General Category > Unofficial F/A-18 Acceleration Pack board
Sludge Hornet Modifications
SpazSinbad:
Yeah NATOPS can be a 'hit & miss' publication for a lot of things one would think would be there - with a lot of tech stuff that puts one to sleep (otherwise known as 'the little [or big] blue sleeping pill' in the USN). The good stuff are emergencies and what to do etc.
Razgriz:
While we're on the topic of the G-Vapor, I found something intresting. There was an extremely weak vapor at the high alpha, so maybe our logic for activating still isn't spot on?
[ Invalid YouTube link ]
Watch at 5:00
Sludge:
Raz...
Thanks bud!! Really good video that just gave me an idea, about multiple vapors. Right now, I'm gonna use 4.5/8.5 for a baseline. Watch from :57 on, when he get about 4.5, the vapor look similar to what I have now. Then go to 7:10, and watch how big the vapor is during higher G pulls. I got the "lo" part of the Hi-G/alpha along with a good logic for the same effect you saw, but with less transparency... and I'm using the numbers 4.5 G/8.5 alpha for its starting point.
Here's the kicker. As a test, I'm making a 2nd separate/co-functioning gauge that will now enable at 6.5 G/10 alpha, that looks more puffy and thicker. As Ive noticed the harder the G pull, the bigger the vapor gets behind the LEX and onto the blended area. Im gonna start with using the old gauge to over lap and plug in the new numbers just to test the theory.
When its done, in theory, it should work like this... 1. At 4.5 G/8.5, the first gauge starts and I get "lesser" vapor I have now. 2. Keep pulling past 6.5/10 alpha and the 2nd gauge kicks in and makes a thicker, longer, puffier vapor.
Will let you know the results.
Later
Sludge
Razgriz:
That is what I was thinking, but my idea is more complex. At different Alpha/G combinations (pre-set in the XML), a different vapor shows. It has about 5-10 stages and they blend together seamlessly in the air.
WilliamCall:
--- Quote from: trent on September 16, 2010, 08:36:50 am ---
--- Quote from: Razgriz on September 16, 2010, 04:48:43 am ---You can always convert VB.NET to C++, but that is bound to cause problems.
--- End quote ---
Hurrah, a subject I know more about than the local gurus for once. C++ is nothing like Visual Basic, for what it's worth. It's probably the hardest mainstream language to become reasonably competent in, and unequivocably the hardest language to become a guru in. C++ meta-template programming can cause brain damage.
Or, for an aviation-themed metaphor... C++ is to programming as a carrier landing is to general aviation ;-)
Forgot my point. Oh, yeah, I'm a software engineer by trade... This thread has inspired me to put FSX on my dev laptop so I can get acquainted with the SDK whilst I'm on holiday next week.
And how about this for a random offer... I'll donate an hour of C++-FSX-SDK-fu for every critique I get on my recently uploaded FSX/Superbug carrier pattern (it's the best pattern I've flown against my current standards so I'm looking for more experienced folk to rip it to pieces so I can re-set my standards a little higher):
--- End quote ---
Trent,
Is your video based on a mission? I noticed after your carrier landing you got a verbal LSO grade. How did you get that?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version