General Category > Unofficial F/A-18 Acceleration Pack board
vLSO Beta release
Paddles:
Totally agree! The hardcoded 4.0 GS makes a huge difference and this is where this simulator starts disconnecting from real world. MS developers didn't even think that such serious guys would fly their sim ;D
The locus... If the vLSO waveoff calls were in sync with the FSX waveoff lights then the locus settings would make no sense at all ;D The locus allows a pilot to reach an on-glideslope position even from a relatevily poor start. That's how they do in real life, I guess. In case of FSX lights the pilot would be waved off right there, at the start... That's why I added this feature to the program. ;)
Sludge:
Serge...
--- Quote ---Totally agree! The hardcoded 4.0 GS makes a huge difference and this is where this simulator starts disconnecting from real world. MS developers didn't even think that such serious guys would fly their sim
--- End quote ---
Yeah, I usually fly my patterns with a VERY SERIOUS FACE!! No funny business at all. Haha.
--- Quote ---The locus... If the vLSO waveoff calls were in sync with the FSX waveoff lights then the locus settings would make no sense at all.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote ---FSX waveoff lights depend on the angle of view only. Thus you'll see flashing red lights even if you're in a safe position just below LO (or above H) somewhere at 2700-3000'...
--- End quote ---
I see what you're saying, and agree for the most part (especially the precision limited LOCUS and closer), with the exception that at the 2000' point and farther out, the LOCUS points should mirror the H and the L points out to start at 3600'? And I know we are dealing with FSX lims here in the viewable area of the glideslope but shouldn't a pass that starts out beyond those lims (even FSX) be a "waveoff pattern"?
Sorry, actually did some re-reading and Forum member K6952 already did the work. Learn to read, Sludge.
http://www.fsdreamteam.com/forum/index.php?topic=4915.msg45835#msg45835
I'll just use his numbers for the 2000'/farther, and your's for 2000'/closer. Probly use the numbers for two balls (4 on your IFLOLS gauge) or lower AR, so we get the waveoff if going two low and into ramp strike territory.
Finally, I did some calculations with the Abeam calls. Now NATOPS pattern illustration says 1-1/4 to 1-1/2, which calculates to 7595'/8195' (1.25NM/1.35NM; distance/distance plus 600' height). Is this why I'm getting the TOO CLOSE ABEAM calls when I'm 1.3 on the HUD TCN? I'm at 1.3 TCN and you've set it up to be greater than 1.35 TCN? After being in the sim and using 1.3 HUD TCN (as Chris said), I would ask if we could split the difference and use 7895' (1.3 HUD TCN as the closest before getting an abeam call)? What's your view on this?
Later
Sludge
SUBS17:
--- Quote from: Razgriz on April 08, 2012, 09:34:39 am ---
--- Quote from: SUBS17 on April 08, 2012, 08:05:47 am ---VRS Tacpac is going to have a tanker call feature which will allow you to place one anywhere aside that you just have to use FS Recorder or an AI Flight plan.
--- End quote ---
TacPack isn't out yet?
...lol?
--- End quote ---
(VRS Tacpac is going to have a tanker call feature) As mentioned above.
MikeB54:
I took a somewhat less scientific approach to getting the Locus.GS numbers to what I felt was reasonable behavior. Here is what I am using:
[Locus.GS]
; The glideslope locus.
; This is a boundary which represents the locus of points in the vertical plane from which
; the aircraft will reach an on-glideslope condition at the ramp.
; Distances are measured in feet from the touchdown point.
;--- Dist Up Down
Pos.0 = 5200, 1.07, -1.30
Pos.1 = 2500, 1.05, -1.25
Pos.2 = 2200, 1.03, -1.00
Pos.3 = 2000, 0.75, -0.80
Pos.4 = 1600, 0.59, -0.61
Pos.5 = 600, 0.50, -0.52
I started with numbers I found at FSXCarrierOps.com. I was still getting waveoffs when it took minimal corrective action to still get a 3 wire. About the only thing I did was open up the Pos.5 (AR) range.
Mike
Paddles:
Sludge,
Obviously there's something wrong with my abeam position calculations. I'll check it again and fix the bug.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version