General Category > Unofficial F/A-18 Acceleration Pack board
FSX Acceleration USS Enterprise, a rework payware
Ost:
Unfortunately, as Sylvain wrote on SOH Forum :
--- Quote ---Hello,
A quick answer: the FLOLS system used is the FSX Acceleration feature, so you'll have exactly the same lights effects and glideslope with the BigE than FSX's carrier or Javier's Nimitz... But I can't tell you if it's 3.5 or 4 degrees... I guess FSX set it at 4 degrees but I'm not sure...
regards,
Sylvain
--- End quote ---
Ost
SUBS17:
What sort of animation has been modeled with the crew?
Mirage4FS:
--- Quote from: SUBS17 on January 19, 2012, 10:05:30 pm ---What sort of animation has been modeled with the crew?
--- End quote ---
What kind of animation do you want to see? Sylvain is converting his crew from the Clemenceau/Foch for use with the Enterprise. So if there was some animation there it might be possible to do the same but in a way appropriate to the US.
Would seriously like hear everyone's expectations and "deal breakers" before hand rather than after.
Oh, and it is presently using the default Aceleration meatball. So whatever the angle is on that, that's what we have. Please explain to me what the deal is so I can try to get it fixed.
Thanks guys! I'm part of the team calling the shots on this so I am listening.
---
Frank Safranek
Mirage Aircraft for Flight Simulator
http://www.mirage4fs.com/
Razgriz:
--- Quote from: Mirage4FS on January 31, 2012, 12:11:37 am ---
--- Quote from: SUBS17 on January 19, 2012, 10:05:30 pm ---What sort of animation has been modeled with the crew?
--- End quote ---
What kind of animation do you want to see? Sylvain is converting his crew from the Clemenceau/Foch for use with the Enterprise. So if there was some animation there it might be possible to do the same but in a way appropriate to the US.
Would seriously like hear everyone's expectations and "deal breakers" before hand rather than after.
Oh, and it is presently using the default Aceleration meatball. So whatever the angle is on that, that's what we have. Please explain to me what the deal is so I can try to get it fixed.
Thanks guys! I'm part of the team calling the shots on this so I am listening.
---
Frank Safranek
Mirage Aircraft for Flight Simulator
http://www.mirage4fs.com/
--- End quote ---
There was a huge argument over on the VRS forum of why FSX's 4.0 glideslope ball is wrong, and 3.5 is correct, but that's another story.
tl;dr; Pilots can use reference altitudes and distances [tables] to make sure hes on the right path for landing, make sure all of the real world pattern numbers add up and directly translate into the sim. The problem is it doesn't in FSX, because the meatball uses a 4.0 degree glideslope in FSX, while in the real world it uses a 3.5 degree glideslope. I'm sure Sludge can expand on this.
Sludge:
Frank...
--- Quote ---Oh, and it is presently using the default Aceleration meatball. So whatever the angle is on that, that's what we have. Please explain to me what the deal is so I can try to get it fixed.
--- End quote ---
Thanks for stopping by.
OK, the problem with the FSX 4.0 carrier glideslope is that, to be semi-realistic, one has to setup a Wind Over Deck (WoD) of 35+ knots so that the basic angle of 4.0 becomes an "effective angle" (due to WoD) of 3.2 degrees. Whereas 3.5 basic angle (what you see on the meatball), then becomes a 2.8 effective angle and requires WoD of around 30 kts (more realistic). A 3.5 glideslope is "the most commonly used" in carrier ops. This is all according to 2009 LSO NATOPS.
Also, in the Carrier Landing Pattern table (figure 8-2), one cannot "hit" the altitudes listed or even come close (within 50ft) if using the 4.0 glideslope. At the 90, one is supposed to be APPROX. 450 ft, but with the standard FSX glideslope one is about 550 ft.
Thats about it, as to why I'd definately purchase your carrier if it comes with a 3.5 meatball glideslope.
Later
Sludge
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version