Sludge Hornet Modifications

[SUBS17]

Back to FSX and the SLUDGE (Hornet). Using the Sludge or default Hornet is what this forum is about. Talking about other aircraft is useful but not really in the realm of this forum. I'll refuse to use any other Hornet in FSX except the SLUDGE. 

Thats quite a narrow point of view considering that there are other addons for FSX that are as good as the accel hornet or even better and to not consider those addons you are missing out definately on some absolute works of art such as the T45 Goshawk and the VRS Superhornet. I know its OT but technically I've found its good to look at the detail on all the sims aircraft and addons to get an idea of just what is the ultimate and how to get it applied to peoples favourite sim addon. You'll definately find that the opposite happens on the forums of such addons don't be surprised if Sludges hornets name doesn't come up. On the Jet combat sim forums such as DCS and Open Falcon we often have similar discussions which often inspires devs to improve sims and the technology competitively.

[SpazSinbad]

subs17, perhaps I get tired of voicing my opinion but that is only what is - what else can it be. The moderator has made it clear what this forum is about.

If I have not tried other NavAv aircraft in FSX this has been made clear. How can I comment on something not tried except to point out that sometimes other aircraft are hogging frame rates (as reported by others <gasp> on this very forum). If you have been reading this forum for some time, and I believe you have I have, I've also made it clear that the T-45C Goshawk is a gem, especially when teamed with the new Hornet HUD. This and the SLUDGE would be my picks. Others can pick their own but I'll stress again it has been made clear to me that this forum is about the Acceleration Hornet. Perhaps this is not clear to you.

I'm not looking for argument - just voicing my opinion - and see it in that light only. I'll guess that other forums exist where aircraft of different types can be compared and in other sims but I'll wager if too much is about NOT the Acceleration Hornet this thread will disappear as other threads have been deleted in the past (with some very good uploads by me about stuff to do with either the Hornet or Super Hornet [NATOPS] or the Goshawk). I'm not in the business of repeating mistakes. I'm not making the rules here and I've seen threads deleted because rules not obeyed. The moderator may have a different view - that is my take on it though.

In the same way people can fly a carrier/FCLP pattern however they wish and with whatever aircraft. Good luck to them.

And I'm not surprised that the SLUDGE is favoured in other forums. That is for good reason.  
____________________________

This is what the moderator had to say recently (after some valuable posts were removed - the good went with 'the bad' - sadly):

“This board is called "Unofficial F/A-18 Acceleration Pack board”

http://www.fsdreamteam.com/forum/index.php?topic=2991.0

“Which is why, any discussion related to other products that do not have anything to do with the Acceleration F/A-18, are considered to be off topic, and will be removed.
virtuali
Administrator”

[Sludge]

CAPT...

What do you guys think of the look of the fuel dump effect? Can this effect be made to be on at all times (no fuel dumping) and in the correct location (engines)?
-Capt

Good to hear from ya.  Ill give your idea a try and see what happens.  If its good enough, I'll post some pics and get feedback from the forum.

Spaz...

Thats quite a narrow point of view considering that there are other addons for FSX that are as good as the accel hornet or even better and to not consider those addons you are missing out definately on some absolute works of art such as the T45 Goshawk and the VRS Superhornet. I know its OT but technically I've found its good to look at the detail on all the sims aircraft and addons to get an idea of just what is the ultimate and how to get it applied to peoples favourite sim addon. You'll definately find that the opposite happens on the forums of such addons don't be surprised if Sludges hornets name doesn't come up. On the Jet combat sim forums such as DCS and Open Falcon we often have similar discussions which often inspires devs to improve sims and the technology competitively.

As I told Orion, dont waste your time.  All you'll get is "blah, blah, VRS this... LockOn that... DCS this... T-45 that..." and he'll never just agree to disagree.  I mean, I know that the Sludge Hornet mods are a "niche" product that are NOT talked about on most other forums, but thats OK with me and everyone here, I think.  No big deal.  I dont do this for money, or praise, or whatever... I do it 'cause I love modding the default Hornet to get as close to real as can possibly be done within our known limitations; and even tho is a I dont wanna pay good money for the VRS frame rate killer.  Plus, contrary to what SUBS is portraying them as, VRS is not a friendly bunch that takes criticism well... all I did was CORRECTLY point out that the 'Bug is "too light" on approach (~75% N2 vs NATOPS 85%-88% N2) and suggested a quick fix to mod the gear and flaps drag to correct the problem.  That led to a knock-down/drag-out forum fight between me and one the designers at "pompous-#$$ central", Alvaro/JACN, who even after PROVEN WRONG by LCDR ROLEX who verified the CORRECT N2 NUMBERS in a REAL LIFE SUPERHORNET SIM wouldn't apologize for either being incorrect or his condescending behavior.  I dare you to tell me I'm lying SUBS, and be able to back it up.  So no, the other forums, particularly VRS, are not as all-loving and open as SUBS INCORRECTLY portrays them... especially if you aren't sucking up to them about how great their product is. 

BTW, Since I forgot to tell ya... GREAT comments on Trent's pattern and landing.  That was pretty much what I was hoping for, and a little bit more (for myself), including the links with the perspective of how to be a good LSO and tell the pilot his mistakes as how HE IS SEEING THEM THRU THE COCKPIT.  When I did those weekend LSOs, I was doing it from the plat cam LSO point-of-view, but with this new understanding, I think my grading will get better in the way of providing better insight for the pilot from my debrief.  Also, your reinforcing comments about CORRECT ERRORS QUICKLY above all else kinda rattled my cage, as I have been "slipping" into the smooth USAF landing style category myself.  Ill get that fixed.  Also hoping to get the weekend sessions going again, those were alot of fun.  That is still one of the most read threads on FSDT.
 
Trent...

Man, you have a quick learning curve and alot of passion for NavAv.  I remember having many of the same questions when I started here.  If you wanna see our learning curve, go and read our big weekend multiplayer mission thread:  http://www.fsdreamteam.com/forum/index.php?topic=2525.0, then see how much we all learned to get to this point.  I mean everything from how to fly the pattern, what the correct comms are, what is an OK 3 vs. FAIR 3 vs. No-Grade 4, whats a good carrier speed/wind speed/wind direction, all things FSX naval aviation plus some good buffoonery in the videos.

Later
Sludge

[Razgriz]

If you have bought the SBug and have access to their private support forum, read what Sludge is talking about (with JACN and LCDR Rolex, ex F/A-18D pilot):
http://forums.vrsimulations.com/forums/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=2924
and
http://forums.vrsimulations.com/forums/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=3070&p=22733

[SUBS17]

From my own observations of that post there is a few things that are clear:

A 100% Realistic Thrust vs N1/N2 RPMs curves is not included in the "SE" version list of features. If enough info about the engine is available perhaps a more accurate compressor map will be implemented for the PRO.

No, just plain ground effect. It´s based on some extrapolations from similar real aircrafts models. If you have better info that can lead into a more realistic model (based on real figures), feel free to PM me.

I see alot of this and have even made the mistake of making similar comments on other forums at the end of the day everyone is wanting a better more realistic aircraft and in the case of VRS their devs stated that if you have better info then send them a pm. we had similar problems when comparing Lockons with Falcon4s FM in the past and often this comes up from time to time on most jet combat sim forums. On the one hand I can see where Sludge is coming from on the other from the point of view of the devs they needed something more solid than an opinion eg data. The good thing is that VRS are going to do a more detailed FM in the future for the pro version. Other things to point out is that when comparing the VRS SH for FS9 and FSX to Lockon, Falcon 4/AF/OF, Janes F/A-18E and FSX stock Hornet. The VRS has the most detailed FM of any sim I've ever flow for a PC game it quite simply is far more detailed the only sims that compare are Lockon FCs SU25T and DCS BlackShark. In detail I mean not only the performance but the requirement to trim in small inputs the pirouette and UA/PA modes. Its good that there are people like Sludge modding the accel Hornet bringing the best out of the sim for the good of the community. 

[SUBS17]

Just a hint here it might pay to talk to some of the guys who did the FM charts for Falcons HFFM(High Fidelity Flight Models) if you are into tweaking FMs the guy who did the HFFMs is also an engineer and did quite an awesome job for Falcon. I don't where you will find solid Hornet data though. You can view the HFFM charts if you look in the docs folder of Open Falcon 4.7 although its for an F-16 thats the sort of data you need to make such aircraft as close to the real deal as possible. As for other companys such as VRS from my own observations regarding this stuff don't chuck out your copy of the sim because its rare that devs make patches for their product with jet combat sims but in the case of VRS they continue to support their products with patches etc.

[Sludge]

SUBS...

Game on, buddy.

My initial post, being very generous, open, and even-keeled.

Realistic RPMs on Approach

Postby Sludge » Fri Apr 16, 2010 11:43 am
First... need to thank Varmint and Adieumus for being the most responsive customer service in history. You guys probly havent slept much this last week, but the patch installed and took care of a great many issues. Again, much thanks, if I were located nearby would take you out for a brew.

OK, now my question/problem is... When flying a full flaps down/gear down profile on final, I only need 70-75 RPMs to maintain glideslope. In my discussion with others and NATOPS pulls, I thought the approach RPMs are supposed to be 85-89 percent (as its listed in the carrier ops diagram). And in general, the Bug feels light in approach and also I have to do that "anti-flare" stick down motion when crossing the runway threshold just to maintain the watermark at 5 deg. nose up. Is that a function you programmed into the Bug?

And, I dont know how much the Bug is handcuffed by FSX flight dynamics, but if you put the "by the book" amount of static dry thrust, the Bug will be overpowered. I had this problem with the Sludge Hornet. Additionally, to get the right numbers on approach, I had to increase the induced drag scalar to 1.1, which makes alot of difference in increased drag in high AoA flight profiles (ie, final approach).

Anyway, when things even off a bit, and you get time... can you look into this?

Thanks
Sludge

And then somehow a few responses later, I get a "tone"??!  Mixed with quite a bit of arrogance from Alvaro "this isnt like anything you played with in FSX."  REALLY?!  It has a aircraft.cfg, it also has a .air file, so what's soo different to make that statement true?

Re: Realistic RPMs on Approach

Postby JACN » Tue Apr 20, 2010 3:24 pm
Christian
    Sludge wrote:You know what, I was only putting this thread out here as an idea that I felt the 'Bug FEELS light in approach

Should I modify the whole engine just because one person´s "feeling"?

    Sludge wrote:I dont have any actual engine figures cause I never was/never will be a Hornet or Bug pilot, nor do I care to have to find "the numbers" just to show I can research them. .

Then you´re a lucky guy. I needed to research them to make the Superbug FM for seeing how a person comes here and tell me after 4 years of work ...my work is wrong because he´s a feeling...

    Sludge wrote: If you have RW pilots out there who say your model is right on, then so be it, I'll drop the issue.

Yes we had.

    Sludge wrote: Again, I just brought this up because of how I felt compared to what Ive "PLAYED WITH IN FSX" in the past and how the 'Bug seemed to FLOAT on barely above idle power while maintaining glideslope.

Sorry, bad argument. Superbug is not like anything you´ve "PLAYED WITH IN FSX".

    Sludge wrote:From my limited understanding, shouldn't the Hornet be spooled up on approach to be more responsive to throttle increases only using a tad of throttle movement? Thats my whole point in posting here

Transient responses of the Superbug´s engine are validated against actual F404 engine data. Response times are in the 3+ seconds range as average, so you should not consider it needs the same technique as an old F-4´s J79. An accurate Thrust vs N1 curve was not in the SE features list and will never be. If you want so you´ll have to wait until the PRO and pay for those aditional features...

    Sludge wrote:In my previous posts, I didnt claim this should be the end-all/be-all knowledge base of the flight model,

Your tone said another thing

    Sludge wrote: only that my previous experiences (in changing the default Hornet to something more realistic) had shown and from what I could tell of NATOPS readings and RW Hornet maintenance folks, that the Bug seems too light in approach.

Superhornet is based not only on NATOPS performance manual (NOT a true technical data source, BTW) but mainly on several performance data technical notes. Hornet maintenance folks?...don´t get me wrong, but I´m an aeronautical engineer who sees dozens of A330s, Belugas, C295s, EF2000, F-18 take-offs and landings a day and I will never pretend to do a serious statement about any of those aircrafts behaviours just based on what I think I see. And, of course, you cannot consider that as "objective technical data" source in which you could base a simulation...

    Sludge wrote:Glad to see your soo open to discussing IDEAS and not shutting them down.

Not a discussion, just a refutation of a not adequately supported assessment

    Sludge wrote:This is beginning to seem a waste of 40 bucks as I still dont have full throttle range control and now I have to pull out technical manuals, NATOPS, even be a former pilot to get an idea some traction? Great discussion board.

Ok, if you want so, please PM Jon and you´ll have a refund.

This topic is closed.

Álvaro

...to continue... to the best part...

[Sludge]

SUBS...

Wait for it.

Thanks Raz.

Re: RPMs on approach
Postby Razgriz » Wed Apr 21, 2010 12:46 am
On a continuation from the old thread by Sludge (Don't lock it just "because you've worked on it and THINK your right.") NATOPS is what I base this on, so I'm sure this is fairly accurate.

RPMs on approach - 85-88%, 3/4 mile, on-speed.

Part III, Chapter 8, Figure 8-2. Carrier Landing Pattern. [Page 333/806]

Next.  As I said, Adiemus is the best guy there... level-headed, open to new ideas.

Re: RPMs on approach

Postby adiemus » Wed Apr 21, 2010 1:58 am
I don't agree with locking the old topic either, but I'll leave that one to Jon to fix if he so desires.

The issue with that NATOPS graphic specifically is that it doesn't specify an actual configuration. In other words, there's no weight or DI specified, so the best you can guess is that it's *somewhere* inside the safe trap range. Thus, using that as a reference isn't terribly helpful other than as a rough estimate.

Now comes the evidence and support.  Thanks Ryan!

Re: RPMs on approach

Postby ryanyomomma » Wed Apr 21, 2010 7:07 am
I have a confession to make.....it was me who gave Sludge the NATOPS reference (The man had his cards right for calling that so the least I could have done was give him the references.). I have it on me and I double confirmed it from the copy at work AND the -500...... 85 - 88% N2 pretty much from the break decent and onto the intercept glide slope. ref. pg III-8-11.... figure is on the page and the written procedure are on the next pages. If I was a betting man, the Flight Idle numbers will be higher than 70% N2 HOWEVER, Flight Idle parameters are not in the super hornet NATOPS. Don't ask me why but I could ask my divo on that issue...

I WILL however, acknowledge the fact that Aces has a behemoth of code for FSX and its hard to develop with...and the fact that the VRS team is working on that Pro version (in which I will put to test like it was nobody's business). That was mentioned before.

Oh, and the whole loadout thing....well...in my experience on the flightdeck....I never seen a bird comeback to the ship with a complete loadout like I see on here.....and even if it was just inert, I never seen a load plan that huge...not to mention some really pissed off ordies (cag and ship). Even looking at OIF/OEF pics of aircraft....the loadouts ain't that big...

...you ain't seen bad yet, but its comin'...

[Sludge]

SUBS...

More support.

Re: RPMs on approach
Postby ryanyomomma » Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:53 pm to top it off, NATOPS is our bible. NATOPS is law. It must be followed just like any other Naval publication/IETM/TD/NAVAIR. NATOPS STATES 85 - 88 % N2 on intercept glide slope.

...now, the HAMMER...

Re: RPMs on approach
Postby LCDRRolex » Thu Apr 22, 2010 9:08 pm
Ok, I did four passes today in the Super Hornet sim, and all four yeilded the same results.

Setup: 5 Mile final to the carrier, 44,000lb jet, Gear down, flaps full, hook down, Auto Throttles engaged.

I used ACLS Mode 1 approaches on 2 of the 4 to cross check manual with auto.

All four passes RPM's were in the 82-85% range throughout the entire pass, mostly staying at 85% on glideslopse and dropping to 82% when I was working off the high. Hope this helps.

Rolex

Any questions?

And this all came from my original question that I had about the RPMs being outside of NATOPS on approach and I didnt say anything hostile in my opening or subsequent posts 'til the discussion turned snippy and was locked.  My biggest mistake was saying something about the engine modelling because my work with the Sludge.  Whereas I should've talked more about the flaps/gear drag values.  I did but not to the extent I should've emphasized that over an "overpowered" engine.  And somehow, according to Alvaro, I had a "tone"?  I mean, am I supposed to write "humbly bowing" when I comment or I have a tone? Care to comment on that, SUBS?  

Later
Sludge

[Razgriz]

and the hammer falls.

[SUBS17]

From my own experience in such discussions in the past when dealing with devs its best to use pms when you're giving advice on such things which is what they mentioned but you have to have the data to back it up. Just remember though they are doing a pro version later so if there are issues now then wait and see if those issues exist in the pro version. From my impressions it looks as though FSX is virtually pushed to the limits with the VRS Superhornet and they are limited to what you can do with FSX. BTW they also probably have some real life Superhornet pilots helping them out so stuff like that would be checked prior to release anyway.

[Sludge]

SUBS...

I dont know what planet you live on but here on Earth, since we dont have money falling from trees, when I pay 40+ bucks to a company for a product, I expect them to answer me with a little respect.  If I point out an error to them, before disagreeing, I expect them to ask around and LOOK INTO IT?!  However, when the answer is:  we will get defensive, attack you, lock the thread, and then when you prove us wrong, still not admit it and not apologize for our behavior... thats when I dont do business with that company.  On top of that, part of their (paraphrased) answer is "that'll be fixed in the PRO version"?  Oh really?!  So, I have to shell out HOW MUCH MORE MONEY just to get it right?  And this is YOUR SO-CALLED "work of art"?  They cant even get the cockpit spacing and eyepoint right for cryin' out loud.

Since you are adamant in your refusal to admit you were wrong, you have implied I would cheat by bringing in modded aircraft just to best you in a dogfight, and you have tried to weasel your way into saying I was lying, it's time to end any "discussions" with you.  And, most importantly, you have CONTRIBUTED NOTHING to the discussion of upgrading the default FSX Hornet or Sludge Hornet modifications (AS THIS THREAD IS APTLY NAMED)... so from here on out, I will adhere to the advice I have been telling others, and ignore you.

Im out.
Sludge

[SUBS17]

Seriously Sludge chill out dude as it is I'm always in support of any and all improvements on any combat aircraft in FSX including the Sludge Hornet as I told you in the other thread my PC is very slow in FSX regardless of what I'm flying. And I did state that I would dogfight you in another sim such as F4AF or Lockon 1.02. As for VRS SH thats VRS bird how the devs respond to advice or critisism is up to them I merely pointed out my observations of what they were trying to put accross. The good thing is at least VRS support the product enough to provide patches and addons when I compare this to DiDs Superhornet sim where we had the best Superhornet sim ever modeled with the most potential and yet not one patch to fix show stopping bugs. Compared to Janes F/A-18E DiDs Hornet sim actually had animated ground crew on the deck of the carrier guiding you up to the CAT so much potential and disappointment compared to the meazlly annoyance of a few rpm it pales in significance.

[Razgriz]

Seriously Sludge chill out dude as it is I'm always in support of any and all improvements on any combat aircraft in FSX including the Sludge Hornet as I told you in the other thread my PC is very slow in FSX regardless of what I'm flying. And I did state that I would dogfight you in another sim such as F4AF or Lockon 1.02. As for VRS SH thats VRS bird how the devs respond to advice or critisism is up to them I merely pointed out my observations of what they were trying to put accross. The good thing is at least VRS support the product enough to provide patches and addons when I compare this to DiDs Superhornet sim where we had the best Superhornet sim ever modeled with the most potential and yet not one patch to fix show stopping bugs. Compared to Janes F/A-18E DiDs Hornet sim actually had animated ground crew on the deck of the carrier guiding you up to the CAT so much potential and disappointment compared to the meazlly annoyance of a few rpm it pales in significance.

The measly RPMs they chose to ignore and insult Sludge about.

[IRONDAN]

Hey bros! Is it possible to apply the sludge flight model to the captsim delta model?

Dan