General Category > Unofficial F/A-18 Acceleration Pack board

vLSO Beta release

<< < (278/282) > >>

retnavycpo:
Hey Paddles,

Sorry for the delay in my reply.  I just got it to work!  Thanks to your post, asking what the ATC model was, I realized I had used the wrong value from the aircraft.cfg file.  Anyway, I successfully got it working.  That is the first aircraft I have added.  Now, if I can just find the info I need to add the Razbam Corsair II and Intruder, I will be content for now :)  Pete

Paddles:
Guys,
This here is a reprint of my recent post on my blog (in case if you can't visit it for some reason)

FSX carriers' inconsistencies

When working on the RFN gauge integration into the next vLSO version I've noticed certain inconsistencies in OLS-wires placement on different carriers, namely on the Acceleration and Javier's CVN68.OLS hereinafter means the Acceleration embedded FLOLS.
Well, I googled a blueprint of the Nimitz and then compared it against the two models:

First thing that you will notice is that the Acceleration model is smaller and loosely reminds the real ship, while Javier's carrier almost perfectly matches the blueprint, which seems to prove that his model is the most accurate. However, the most significant difference (not visible at first glance) is that Javier's OLS and crossdeck pendants are shifted to the stern. Also, you can notice different spacing between wires - the green crossdeck lines above show Acceleration wires and the OLS datum line, the yellow lines show Javier's ones.
This zoomed view displays these differences in more details:

Then I placed an airplane on the deck of these carriers in a position 'on glideslope' to see where it should touch the deck.

'On gideslope' ball as seen from the cockpit

The Acceleration - right on wire #4

Javier's - well past wire #4

Huge disappointment!

Is there a carrier with correct wires-OLS positions, one might ask? Yes, there is. The Team SDB CVN65 in configuration with the default FLOLS. The 'on-glideslope' position on this carrier matches wire #3:

Another comparison screenshot proves that. The green line corresponds to wire #3 of the Big-E.

So, what's the point? What all this means for us? Well, it means that even flying on the ball you shouldn't hope to catch wire #3 on existing Nimitz models. Otherwise you should intentionally fly low at the ramp...

As a workaround you can use the RFN gauge, but in this case you shouldn't take the OLS into account and fly RFN needles exclusively.

The Aerosoft CV63 Kitty Hawk utilizes a RFN gauge (with its inherent precision). You can see that when flying on the ball you should land right in front of wire #3:



Actually, this gauge is kinda MOVLAS, not FLOLS, and the ball corresponds to your position on the glideslope. The RFN gauge controls the ball the same way as a real LSO controls a MOVLAS.

Lion207:
Awesome research and explanation, Paddles. Amazing what a big difference a small detail like that can make.

-Matt

Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk

GOONIE:
Thanks Paddles, attention to detail always important.

Does this mean all of my (OK) 4 wires should have been OK 3 wires on Javier's carrier???  ;D

Paddles:
Correctamundo!  8)

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page