The 5" FFAR. From Wikipedia : Performance was limited because of the increased weight, limiting speed to 780 km/h (= 217 m/s).

I think it's not simulate, but that's just my opinion. Tests are needed to check.

I though about that too. Have to try ! :yep:

You mean AL, not AP ? Armor level ?

What is TDW ?

:up:

Maybe. If it wasn't, increasing rockets nominal speed by taking aircraft speed into account would be realistical :03:

:up:

I think in the editors is called AP for "Armor Piercing", but yes, we are talking about the same thing :)

TheDarkWraith aka RacerBoy

P.S: have you seen post #43 in this thread?

No. You have different shells types : AP (armor piercing) and HE (highly explosive). In Zones.cfg, you have Armor Level and HP (hitpoints).

:D Yes. I was on the point to answer you. Well very nice models, that's sad that it's not the rockets that I have worked on ... So we have to think about modelling them, on the base of yours. So here is my idea : I release a first version of my work (kind of beta test) with no highly modelled rockets, and we work for a second versions with improvments. :03:

I would like to have something simple : 3 types of rockets :
- first as anti-submarine warfare (with no explosive head, just piercing) : 3.5" FFAR
- second which is the same with explosive but low speed : 5" FFAR
- third with explosive and better speed : 5" HVAR.

About R4M rockets on the Me262, it's just for fun, these rockets were against bombers airplanes, and I doubt that they could be used against shipping. :doh:

Sure, but in-game, the rockets just missed EVERYTIME, they were ALWAYS shot in front of the ships, whatever the distance between airplane and target, kind of wrong computering. :hmmm:

Here are the .dat files : could you tell me if my models have the proper size please ? I think that the 5" rack/rocket is a bit too big and/or the 3" rack/model too small ... :hmmm: What do you think ?

http://www.mediafire.com/file/u82897...ts_Library.zip

In the AmmoDamageInfo the same value is called AP, but we can call it whatever as long as we understand each other :O:

Rockets are very simple objects and on the web there is plenty of information and drawings of them. Modelling them shouldn't pose any problem, but may I ask why you decided not to include British rockets in game? The British were the main and the closest German enemies (whereas American fighters were mostly deployed in the Pacific and in the Mediterranean, their usage in the Atlantic being limited mostly to to escort-carrier-based airwings), and their usage of airborne rockets in ASW role is well documented. Directly or indirectly, they caused the loss of severla U-boats, and they might have played a role in the early dismissal of Doenitz U-Flaks. In my opinion your mod shoudn't miss them :yep:

I see. Just in case, have you tried playing with the max range/angle and the elevation speed of their gun? Those parameters might play a role.

You can check yourself: 1 unit legth in Wings3D is equal to 10 m in the real world. WWII rocket sizes are well documented on the web. :03:

The rockets should look more or less like this:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...raftRocket.png http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/ffar.jpg
3.5" FFAR. Dimentions:8.255 cm motor diameter; 8.89 cm warhead diameter; 139.7 cm total lenght = 114.3 cm motor length + 25.4 cm warhead length. These dimensions are not compatible with the drawing on the right, which is too short, but they are with the picture on the left.

The picture below shows the 2.3368 m-long channel-slide launchers. According to wikipedia they were causing eccessive drag and they were replaced with zero-lenght launchers in May '45.

http://mtdata.ru/u23/photo647A/20254...0/original.png

http://www.designation-systems.net/d...5in-ffar-1.jpg
5" FFAR, basically a 3.5" motor with a 5" HE warhead in place of the solid steel warhead of its predecessor (8.255 cm motor diameter; 12.7 warhead diameter; 1.651 m total length)

I am not too sure about the warhead in the drawing above though. After having considered several pictures, I think the 5" rocket came in two versions. In one of them, the warhead is fitted with a pointed nose fuze:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...wa_Jun1945.jpg

At first glance the second version looks almost identical, except for the fuze, which looks more blunted:

http://www.vmb613.com/images/navarre44c.jpg

I wonder if .they really are different fuzes, or rather the fuze could be covered with a pointed nose cap absent from some pictures. In any case the aforementioned drawing seems a poor representation of the "smooth-nose" rocket.

Last, a close-up picture showing a detail of the fin assembly:

http://www.eugeneleeslover.com/G_PAG...IGURE_11C3.jpg

Also note the "zero-length" launchers, visible in the three pictures above.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_GbPcI30qhv.../Rockets+4.jpg
http://64.78.11.86/uxofiles/mulvaney.../5-IN-HVAR.jpg
The 5" HVAR. Dimensions: 1.7272 m total lenght; 12.7 cm diameter; 39,6875 cm wingspan.

Again, pictures available on the web show the rocket either in the pointed or smooth-fuzed wahead configurations:

http://i1378.photobucket.com/albums/...pssmnz4hfk.jpg https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2186/2...3e91a0c8_b.jpg
pointed nose

https://images4.sw-cdn.net/product/p...1459303017.jpg http://combatace.com/uploads/monthly...1428175097.jpg
smooth nose

a detail of the exhaust (replica):
http://sunhoolove.img.paran.com/Kit/.../MA48005_8.jpg

Drawings of the zero-length suspension stubs:

http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Im...CKETLAUNCH.gif http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b2...tratos/FM2.jpg

Ah yes, I see what you mean.

Because I wanted a simple mod with a few rocket types, and I had only bad models. But now, you're here to bring new stuff, and that's good !

Well, you convinced me ! :03:

Yes exactly, and it changed nothing. Except when I tried an angle of 90°, the rockets were near zero speed....

Well, I have to learn how to measure objects in Wings3D ... :06:

Well, it's very precise ! :yep:

The devil is in the details!

...and you inspired me with a series of amazing mods :yeah:

Okay. On a side note, how did you set the parameters of the 3.5" FFAR launcher? In theory the shooting aircraft should aim for the water line, slightly in front of the target:

I don't know if something like that can be simulated in game though :hmm2:

Everything about WIngs3D is very simple and intutive: select an edge, and you can read its length on the left of the top bar; select two vertices, and their distance (absolute and on the three axis) is shown in the same spot :up:

Testing now this "explosive" solution ! :03:

Great ! :up:

I've just managed to put an explosive input on the rocket launch event ! :har:

http://i.imgur.com/IFpAFNL.png

So it should be easy now. Just have to tweak some parameters values.

Amazing! :rotfl2:

Note that the approach I suggested, if it works, might require each rail/launcher to be a separate gun. The reason is that the virtual muzzle that the explosive flash effect is spawned from, needs to be really close to the "unarmed" rocket model (the one attached to the rail), for it to be destroyed by the explosion.
When a multiple-muzzle gun is elevated/traned, its muzzles move away from gun's pivot point, so it it would be impossible making sure that the muzzles are always close to their respective rocket, unless we make rockets to unrealistically turn together with the virtual barrels. On the contrary, if we have separate launchers for each rocket, the one muzzle and the one roket can be placed on the same coordinates as the pivot point of the virtual gun, and the muzzle will alway "fire" its explosive charge at the center of the corresponding rocket, no matter whan gun's elevation/training is.

Some other advantage of having a separate gun for each rocket, is that we could place any number of rails under aircraft wings (2, 4, 5, etc for each wing) , we could have any combination of rocket rails (say for example 2 AP + 2 HE for each wing) and by moving the equipment nodes appropriately we could make each rail to follow more closely wing's profile.
The one downside that I can think of, is the time required to create multiple rocket hardpoints on aircraft models, and for setting their equipment files appropriately :)

I perfectly understand and I agree with you.

Another possible advantage of the one rail/one gun approach is this:

If a group of four rails is set as a single gun, they will always fire their rockets as a salvo. On the contraty, if each rail is a separated gun, depending on circumstances chances are that the AI pilot will fire his rocket loadout in two or more attack runs. There are things we could do for making this evenience more likely (like having two copies of each laucher/rocket to be fitted on the same plane, each with slightly different gun settings), though it actually happening is largely out of our control :D

finally don't agree
 

Well, to be sure, I've tested by putting a flak fire effect at the place of the 4 muzzles rockets gun. Each muzzle effect is always centered on its own rocket.

Not at all. You can separate each launch by the time you want. You just have to set whatever value you want for the recoil time (2 seconds for example). You can also simulate several separated salvos by setting a reload time (3 seconds for example), and you choose clip size=2 : that means that 2 rockets will be launched (separated by the recoil time) and 3 seconds will pass before another salvo of 2 rockets is fired.

No. In this case, all guns will fire at the same time.

About my tests. I don't manage to make the rockets destroyed when fired. The airplane (wings + engine) is destroyed (even with a min/max radius=0.000001 for the ammo damage). It seems that a very small explosion is impossible. I have tested further with max radius=0 : the wings are no more destroyed but the rockets still don't disappear. And when the airplane falls in the water, only the rockets on the left wing disappear because of the depth. :hmmm: :hmmm: :doh: