Wily...
Yeah, it was a great time. Also, forgot to tell ya but I coulda been in the LSO shack with Chris the thursday I got there, had my plane been ON TIME. Oh well, cant win everything.
Raz...
Yes, it was a DREAM RIDE. It was very eye-opening as well, especially the whole FEEL of the simulator and how close up to the HUD you seem.
SUBS...
Doesnt really work like that. Even if I didn't have problems with their flight model, especially the PA mode... I cant incorporate that or anything else into the Sludge (MS default mod) which works using a combination of the FA18.dll, the AIRCRAFT.CFG, and the FA18.AIR files. We can mod/tweak the last two, but the .DLL is something we have to work AGAINST at times. In example, if there is something hard-coded into that .DLL and a gauge is made that goes against it (eg. rudder inputs)... well, then you get things like "rudder flutter" where the XML gauge is sending commands at 18/sec and the .DLL is sending something else... so you get the flutter. If I'm not mistaken, VRS 'Bug has/had this problems as well in their FCS coding.
I always keep my eyes/ears open to the forums, especially FSDeveloper.com, Simviation and the like but I dont think I'll be asking Jon Blum for anything anytime soon. Beyond personal differences, he wont "give out" anything outside of his development... so its really a moot point. Also, keep in mind... having flown in the sim, the VRS FM has a lot to be desired AND people often forget the Legacy Hornet and SuperBug are different in their handling, especially in PA mode. So you cant just mix/match because they both have Hornet in their names.
Johan...
Yes, I'm VERY LUCKY to have gotten to sit the seat in the sim. Was a lot of fun.
Spaz...
Well, its not an issue for REAL WORLD Hornets as much as it is for us in FSX. The reason being that the real world has a COLLIMATED and CONFORMAL HUD with the designed wide view (hence the splayed out HUD brackets) and an eyepoint that is much more forward than the FSX Hornet. I'm guessing this was done for "pan-scan" ability or something? But the problem now becomes lack of view thru the HUD that would mimic real world and give us a far wider view of the HUD and sky. Ever fly the Aerosoft F-16? That is still the BEST HUD in FSX, IMO... because it mimics a real world HUD the best I've ever seen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZXR_z9wR6Q (crank up to 720p, and look at how sharp the HUD is and how it projects out past the HUD glass)
The reason I bring this up is look at the eyepoint (notice how "high" it is in comparison) and how the HUD seems PROJECTED out into space. I know its an F-16, but this was my experience in the Hornet sim and a real world Hornet on the ground... the Hornet sim draws the HUD directly on the projection screen, in essense does the same thing and you dont have to re-focus.
I've thought long and hard and I'm not trying to take away from carrier landings but I will strive to make an equal balance between dogfighting and carrier landing mods. The reason is I dont want the Sludge being JUST for carrier landings. I'm still working on the air pressure/air density ratio falloff mods that will make engines more realistic at higher altitudes at MIL power, so that I dont have to overpower the engines just to make the Sludge a dogfighter at med-high altitudes. Right now, the Sludge can dogfight just fine at 10k and below but starting around 15k and definately at 20k and above, there is an unrealistic power response fall off that is an inherent problem in FSX that some FSDeveloper guys have figured out a workaround solution.
Mike...
Thanks again.
When I got back, I tried working on the eyepoint problem myself but only came up with more problems than solutions. If you move the eyepoint forward and a little up, you have to change the HUD size to keep it conformal and then you have get the canopy bow getting really HUGE because as you move your eyepoint forward, the bow gets unreasonably big. I have no idea why? If you can handle those problems, then you gotta think about HUD readability at a distance and if the symbology needs to be artificially enlarged just to read it. So yes, I know those problems well. We may have to trade ideas via email and see if we cant get a middle-ground FSX solution to this?
CAPT...
Yes, I did some go's at the boat and they were so-so. I did a bad pattern, as the legacy is alot more "slushy" in PA than I'm used to, coming from the Sludge mods. And then doing a straight in, the best I could do was a four wire for all my passes. And some really bad (1000 fpm sink rate) 4 wires at that... the reason to me was, the throttle response AND good lord, the ball gets SUPER SENSITIVE IC. I was flying a solid ball, 'til I hit IC and then boom it shot straight up from cresting to top ball and I would almost IDLE just to get a 4 wire. Now I see why there is never a time that a pilot is NOT working the throttles. CONSTANT THROTTLE MANAGEMENT is the key.
Your picture hit the nail on the head. You can see how the AoA Indexer is very small and imbedded into the physical bracket. Also, how the HUD brackets seem "skinny" in comparison and dont have alot of inner 3d perspective changes, whereas the VC HUD has a massive 3d perspective change that takes away from viewpoint.
Victory103...
Yes, the sim time gave me a very new perspective, no doubt.
The UA and PA FCS modes were definately borne out of necessity because of the Hornet's behavior in those flight regimes. If those two different modes didn't exist, the Hornet would be good to fly in the UA and damn hear impossible to fly in the PA. The FCS seemed to fight/get sluggish when doing high AoA stuff or just pulling too many Gs and getting slow. I'm guessing Hornet pilots spend alot of time there to get comfy, so they really know the LIMs of the jet and dont get freaked out when she's slow or near departure.
Later
Sludge
