds to the list of levels which can be accessed now.

This is Korea with did.dat active:

Korea-did-dat.jpg.71b65fc049c0e1bce24c1666fa62e389.jpg

This is Korea manually:

Korea-manual2.jpg.13a6afd4e5cf04f356e8b5a78ad82bf0.jpg

The selection of theaters is implemented by using 3 files: .lev, .le2 and .dat. Korea has 6 sets of files, Libya has  8. 5 of the Korea level files (file1) are identical and one is unique, I wonder if they are somehow involved in time of day determinations similar to how tfx3 swaps TM directories for time of day.

One question is why the program is stacking multiple tiles at various locations on the grid. I am categorizing and grouping the theater files into file sets and maybe that will provide some additional direction. Does anyone know what Norway.4evz, .ascz and datz do for level determination?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DrKevDog said:

I find it more challenging to takeoff and land

Yes, that’s the new gear physics. With TAW, it was impossible to flip over and it was very hard to damage the plane on landing (sometimes I saw 30 g during touchdown and the plane went out unaffected). The new physics don’t forgive that much. I fear that it’s a showstopper for casual gamers, so if you think the suspension should tolerate more stress, just tell me.

1 hour ago, DrKevDog said:

and the virtual perception of power and thrust of the F22 are heightened.

Yes; TAW thrust per engine:

  • 93.6 kN dry
  • 156 kN with afterburner

TFXplorer:

  • 116 kN dry
  • 160 kN with afterburner

Dry thrust source is Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor#Specifications_.28F-22A.29 ); afterburner thrust is listed as 156-kN-“class” with estimates as high as 173 kN. If you have better numbers, tell me and I’ll correct it.

On the other hand, fuel consumption is much higher (5× specific thrust) in TFXplorer so it should come out more balanced.

And while we’re at it: What do you think, how much does afterburner affect fuel consumption? 140 % thrust consumes 10× the fuel of 100 % thrust in TAW and in TFXplorer. I feel like it should be 2 or 3× instead …

1 hour ago, DrKevDog said:

One question is why the program is stacking multiple tiles at various locations on the grid.

That’s easy: There is one SSD for each tile in the terrain. SSDs often use just one .3 shape (the terrain), but some of them use more (e.g. an airstrip SSD uses terrain, airstrip, hangar, tower, …). If the shape indices are wrong, the SSD may end up using terrain, terrain, terrain, and terrain again.

That’s a good discovery with the did.dat. I guess it tells us that we have not yet extracted all files? I don’t know Mike’s strategy on finding file names for hashes, but he probably parsed some important known files (like ssinfo.fn) for that. If he didn’t parse Korea’s lists, that could be an explanation for the missing files in the extracted set.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is only one ssinfo.fn file in the TFX2 archive, and that's obviously the one for Norway.
The korea.dat file references some terrain ssds that are not present in the TFX2 archive, but do seem to be present in TFX1's, so it may be possible to fix these TFX1.5 theatres and produce consistent sets of data.
That will take some effort though, and I'd rather wait until we have a common format to arrange and package each set of files.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not think, at this early stage in testing, that the suspension should be changed, landings now require more attention and yet there is still a considerable room for errors.

I need to fly more fuel related sorties to test the new consumption coding, but I do know I have had to park the plane in a field and walk back to base on quite a few occasions thus far :P Not to mention the new nagging voice that chimes in rather quickly and incessantly :lol:

35 minutes ago, mikew said:

There is only one ssinfo.fn file in the TFX2 archive, and that's obviously the one for Norway.
The korea.dat file references some terrain ssds that are not present in the TFX2 archive, but do seem to be present in TFX1's, so it may be possible to fix these TFX1.5 theatres and produce consistent sets of data.
That will take some effort though, and I'd rather wait until we have a common format to arrange and package each set of files.

It makes sense to wait for a common format. I will continue extracting and grouping what I can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am using a bit of a work-around by keeping did.dat active while placing the new theater files in the lev directory knowing it will be looked at first. That way I can gain better control over the individual files in the data sets. I may have discovered a few new things. For example, I cannot recall any discussion of an "Island" theater, anyone know this one?

Island-lev-10-1-17b.jpg.4ec7eaf8022f4e463a1ba66d976af5d2.jpg

Note: the tags are from Norway.trg and some tiles are empty. I am dusting off the old 3P-4TFx Editor to address some of these issues ^_^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I cannot recall that world. At first I thought I would, but I confused it with Iceland, which, in many European languages, is pronounced just like Island.

Do we have a list of all possible worlds? I recall “Newworld” as well …

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is my current list of worlds:

lev\redsea.env
lev\redsea.4ev
lev\arcade.env
lev\arcade.4ev
lev\newworld.4ev
lev\norway.4ev
lev\iceland.lev
lev\korea.lev
lev\angola.lev
lev\atlantic.lev
lev\craig.lev
lev\clouds.lev
lev\faeroe.lev
lev\hasbro.lev
lev\libya.lev
lev\martin.lev
lev\nenorway.lev
lev\nwnorway.lev
lev\senorway.lev
lev\swnorway.lev
lev\norway.lev
lev\wales.lev
lev\world.lev
lev\island.lev

There is perhaps one more, name unknown.

It might now be useful to categorize them according to their project affiliations. most of the lev / le2 worlds are from the tfx2 project, another group appears to be from the fws.pc (Fighter Weapons School) project and the Island lev / le2 is associated with the TIALD Military Simulation project (at least that is what the .asc file suggests).

The island has some interestingly unique features. For example: In this pixel image of the Island, the 2 large white areas represent 4 world space tiles which have pointer values of "FFFF" and I suspect that has something to do with TIALD targeting systems, but needs further analysis. Five tiles code unusually for ships, but they have also not been discovered.

 

Island-FE-2.jpg.e4f4d41aa072078b7df73c1bbcc0c810.jpg

Soon as I discover the hidden TIALD encoded military secrets that D.I.D was working on, you won't be hearing or seeing much from me :o

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brief TIALD project background:

DID credits: Nevil Plura    Lead Programmer Military Systems - TIALD simulator development and adaptation for EF2000.

His profile:

Manager/Programmer, Non-Games Applications

Digital Image Design Ltd

April 1991 – November 1999 (8 years 8 months)

Create, manage and supply training software & custom hardware for UK defence and civil applications.

Presently: Available for coaching software teams in the latest software development practices (Scrum, Agile, Lean)

Wonder how he can best be contacted?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we please move on in the TAW Terrain Format thread? I intended this thread for general TFXplorer news/feedback/suggestions rather than terrain format analysis :)

1 minute ago, Krycztij said:

Regarding FFFF: In TFX2 as well as TFX3, FFFF marks a missing terrain tile. I.e. a hole in the terrain. No shape is found there.

These are rare to find, but there must have been some of them in unused worlds, otherwise I wouldn’t have programmed it like that. (I remember specifically, that I didn’t want that special case in my TFX2 handling but then some worlds would just crash TFXplorer so I had to insert it.)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every few years Windows annoys me so much that I give Linux a go. This time it's the Win10 update system.

Anyway, while 32 bit TFXplorer works nicely in general, I have a problem in that it can't find the joystick, and I can't turn the engine on and off using the keys to the right of 'P' on my foreign keyboard. Wine finds the joystick OK in its own control panel.
Where does TFXplorer get information about the joystick and keyboard in Windows? I probably need to replicate those settings in Wine somehow.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NT’s Raw Input API (in hid.dll). From what I can see here, this is still under construction in Wine … I’d be very glad if you could find me information on the current state and what Wine supports and where its current problems lie.

Quote

Doubt a single program will use/test everything. Most (not all) games only using it for one input - mouse. Keyboard works fine as-is and is a pain to deal with directly.

(https://forum.winehq.org/viewtopic.php?t=16184#p78989) … then came TFXplorer, which used RawInput for mouse, keyboard, and joystick together …

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, if I continue this Linux odyssey into a second day, I'll see what I can find out. I'm not looking forward to engaging with the open source community though, especially using a Linux version with systemd. :)

I'm using an Intel NUC which doesn't come with an OS, so I'm seeing where Linux is these days. Quite impressed so far, but I'll no doubt install Windows on it eventually. :angry:

Behold, the world's lamest home 'pit:
nuc1.png.1ac87f3fcab1a2e0a65472ba6e1a4c2d.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Theoretically, all the API calls TFXplorer uses in 'user32' and 'hid' are implemented and not stubbed in Wine.
I'd like to try to add some traces but Wine can't handle a x64 TFXplorer build at all, and I can't build an x86 version from the code I have (26/12/16) due to some errors.
This can wait.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I managed to produce an x86 build on one machine at least. It turns out that the user32 call GetRawInputDeviceList only returns two items, the mouse and keyboard.
So, we end up with the 'No suitable HIDs found' message. So, the problem could be anywhere...except TFXplorer.

EDIT: I've brought up this issue on the Wine forum:
https://forum.winehq.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29672

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/17/2017 at 8:49 PM, Krycztij said:

Yes, that’s the new gear physics. With TAW, it was impossible to flip over and it was very hard to damage the plane on landing (sometimes I saw 30 g during touchdown and the plane went out unaffected). The new physics don’t forgive that much. I fear that it’s a showstopper for casual gamers, so if you think the suspension should tolerate more stress, just tell me.

Yes; TAW thrust per engine:

  • 93.6 kN dry
  • 156 kN with afterburner

TFXplorer:

  • 116 kN dry
  • 160 kN with afterburner

Dry thrust source is Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor#Specifications_.28F-22A.29 ); afterburner thrust is listed as 156-kN-“class” with estimates as high as 173 kN. If you have better numbers, tell me and I’ll correct it.

On the other hand, fuel consumption is much higher (5× specific thrust) in TFXplorer so it should come out more balanced.

And while we’re at it: What do you think, how much does afterburner affect fuel consumption? 140 % thrust consumes 10× the fuel of 100 % thrust in TAW and in TFXplorer. I feel like it should be 2 or 3× instead …

That’s easy: There is one SSD for each tile in the terrain. SSDs often use just one .3 shape (the terrain), but some of them use more (e.g. an airstrip SSD uses terrain, airstrip, hangar, tower, …). If the shape indices are wrong, the SSD may end up using terrain, terrain, terrain, and terrain again.

That’s a good discovery with the did.dat. I guess it tells us that we have not yet extracted all files? I don’t know Mike’s strategy on finding file names for hashes, but he probably parsed some important known files (like ssinfo.fn) for that. If he didn’t parse Korea’s lists, that could be an explanation for the missing files in the extracted set.

The wikipedia article has been censored like so many others...

The nose tyre is Goodyear or Michelin 23.5 x 7.5-10 (22 ply) [pressure 17.93 bars (260 lb/sq in)]. Mainwheels are Goodyear or Michelin 37 x 11.5-18 (30 ply), [pressure 23.44 bars (340 lb/sq in)]. Based on these data you can calculate the weight and landing stress as per standard specifications for landings angles and standard fuel load for landings.

The thrust of 93.6 kN & 156 kN are warranted specifications, that are outdated now but still valid for older engines. Thrust also depends on the size of the intakes and can be calculated. Besides the F-22 is speed limited by aerodynamics via wing angle and the form of the nose. This is also calculate-able. So the higher engine performance allows higher acceleration to reach maximum velocity faster and or better energetic advantage in a dogfight. N2 is 80% for taxing (don't make me read all the manuals).

As for fuel consumption DID's F-22 ADF is most accurate and can be verified based on amount of fuel in the tanks (25000 lb specified) (real max 36515 lb or 23043 l). Afterburner is usually around 4x but this isn't your usual engine design. Just go into ADF and take measurements.

A lot of information can be calculated and verified with ordinary aircraft/aeronautic knowledge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for all the information; I’ll break it down and use it!

 

4 hours ago, editor said:

As for fuel consumption DID's F-22 ADF is most accurate and can be verified based on amount of fuel in the tanks (25000 lb specified) (real max 36515 lb or 23043 l). Afterburner is usually around 4x but this isn't your usual engine design. Just go into ADF and take measurements.

 

I’m surprised here because if I remember correctly, ADF allows for ten thousands miles of range if you fly 70 % throttle at high altitude, which is obviously not realistic.

More than that, there is a bug where your F-22 consumes zero fuel if you fly at high altitude with external tanks.

 

So I have strong doubts that ADF is any accurate in fuel consumption.

 

Regarding 4× fuel with afterburner, you are correct and I scheduled this for the next TFXplorer update (my calculation was as follows):

On 10/16/2017 at 5:27 PM, Krycztij said:

On F-22 fuel consumption with afterburner enabled:

  • This was way too high, but I didn’t have reliable numbers.
  • I still don’t have reliable numbers, but I just saw these numbers on Thrust-specific fuel consumption of the engines in F-15, F-16, F-18E and some guesses for the F-22:
    • These imply a general factor of 2.2–2.8 for consumption with wet vs. dry thrust.

    • Furthermore, TSFC is specific to thrust, and the F-22’s wet thrust is 1.66 times the dry thrust.

    • Therefore, I estimate a wet fuel consumption of 2.5×1.66 times dry.

    • This almost triples range compared to TFXplorer’s earlier numbers.

 

 

4 hours ago, editor said:

The nose tyre is Goodyear or Michelin 23.5 x 7.5-10 (22 ply) [pressure 17.93 bars (260 lb/sq in)]. Mainwheels are Goodyear or Michelin 37 x 11.5-18 (30 ply), [pressure 23.44 bars (340 lb/sq in)].

 

Exactly what I have implemented for the next version; thank you for the confirmation! Check out this video for my stress tests:

 

 

4 hours ago, editor said:

N2 is 80% for taxing (don't make me read all the manuals).

 

This is a bit tricky in TFXplorer. I haven’t had the time to implement a proper rolling resistance model, so it is much lower for now … It’ll take some time to get this done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't remember ever having to refuel in TAW if I stayed off the afterburner.  You had to in ADF as it was often one of the mission objectives.

 

There was also the 'Fuel leak' damage which drained the tanks pretty fast. If you could get up high, you could glide the last 90 miles or so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Krycztij said:

Thank you for all the information; I’ll break it down and use it!

 

 

I’m surprised here because if I remember correctly, ADF allows for ten thousands miles of range if you fly 70 % throttle at high altitude, which is obviously not realistic.

More than that, there is a bug where your F-22 consumes zero fuel if you fly at high altitude with external tanks.

 

So I have strong doubts that ADF is any accurate in fuel consumption.

 

Regarding 4× fuel with afterburner, you are correct and I scheduled this for the next TFXplorer update (my calculation was as follows):

 

This is a bit tricky in TFXplorer. I haven’t had the time to implement a proper rolling resistance model, so it is much lower for now … It’ll take some time to get this done.

I didn't experience the high altitude bug. AFAIK Novalogic had an altitude bug but I didn't play with it.


From what I remember and the notes on my test it was very accurate as far as public data matching is concerned.
dry 0.4492 L/s (seems low) wet (9.3318 L/s) at FL 390 (important) and it gave me a rough 8164 L estimate for the main tank.
I dunno about f-16(dot)net source but it's 29,000 lb class for F100-PW-229 and 29,500 lb class for F110-GE-129 according to 2003 manual.

There's a difference between ground idle and flight idle. GI: The nozzle opens to greater than 80% @65-77% rpm. FI: The nozzle is open to 0-20 percent and the thrust is higher than ground idle (estimating ~850 lb for F119). Below FL 300, idle rpm is 70-80%. As altitude increases, idle rpm increases to provide the engine sufficient stall margin during throttle transients. The minimum thrust level increases from idle to MIL between 0.98-1.4 mach (obviously it's 1.58 for F22).

Btw. the actual thrust value is calculated as 35000*0.454*9.80655=155826.0795 N => 156 kN (standard SI & physics)
Engine start, high energy ignition by the engine alternator, is automatically turned on @ ~10% rpm and is automatically turned off @ 59% rpm. The automatic relight activates when the engine rpm deceleration rate exceeds 5 percent per second, or when the engine rpm goes below 59 percent.
A low energy ignition system is used as a backup to the high energy system. The low energy system is energized if the engine decelerates through approximately 55% rpm while airborne. The ignition system is powered by emergency ac bus No. 1.
These are pretty consistent rules of thumb for pre-F119 engine meaning they work very close at ideal max efficiency.

cc.png.0c498999ee4c63894f9b84237cdfe297.png

Standard civil take-off/landing angle is 8 degrees. For military it seems to be around 10-14 (max-slow speed). The F-22 was specified for a 3.05m/s drop. The amount of fuel I'm guessing at least 500-1500 lb (140-350 NM) or minimum to reach the next airfield (reserve). Yeah, rolling resistance for aircraft is tricky. Unlike cars it's not powered but shoving.

7 hours ago, mikew said:

I don't remember ever having to refuel in TAW if I stayed off the afterburner.  You had to in ADF as it was often one of the mission objectives.

 

There was also the 'Fuel leak' damage which drained the tanks pretty fast. If you could get up high, you could glide the last 90 miles or so.

Yep, the F-22 has a higher lifting force body and is slicker than the F-15.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×