Sludge Hornet Modifications

[neutrino]

Sludge, I haven't spoken with him since he gave me that glass. I urged him to publish it since he made so many iterations to get the final look, but at the time he said he was busy and even suggested that I do it. You can shoot him an email if you need.

[Sludge]

JR...

Have you ever thought of doing a "weapons" panel to go along with HUD control panel?  I mean, make a "left side armament panel" that would have a Master Arm switch, then an A/A switch (maybe get the A/A and A/G lights working), and a weapons select switch that would pull up a Gun Pipper w/cone "locked InLAR" logic, Heaters with proper sybology/growl, or AIM-120s and its wide-lock dashed line cone.  Dont think the USN/USMC aircraft even use AIM-7s anymore, as the remaining ones have been reworked to be shipboard defense missiles.

If you did this, perhaps with some help from Scott, it could be the first stage of a whole Hornet avionics upgrade.  Right now, I might have a guy who will re-animate and re-model the interior .mdl for the Hornet.  Of course, HUD collimation is the first order of business for me, but if you already had the HUD Armament panel working along with weapons tracking, it would be a natural progression to integrate those functions into the interior model.  Once it gets done.

Just an idea.  Ill write Scott and see what he's up for as well.

Later
Sludge

[Mickey_Techy]

.......ever thought of doing a "weapons" panel .....

You guys are just amazing.

[Paddles]

... Of course, HUD collimation is the first order of business for me ...

Sludge, a working field/carrier hook switch will be the second, I suppose 

[Sludge]

Serge...

Yes sir, that it would be.  Then we could concentrate on the weapons panel if JR's up for it.  Which would be cool, and of course we couldnt actually FIRE weapons, but just to have tracking for online or multiplayer dogfights would rock.  And everyone knows how much I like dogfighting in the multiplayer.

Anyway, just some ideas for the future... maybe for the Sludge v1.5 or 1.6, depending on when I lose my sanity and/or every last brain cell I have left.

Later
Sludge

[Sludge]

To all...

I know this might be corny to some of you, but for me, this email I just got makes all of OUR efforts worth it.  Yes, I know he was thanking me, but seriously... I'm just the name on the package.  This goes out to all the fellas here that designed a gauge or two or three (JR, Serge), helped out (Orion, Raz), or even just gave inputs (Paco, Ave_Joe, Spaz) to make the Sludge Hornet what it is today.

"Hi, my name is Raul Aubele and y am from Argentina and y have to tell you that the work you have done with the Hornet is absolutly EXELENT and y have no words to describe your changes,  for example the sound makes Turbine Sound Studios looks like a litle mouse under your work,  All of the changes you have done are incredible real and makes so confused to know what is virtual and what real in real world.  Please excuse for my English because y speak spanish and thanks you for ever and ever."
- Raul Aubele and Family.

Serge, I had to laugh because now you're making TSS seem like a little mouse!  Its funny how some things dont get lost in translation.

Anyway, just thought Id share that as I had a good laugh and glad someone cared enough to write.  Usually, we complain loudly about the bad things and dont praise the good things.

Later
Sludge

[Mickey_Techy]

....Usually, we complain loudly about the bad things and dont praise the good things....

Hey Sludge,

I am sure you already know, what a wonderful airplane you have created.

I am a part of a virtual military, and if it makes you feel any better, we have a whole squadron based off the 'Sludge Hornet'.

Mickey.

PS:  I have always said, you guys are doing some wonderful job. Ciao

[neutrino]

JR...

Have you ever thought of doing a "weapons" panel to go along with HUD control panel?  I mean, make a "left side armament panel" that would have a Master Arm switch, then an A/A switch (maybe get the A/A and A/G lights working), and a weapons select switch that would pull up a Gun Pipper w/cone "locked InLAR" logic, Heaters with proper sybology/growl, or AIM-120s and its wide-lock dashed line cone.  Dont think the USN/USMC aircraft even use AIM-7s anymore, as the remaining ones have been reworked to be shipboard defense missiles.

If you did this, perhaps with some help from Scott, it could be the first stage of a whole Hornet avionics upgrade.  Right now, I might have a guy who will re-animate and re-model the interior .mdl for the Hornet.  Of course, HUD collimation is the first order of business for me, but if you already had the HUD Armament panel working along with weapons tracking, it would be a natural progression to integrate those functions into the interior model.  Once it gets done.

Just an idea.  Ill write Scott and see what he's up for as well.

Later
Sludge

Sludge, I don't know about this, it's a serious work, and I think the functions are not documented unlike the other HUD symbology which is described in the NATOPS. The math is not very difficult, but still, even if I do have all the necessary information, it will be a partial solution - you can't really carry weapons, can't fire weapons, can't shoot down some one in multiplayer. Flight Simulator was not designed to be a combat sim and going in that direction is not a cool exercise. Keep in mind that what we put in that HUD, cost me and Scott a lot of research and gathering background information, and when I put the adjective "realistic" this was not a marketing buzz word. You can see this from the recent TACAN distance discussion. How could I possibly know where the TACAN antenna is from the 20 antennas the carrier has? I could still be wrong about it's position. But I searched around, looked for close-up pictures of carrier masts, looked at diagrams of TCN antennas etc. What about the ILS antennas (we improved that a little thanks to you)? What about the glideslope angle - how do I know it's 3.99 degrees in FSX carriers and how do I know the angled deck is 8.496 degrees in Javier's carrier and 9.193 in the default carrier? As I said, it's a lot of work and I don't like to do partial solutions that are almost like the real thing - then it's not a simulation, it's a game. An exception would be the refueling gauge, but it's a separate gauge, not part of the HUD.

My personal opinion, is that we should keep the Acceleration Hornet realistic with the focus on carrier landings. This would include of course flight model, HUD collimation, sound, smoke, livery etc. Anything outside that, especially combat simulation, is IMHO a step in the wrong direction. Carrier landings are all about flight simulation at it's most difficult - it's about precision, discipline, understanding the fundamentals of flight, concentration, monitoring a number of variables at the same time etc. So is of course formation flying. Air combat is about situational awareness (TrackIR !), pulling hard G's, energy management, understanding of ACM etc. It's a different ball game and there are better sims for that

[Sludge]

JR...

I definately understand its serious work.  It takes a long time, you have to research, and also there is very little REALIZED reward for your work other than a thank you email, or someone telling you they liked your work.  Personally, I just like upgrading the default to something better...  that's why I'm gonna start the research on weapons/HUD parameters.

Now, here is where we disagree... that going down this road is NOT the wrong direction, nor will it end up with me wanting to have A/A or A/G weapons that actually work in FSX.  I wont.  First of all, my ONLY hope is to have avionics and associated HUD cues for the weapons; I don't need actual weapons to fly off the jet, blow up, or rake an "enemy" over the coals w/gun rounds.  You'll NEVER HEAR THAT CALL FROM ME, nor would I release anything like that on the Sludge.  I mean, if someone designs drop tanks, AIM-120s, AIM-9s, and gives them weight for a more realistic look and feel, ala the CAPTSIM Delta Hornet, I'm all about that... but not actual weapons employment.  I'd be happy with just being able to have a lock box, a gun pipper, or missile cues w/correct symbology, or even locking up the tanker for air refueling and having the associated HUD lock box... and that'd be the end of this road for me and the Sludge Hornet.  Then, we can incorporate that into a collimated HUD... if that ever comes to fruition.

If you're thinking about it, know that you wont be alone in doing the research.  I'll also be working on this, and if you need, we can go over stuff that you need from me.  There is obviously no timeline, I dont care if it takes months.  Nor would this be a step towards the default Hornet into a full combat jet.  VRS already did that, and I'm happy with this Hornet... as evidenced that I had to take back this thread from becoming a commentary on what is the "best combat sim" from you know who. 

If you're not in, no big deal, just need to know if you dont wanna do it.

Later
Sludge

[IRONDAN]

Agree with you my friend, just having external fuel tanks and the hud symbology would be amazing.

Dan

[Tregarth]

Dear Sludge,

I don't understand your fascination with a collinated HUD.  I used to have Aerosoft's F-16 for FSX on my PC but have taken it off.  The reason is your Hornet is better and I couldn't spot the difference between your "standard" HUD and Aerosoft's.  (one of the reasons why I bought the F-16).

It could be that I am missing something but for my money your HUD is definitely superb and good enough so why spend time on a detail which won't be noticed? I have Track IR on my PC and your HUD is very believable.
 
The Law of Diminishing Returns applies to HUD's as it does to many other things. 

I don't want to be negative but I feel sure your talents could be put to better use than this.

Tregarth

[neutrino]

Sludge, I don't want to do any missile targeting systems, I find them too complicated and I don't want to simplify them. I am looking however into a possible gun sight solution for guns only dogfight.

[Mickey_Techy]

Sludge, I don't want to do any missile targeting systems, I find them too complicated and I don't want to simplify them. I am looking however into a possible gun sight solution for guns only dogfight.

Neutrino, if that happens, it would be so great.

[Sludge]

Tre...

Holy cow.  We are on two different sides on this matter.  I understand what youre saying, I just disagree with it.  A collimated HUD would be fantastic.  I can spot the difference easily, and if we could get it done right, it would also allow us to shift the default eyepoint UP where it belongs.  There are soo many youtube videos that show the correct eyepoint, from pilots with a micro CCD attached to the side of the helmet on their eye-level.  Where the pilot is looking forward and almost down from the top of the physical side HUD brackets.  Plus, with a collimated HUD, as a TrackIR user, you could actually use all the degrees of freedom without losing HUD correllation.

Watch this video to see what Im talking about, as far as where the eyepoint should be... as compared to where it is now.

Its funny you mention the aerosoft F-16 HUD as I LOVE that HUD.  Seeing that HUD is what got me into this quest (holy grail?..haha) for a collimated HUD to begin with, as that HUDs "projected out" style made me want to integrate that on the Hornet HUD.  For the record though, the current HUD included in the Sludge is JR's and Scott Printz's baby, not mine.  They were gracious enough to let me include it in the Sludge Hornet releases.  They are the real workers behind the scenes, that dont get enough credit.  Thats why when I posted that email thanking me, I made sure to mention specifically JR and Serge.  Most of the Sludge Hornet mods/add-ons are their doing, they just let me include them.

JR...

Thats good enough for me.  At this point, Ill take what I can get...  its better than having nothing.  Again tho, please dont feel any need to rush.  This is purely a WANT on my part and not a need by any stretch of the imagination.  BTW, I did some reading into .xmls and C++ guages and found that MR Virtuali (using MR cause he probly deserves it), is a really genius programming fella.  If youve ever read his in-depth responses on FSDeveloper.com, geez... they made me feel as though I dont understand .001 percent of how this bird and sim are programmed.  Which is probly true enough, but its just eye opening how much more layering there is.  And for what I can understand, his use of C++ gauges and the GDI/GDI+ (his creation, if I read that right) is something WE should look into...  dont know if you have, but Im definately making it a point to learn more about it.

BTW, thanks for hearing me out.  We dont always agree but thanks for having patience and giving me a chance to elaborate on my views.

Later
Sludge

[Razgriz]

Tregarth
        I don't know about you, but the HUD is, to me, the most important instrument in the cockpit.  It is what I spend most of my flight looking at, and when you compare it to real videos of real HUDs, its pretty ugly.  HUD collimation will be amazing, it will give the HUD a projected look instead of a 'right in your face' kind of look.  That way, it will work as the real HUD.  The human eye can focus on close objects, or far, but not both at once.  When the HUD is "right there" and in your cockpit (the actual HUD in the Sludge F/A-18 is mounted on the actual HUD glass), you have to focus on your instruments, and then on the outside view.  That is one of the reasons HUDs were implemented after several Phantom crashes behind the boat.  Here is a good link that explains a fair amount about HUDs.  HUD collimation also will fix the TiR 6DOF issue that the HUD gets uncorrelated.

        Now, here are even MORE benefits.  We will need to completely re-animate every switch in the cockpit, because when we decompile, we loose animation.  Now, once that is done, and the modeler has the source files to the cockpit, we can do whatever we darn please with the cockpit, as long as we don't charge money for it.  We can fix the Hook Bypass switch, we can fix the oversized HUD frame/AoA indicator misplacement, we can integrate the HUD controls to the VC (below the UFC), or any other issues we see present (such as throttles not be able to go below IDLE to shut off the fuel flow).  Now, that is going far beyond the original design, and we need to keep it just to the collimation at this point, but I'm saying thats what we unlock when we progress on this.

JR/Sludge
      C++ seems to be an extremely powerful tool, and its what the default F/A-18 avionics were coded in, not XML.  That being said, MS has more experience in this then us, and probably knows better.  If anyone wants to give C++ a go, feel free.  I'm trying to, but I don't have any decent online courses to learn from.

Now, on a total side note that I don't really think deserves its own thread but would be a nice upgrade/fix
JR, is there any possibility that you can do a few tweaks to the HUD to make it a T-45 HUD?  The HUD is based off of the F/A-18 it seems a fair amount, and also the biggest difference that led me to making this post is that the T-45s optimal AoA for landing is 17 units.  A whopping 17 units.

Source(s):

(see first comment)
http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?showtopic=20902 (search for downwind)

(As soon as he touches down, you can see his AoA drops, but it started at a number above 12, and he was within 2 units of optimal AoA on touchdown)