FSDreamTeam forum
General Category => Unofficial F/A-18 Acceleration Pack board => Topic started by: Sludge on September 30, 2009, 09:15:16 pm
-
Check this out fellas...
The other day, in the midst of looking at the sdk developers site, http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc526949.aspx , I stumbled upon this under [airplane_geometry]... "fly_by_wire = 1", meaning Fly-By-Wire system available. So I made the entry in the aircraft.cfg file and took the F-18 out for a spin. At low speeds (takeoff/landing), it handles similar to what you are used to for a non-FBW aircraft. However, forgive me if my memory is off, but around 200-250 kts it starts to respond as a very sluggish FBW system. I commanded FULL LEFT AILERON and the Hornet just creeped into a left bank.
Now after looking at the sdk page again and reading the example, I'm guessing this FBW behavior is modeled to fit the "airbus 321" example that was given? Also, if we can get FBW, can anyone think of a way to modify its behavior (ie, boosting/modifying its ultra slow feedback, and where it kicks in for landing responsiveness) through the .air file or something else?
Also, has anyone activated the auto-trim function available in the "fsx.cfg" file and used it with the Hornet? Its there, and to activate, it needs to be set to TRUE not a 1 value. I have done it but it seems that one has to be bullish to get it to respond, meaning alot of input either forward or down to get the desired auto-trim to where you want it is required. Not just a simple few degrees nose up or down, but 10 to 15 deg to get it to re-autotrim bout 5 deg., so I turned it off and still use manual trim.
Would like to hear if anyone has done this and what they have experienced and if you have any ideas about modifications.
Laterz
Sludge
-
If you copy the 2d overhead panel of the A321 into the F/A-18, you can disable the flight computers that limit the FBW. Tell me if you want me to do that for you.
-
I think I can do that, when I get home ... Ill try to install and work it and let you know.
-
All it seemed to do was send me back to non-FBW Hornet in flight response, so I really didnt mess with it in depth, thanks for the help though.
On another front, I've put together a very decent of ground contact points that make the Hornet look alot more what its supposed to be without the "bumps" when switching views. Also, with this mod, you have to set your Mesh Resolution to 10m, everything else can be full to the right. Everytime Ive gone to the right of 10m I get the "bumps" when taxiing at times, or when I switch views, especially the tower.
These settings are also very good for carrier landings, dont have the "tipovers" as other people do, even when slightly off line. So far, these numbers in my config file seems to make the Hornet very stable and smooth on the ground.
Give them a try and send me feedback..
Laterz
Sludge
-
checking, will report back in a bit of time, busy day.
I have been using contact points that solved cat launch and trap problems for the default F/A-18C and payware XLoad F/A-18D, although still testing these but will compare.
-
Mr. "wilycoyote4,"
I resolved that issue for those aircraft and many others... Here: Aircraft AI Carrier Configurations v1.8 by James F. Chams (http://x-plane.org/home/JamesChams/AI_Carrier_Addon_Aircraft_Configurations.txt)
If you wanted to save yourself some time. ;)
Enjoy! :)
-
James...
What issue did you resolve with that link?
Your hook contact points are good, since Ive used them, but I was talking about the gear contact points with realistic gear compression that gives the acceleration F-18 a very slight nose down, gear compressed, flat orientation it should have. Not the crazy, original F-18 acceleration static "tail high" orientation that isn't right. You know, the dragster look it has when just sitting on the ground that any search of Youtube or any other source will show you how wrong that gear compression is modeled. The reason I was posting my numbers to see what other people experience... and to see if my numbers along with pulling back only the Mesh Resolution slider on scenery realism works for them as well as it did for me to eliminate the "bumps".
-
Mr. Christian "Sludge" Snow,
... but I was talking about the gear contact points with realistic gear compression that gives the acceleration F-18 a very slight nose down, gear compressed, flat orientation it should have. Not the crazy, original F-18 acceleration static "tail high" orientation that isn't right. You know, the dragster look it has when just sitting on the ground that any search of Youtube or any other source will show you how wrong that gear compression is modeled. The reason I was posting my numbers to see what other people experience... and to see if my numbers along with pulling back only the Mesh Resolution slider on scenery realism works for them as well as it did for me to eliminate the "bumps".
I spoke with a the modeler of the IRIS F-14 Pro series (Stephen V.) a long time ago about the F/A-18 nose being pitched down; he informed me, that they made it that way so that they wouldn't have to animate the model for the required kneel/squat that carrier aircraft have to do inorder to meet the catapult for the launch. Also, CaptainSim modeled their versions to enable for payloads to cause the aircraft to looked stressed when overloaded or not properly loaded. The result is the bounce effect you see from time to time (Virtuali informed me about that) on any ground surface at an airport or even on the carriers. Finally, I posted the carrier stuff for Mr. "wilycoyote4" because it seemed that he was trying to align the proper locations for the tailhook and launch bar; something that I had already done.
I have no solution to this or I would pass it along. Best of luck to you. :)
-
James...
OK, fair nuff. I see where you were going with that.
Now, check this out. I just got done using my aircraft cfg, scenery realisms to full except Mesh at 10m and all aircraft realisms to full including "allow collisions w/other a/craft" using FULL FLAPS and launched on all CATs without fail, on both ful mil power and ful AB. I'm guessing this has to do with how nose low the aircraft remains because my launches had me nose low where I immediately had to pull up on the stick and uptrim. Also, when i used the keyboard to give the elevators some manual upstick for a little nose-up launch, it crashed, even on full flaps.
I will try some launches and traps to see if the trim needs to be reset to zero on traps, but seeing as how the real F-18 launches w/full flaps, if this really does work for others as well as it does for me, then I think we will have an even better flight model w/that much more realism.
Will report back.
-
SUCCESS!!!
End of Day Report.
Did the 1st carrier mission as described before (aircraft/realism settings w/new gear points). I did NOT have to reset my trim to zero. I did notice a little higher takeoff angle (meaning not soo much stick pull and trim after cat) on the 2nd and later cat-shots.
Let me know how it turns out for you guys out there!
Nite, I'm out.
Sludge
Pic of the day's success
-
The following is my first opinion from several flights. The white Hornet uses the cfg posted for download here. The appearance is good.
The first screenshot shows the Hornet with no fuel, parked on a ramp, so it has very low weight.
The next shows cat launch at the end of the cat track at 167 KIAS and 23% fuel. The Hornet appears this way, basically, from the start of the launch to end of the cat trap. Note: throttle is not at full power. Full power isn't needed at such a low weight.
Next is a Hornet waiting for cat launch. This Hornet is at full AB power. The Hornet kneels at the nose gear. But it stays on the cat track and doesn't release early. Weight is also low.
The blue Hornet uses a different cfg. Fuel is 25%. The main gear are somewhat high but look ok to me. This cfg is also used for the Captain Sim XLoad payware F/A-18D which can be set up with greater weight than the F/A-18C.
But there is another consideration. The cfg posted here is not as "stable" during taxi turns or trapping on a carrier, IN MY OPINION, as the earlier cfg I've been using.
-
Thanks Coyote!
OK, will tinker with the config on taxi stability. Now that you say it, sometimes on the flight deck I have to hit the brakes as it turns over a bit when going on NWS HI and maneuvering to get on a cat.
Also, how were your cat shots? Any crashes? I'm pretty happy with the config in that respect, also use full flaps and havent crashed against the deck on cat shots ONCE.
Laterz
Sludge
-
Mr. Christian "Sludge" Snow / Mr. "wilycoyote4,"
I got your PM but haven't had a chance to test things on my end. Looks like you both have made some progress. Keep at it and let us all know!
Good Job, Gents! 8)
-
Now that you say it, sometimes on the flight deck I have to hit the brakes as it turns over a bit when going on NWS HI and maneuvering to get on a cat.
Also, how were your cat shots? Any crashes? I'm pretty happy with the config in that respect, also use full flaps and havent crashed against the deck on cat shots ONCE.
Laterz
Sludge
All cat shots are good. Realism is max. But will test for "crash" -------in other words, what is your definition of "crash"? Landing at proper weights is important as I see the matter.
I'm not home as I write this post but I'll post my gear contact points so you can compare. I mean the contact points I use but must give credit to another person if I can find the website where I copied them.
The contact points I use now, the HUD glass mod, and the free speed brake modification solved my problems, in my opinion.
-
wily, may I ask what you mean by this mod please "free speed brake modification" - thanks. Do you mean the movement of the Hornet when speedbrakes selected (fix for this from the FSX Blue Angels website) or do you mean something else (head bob?). IMHO the 'head bob' is a killer 'bug' for the FSX Hornet - wot needs to be fixed. ;D
Others mention taxiing in various ways. Taxiing dangerously (too fast) is especially problematic on deck. You will not see any aircraft going faster than a walking pace most likely always under direction of the yellow shirts. Lining up on the catapult is done very carefully without nosewheel steering most likely. Differential brakes are used for the final few feet with cat director indicating minute changes all made with brakes (here I'm referring to Skyhawk with nosewheel steering but imagine same technique for other aircraft). Nosewheel steering would be very sensitive for VERY SLOW taxi speeds deliberately so that easy tight turns can be accomplished. Always at very slow speed though (under direction of course). Happy taxiing - no one ever wins a prize for a taxiing accident. :o
-
I meant "freeware" -----yes the air file from the FSX Blue Angels website. Head movement was disabled ----in the fsx.cfg file if I recall correctly.
Yes, taxiing at high speed isn't normal. I'm talking about the default Hornet "tipping" too much when turning at even slow taxi speeds. This is greatly reduced now but slow taxi is neccessary especially on deck. I did change the nosewheel turn angle to a greater angle as seen in videos of real aircraft.
Now, when I trap on a carrier, the landing is much smoother as "tipping over" is so greatly reduced.
-
Alrighty fellas...
On a NEW tinkering subject, just got done getting the full screen HUD fixed. So for those of you that have the new HUD installed and want NOTHING in the way, I hope you like this one. Granted, I wasnt able to put the indexer in there, but I'm sure someone here can do that, or if I get the time tomorrow, I will give it a shot.
Here is what you need to add to your panel.cfg file:
//--------------------------------------------------------
[Window00]
Background_color=0,0,0
size_mm=456,378
position=4
visible=1
ident=MAIN_PANEL
alpha_blend=0.95
window_size=0.3,0.52
window_pos=0.35,0.35
gauge00=fa18_hud!fa18_hud, 0, 0, 456, 378,
You can mess with the window_pos (x is the 0.35 value) to align the horizon line how you want, but it stays pretty close to the correct orientation once you get it setup how you like it.
Enjoy the pic, I'm out for the nite
Laterz
Sludge
-
Sludge, without having tried it but by looking at your excellent screenshot that new HUD looks very useful - without too much 'green stuff' getting in the way. Thanks very much for your work on it. I'll give it a try soonish. 8)
Just had a quick tryout and thought: Is it possible to get rid of the digital clock in the HUD altogether? It is one green bit right in the way of looking at the mirror on finals. Thanks.
Also in the last line of the new config: "gauge00=fa18_hud!fa18_hud, 0, 0, 456, 378," there was a '4' at the end in the old config. What was/is the '4' for?
-
Spaz...
No problem. I remember you were wanting something like that earlier, so I figured what the heck, give it a whirl and see what comes up. Even landed on the carrier with the full screen HUD, as it seems responsive without alot of framerate loss. You can adjust the "window_pos" to make the artificial horizon line up with the real horizon around 8.1 AoA using +/- .1 increments. As I was up late, I think positive value goes down and a negative goes up, but I'm sure you can experiment and see where that leads you. Also, if you dont come up with a window that shows the indexer, I will try to do something of that sort when I get home today.
Wily...
By "crash" I was meaning on cat shots, when you get to the end and it crashes into the end for whatever reason and those settings wont allow you to launch off the boat. You get the "end mission" crash at the end of the cat stroke, thats my definition. BTW, what are your gear settings? Ive altered mine for more strut strength (.6000 vs .9000) and changed the COG to -34.20, so its much more stable when taxiing. I saw you postings in other threads and forums, but wasnt sure what you settled on, so could you send my way? Would like to try them out...
Laterz
Sludge
-
Sludge---
Here are the contact points for gear that I use and prefer at this time. I use these for both the C and D Hornet. I'm not able to find the original forum post where I got the contact points, not yet.
Note----nose wheel steering is 75 degrees which is my setting.
point.0= 1, -8.00, 0.00, -6.50, 3900, 0, 0.6349, 75.0, 0.2000, 3.5, 0.6100, 3.0, 3.0, 0, 0.0, 0.0
point.1= 1, -35.50, -9.90, -7.60, 3900, 1, 0.6349, 0.0, 1.2, 1.6, 0.5456, 3.9, 3.9, 2, 0.0, 0.0
point.2= 1, -35.50, 9.90, -7.60, 3900, 2, 0.6349, 0.0, 1.2, 1.6, 0.5456, 3.7, 3.7, 3, 0.0, 0.0
-
Spaz...
Well, I get rid of the clock by using the HUD Control Panel. I get it to read simply "00", which has been good enough for me. Just bring up the HUD control and cycle thru the clock switches til you get that... sorry, thats the best I have for now. As far as the ",4" I think it meant "no scanlines"? I'm basing that on reading the very original default Hornet and before modifying it for the new HUD, it says ", 4, no scanlines". Thats my best guess, definately not sure though.
Wily...
Much thanks! Will try those out. Before I do, any reason you use such a wide wheelbase (ie the -9.90, 9.90)? Has it made things more stable? As well as the -8.00 for the nosegear, unless thats a misprint just missing the "1"? In my config, I tried to keep maintain the specs to a certain degree but as we all know, sometimes that doesnt work out. So far, my tricycle dimension have been OK (-18.00 and -35.80), but will try yours out to see what happens.
Laterz
Sludge
-
I didn't make it. I copied it from a post on a forum but I can't recall where. It seems to help so I use it. I don't know who posted it.
Of course, there is more to carrier flying.
-
Sludge, thanks for checking. I'll set the minimal clock as required.
-
I am not "crashing" in missions or in free flight. Detect damage is checked as well.
A trap example is shown. The important thing is that it was smooth not trying to tip over or flop around. A cat 4 launch is shown and an F/A-18D VC trap is shown -----at heavier weight.
-
WilyCoyote...
Ok, just wanted to know what your results were and how it worked for you. Thanks for the feedback. I just got done trying out your settings last nite (I'm at work now) and it looked very uncompressed, so I went back to my settings. Your advice on my setup was helpful though, especially the unstableness in taxiing even at low taxi speeds, which I rectified. All in all, minus a working carrier TACAN/ILS, I've been pretty happy with the Hornet at this point. I recently even bought the Capt Sim addon, so I can use that one along with other settings. Its alot of fun.
Anyway, again thanks for the feedback and it was cool to see your pics and the info. included. BTW, have you seen some of the newer YouTube videos that others have posted with the New HUD? I guess our collective HUD replacement work is getting its own life now outside of this forum... thats the point right? To experiment and if successful, pass that knowledge on to others. Much credit to DOUM as well, he was alot of help there!
Laterz
Sludge
-
WilyCoyote...I just got done trying out your settings last nite (I'm at work now) and it looked very uncompressed, so I went back to my settings. Your advice on my setup was helpful though, especially the unstableness in taxiing even at low taxi speeds, which I rectified.
Does this mean a newer contact points modification has been made by you? If so, will it be available for download?
All in all, minus a working carrier TACAN/ILS, I've been pretty happy with the Hornet at this point. I recently even bought the Capt Sim addon, so I can use that one along with other settings. Its alot of fun.
Can a non-moving carrier can be made to have a TACAN/ILS ?
Anyway, again thanks for the feedback and it was cool to see your pics and the info. included. BTW, have you seen some of the newer YouTube videos that others have posted with the New HUD? I guess our collective HUD replacement work is getting its own life now outside of this forum... thats the point right? To experiment and if successful, pass that knowledge on to others. Much credit to DOUM as well, he was alot of help there!
Laterz
Sludge
Is there a final version of the HUD?
The XLoad F/A-18D would not hold on the cat with its default contact points --- is that true for you? The contact points I use solved that.
-
WilyCoyote...
Yes, although not much different from what I posted in my earlier aircraft.cfg file.
1. CG change from default -32.20 (more towards nosegear) to -34.20 (towards MLG)
empty_weight_CG_position = -34.20, 0, -0.6
2. Contact points. So far, these have been great. The main change has been going from .3500 and 1.6 (nose gear) to .2000 and 2.2, as well as from .9000 and 1.1, to .6000 and 1.2 (MLG) for strut strength and dynamic compression respectively. I upped the damping ratio, but really havent noticed if that makes a big difference or not.
point.0=1, -18.00, 0.00, -6.40, 3600, 0, 1.0349, 75.0, 0.2000, 2.2, 0.9100, 3.0, 3.0, 0, 0.0, 0.0
point.1=1, -35.80, -6.00, -6.70, 3600, 1, 1.2349, 0.0, 0.6000, 1.2, 0.8456, 3.9, 3.9, 2, 0.0, 0.0
point.2=1, -35.80, 6.00, -6.70, 3600, 2, 1.2349, 0.0, 0.6000, 1.2, 0.8456, 3.7, 3.7, 3, 0.0, 0.0
The final version realistic HUD I now use, which includes a centered full cockpit version, I can send in my panel.cfg file. You have to download and install the KBT SuperHornet HUD files and then just apply them as discussed in the "f-18 HUD waterline" thread along with DOUM's bank/clock/GPSwaypoint mods.
I thought I read somewhere that it was a "brute force" workaround that some FSX'ers were doing for multiplayer making a non-moving TACAN/ILS for a carrier in San Francisco Bay? Forgot where, though.
IF you find out anything about that, be sure to let me know.
Laterz
Sludge
-
I believe I have the thread where I got the contact points.
http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/showthread.php?t=17856 (http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/showthread.php?t=17856)
I tried your contact points but crashed trapping often, maybe all the time. I'm using my old contact points. I shall try the new HUD next.
-
Mr SPAZ...
Been working on the HUD again and I have some good news for you. Just finished making a movable Indexer for both the FullScreen HUD, and the Virtual Cockpit. Also, when you fly with the full screen open cockpit, if you zoom back to .80 the horizon line will stay decently correlated to the actual horizon, up to 10 deg nose up/down for me soo far.
With this panel.cfg, you can either simply backup your own panel, then rewrite yours with this one or you can manually edit yours with my new indexer info. The only things you have to edit are the window tiles, just add it as Window04=Indexer, and then add the actual "[Window04]" section to your panel.cfg file. Its up to you if you dont wanna spoil your own panel file with my settings for radio and the VC HUD that I use.
Enjoy the screenshots and hope you get alot of miles out of this...
Laterz
Sludge
-
Sludge, It looks brilliant! :o Thanks very much for figuring that all out. Looks very useful. I'll have to give it a try.
OK. Next question. Would it be possible to have the carrier mirror (I guess it could be done with a zoomed secondary window perhaps) in the top left hand corner of the FULL VIEW HUD without any unnecessary extras for carrier landings? So in view would be AoA indexer and altitude and heading with the mirror in top left?
If it is not possible then thanks for trying to get that if you do. Being able to see the mirror from at least a distance where the carrier line up is visible somewhat (if not accurate at least in the ball park) that would be excellent. TIA.
-
Spaz...
No worries. Actually was surprised that it worked as well and as easy as it did. And sure, let me give it a try... I think the Hornet files actually have a mirror background image, just like the indexer background I was able to use for this fix. Let me see what I can do.
Laterz
Sludge
-
Thanks Sludge Old Chum. ;D Vaguely I recall in an Fsim version wayback with 'Flight Deck 1?' maybe (which was hopeless) there was an intention to have a 'flight deck style' mirror in a window on main screen but the whole system was useless (due to the nature of the Flight Sim all those years ago). Being able to see the mirror - or as you say something that looks like the mirror - at same zoom level at whatever distance will be terrific. Then with indexer one is set to look visually for all the cues.
I found that I'll probably have to change screen resolution to see the Virtual HUD more clearly but in most situations I can see the numbers required in the HUD until straightaway when looking only at? Meat Ball Line Up and Air Speed. But youse knew that. :-) Having the AoA indexer in the Virtual HUD is the best! Many thanks for that.
-
Spaz...
OK, I just got done and the bad news is, I cant get it to work. I got the Meatball background to come up by making a subpanel entry, then redrew a yellow "ball.bmp" for the middle light, saved it in my FA-18_HUD folder, but it was still dark doing carrier work? I think it needs ILS input to work? I confirmed this by flying with the meatball over land (KOKC, 17L, 110.90, DME/ILS), sure enough... I was able to get the "lined up, high" green lights, and the "too low" red lights. However, I couldnt get the ball to move other than just being visible on the lower part of the light track. Not sure how or why, but it didnt work, so I think you may have to do the "brute force" workaround and just find a camera angle that shows the meatball as if you were a crewmember looking aft towards it from about 20 feet astern.
Anyway, if you do come up with this workaround, can you tell me how to do it? I dont know how to manipulate/slew? the FSX set environment camera views so that I can have a "meatball" only view pulled up on my screen? I am able to pull up a view in a view, and tried the LSO spot, but I cant move the viewpoint to behind the actual meatball assembly.
BTW, I know the FSX non-working carrier ILS is a factor, cause there are screen shots within the HUD package that shows "0.5 IC72" on the range and show a hornet lined up for a carrier landing with good needles as well, if you look its called "a07 - final.jpg" and its in the "HUD Docs,Pics" folder of the KBT SuperHornet HUD zip download.
-
YELLOW SNOW (as in 'don't eat the yellow snow') Sludge, (I'm in Australia so any kind of snow is a real novelty) ;D Thanks for your efforts. I cannot promise anything as my time is taken up making PDFs or editing PDFs adding new info to them (about A4G Skyhawk). When this work ends I may have more time for FSX etc. Still waiting for KAHU A4K Skyhawk FSX work to finish but don't know when (I'm not doing any work - only testing). This KAHU will be good with a proper KAHU HUD and AoA Indexer etc.
Yes I have seen the FSX Blue Angels get amazing camera angles but I guess they use other than FSX or the variation on it (forget name for moment). Perhaps enquiring via FSX Blues website might get you some good camera angle / view information?
What is the new 'panel.zip' by the way? Thanks again. Sludge and others have made some great improvements to the whole usability of the FSX Hornet IMHO.
-
damn yellow snow anyway?! :P Youre right, dont eat it...
Spaz,
Thanks for the appreciation, and gotta mention Doum too, he worked with me alot when I first started posting here. Gotta throw in some good vibes to WilyCoyote for his inputs as well. Thanks fellas!
And no worries, I just like messing around and figured you might know of how to get the view moved? If figure it out, let me know, if not... Ill still be looking and send it to everyone here. In the .zip file, there's the panel.cfg and a "ball.bmp" that you have to copy/paste into your FA18_HUD folder to bring up the meatball.
Just winding down for the nite and watching football. I may go check the Blue Angels site and see what they have or talk to the fellas over there.
Take Care
Sludge
-
Check this out. Found that Youtube video with someone else landing with the new HUD and recording it. Good landing too!
-
Hey Sludge
Not so loud ..I think I saw SpazSinbad lurking around lol
I think my initial approach was a little left
Thanks for the kind words...loving the new hud mods.
For those of you that are interested the other carrier that i flew
over is the enterprise. I used it as a starting point to accurately place
the nimitz for a multiplayer game so that other players could place it by
using the same reference point...works like a charm. Also gives me an indication of how far
a mile from the carrier is.
Just want to take this opportunity to thank you and Doum76 and anybody else that has been
modding the hud and other parts of the acceleration hornet and of course the nimitz itself
amazing add ons which have made my wait for the FSX VRS superhornet that much more bearable :)
-
Sonofa...
Yeah, he's pretty harsh but I like that. Glad you liked the HUD mods and Im surprised more people havent just jumped all over it recently. I still see alot of videos with the ugly HUD, and I say ugly cause it has no other references (no energy caret, no bracket, no wings waterline) that help alot in setting up a good landing.
No worries, just trying to make this a better experience for everyone. Honestly, I was surprised that more people havent tried to change the HUD before me. Nor have more people done the manual trailing flaps mod, even though they complain bout the flaps barely deploying during landing (20deg max, even when at 130 kts). I know its not true "auto/half/full" flaps logic, but plenty bout this plane isnt true to form as listed above. Personally, I just try to get close to what I think a Hornet should do, look like, and sit then enjoy it.
Im with you on the FSX VRS Hornet. Cannot wait to play that thing with all the looks, features, and flying characteristics it offers.
Laterz
Sludge
-
I spoke with a the modeler of the IRIS F-14 Pro series (Stephen V.) a long time ago about the F/A-18 nose being pitched down; he informed me, that they made it that way so that they wouldn't have to animate the model for the required kneel/squat that carrier aircraft have to do inorder to meet the catapult for the launch.
That's confusing to me for two reasons:
1) the Hornet does not kneel/squat to connect the launch bar to the cat shuttle;
2) the nose-down attitude does not come from the nose gear being compressed, but rather from the main mounts not being compressed as they normally would be on the real aircraft. The default geometry makes the aircraft look like it's standing on its tippy toes when it's on the ground.
-
Hey fellas, been a little while since Ive posted, but was messing around the last few days and came up with a good set of contact points that I really like, AND, figured out a way to keep the new HUD correlated to the actual horizon. Ill post the new contact points when I get home. No bumps, no carrier shot crashes on full realism w/detect crashes enabled, and no spin-outs/tip-overs on offline carrier traps. Solid numbers so far.
With the new HUD, when I get home, Ill also download my latest panel.cfg file, so we are working from the same baseline, but once you get it installed, do the following "in-game" procedures while in-flight. Preferably nose high ("W" symbol at 5 deg nose up, Vel Vector "-o-" on the Artificial Horizon) w/zero rate of decent. Then pause, so you can make the changes and see the effects w/out having to worry about flying.
1. Get your view to .60 zoom, and center it on the lower part of the HUD. This can be done by opening up a "4 dot" red-colored axis
indicator and centering your view axis on or below the angle of bank caret on the HUD.
2. Press "CTRL-SpBar" to move the eyepoint to default zero up/down, zero fwd/aft.
3. Press "CTRL-BackSp" x 22 to get your eyepoint zoomed-FWD twenty-two units. When you are doing this, it should seem as though your moving your
head/eyes closer to the HUD.
4. Press "SHFT-BackSp" x 1 or 2 to get the Artificial Horizon matching the real Horizon.
5. Set your regular zoom (+/- key) to get to whatever you like best for landing. I use .60 zoom.
Now, unpause and set up for a landing. Test out the new HUD by nosing up and down. The HUD ladder and more importantly, the Artifical Horizon, should stay locked on the actual horizon where you set it, as above. The only thing that should move up is the "W" and "-o-" when you bank or nose down or add/pull back power for landing.
Actually, if any of you want, you can try this out now w/out my panel.cfg file. You may have to alter step 3 a bit. If you are using .75 zoom HUD numbers (ie x-490, y-560), then it would be less, about x 15-18 fwd. I base the "x 22" using the x-460, y-510 HUD. To simplify, the smaller your HUD, the more you have to zoom. And my setup is 1900 x 1600, widescreen. I tried it non-widescreen (fsx.cfg, widescreen=false) and it was very clausterphobic, so I returned to widescreen.
Try it out and tell me what you think.
Laterz
Sludge
-
"..........I tried it non-widescreen (fsx.cfg, widescreen=false) and.........."
Sludge, my fsx cfg file reads "wideviewaspect" and is the last entry under [display]. Am I missing something?
-
Wily...
Youre not missing a thing, Im at work and typing this out from memory. You have the correct line.
Did you try it? How did it work for you?
-
Thanks on the wide setting, makes a wonderful difference, I think.
"4 dot" red-colored axis indicator and centering your view axis on or below the angle of bank caret on the HUD.
That part seems to ring a bell but I did the procedure just the same and flew touch and goes from the VC and I like it. Must take a few more flights. Must do carrier traps, too. Much to learn here but so far I'm happy to find good results so I'll look for more knowledge on my part and apparently you may have a download for us.
-
No problem Wily... Glad to hear you liked it and had good results. I will keep messing around with the Hornet til the VRS SuperBug comes out, then youll probly not see me play with this girl ever again. If it is half as fun and realistic as the FS2004 version, I will fly the SuperBug and nothing else.
OK, since I finally got home tonite and am almost off to hit the rack, let me clarify for other reading this. Please excuse my explanations if they seem that Im talking down. I know that I was a noob and anyone venturing here for the first time might not understand what Im trying to convey, so Im doing my best say what needs to be said, for ALL POSSIBLE AUDIENCES.
If you want a widescreen view and feel comfortable modding your "fsx.cfg" file, first back it up (simply open, then save as... "fsx_bak.cfg"), then open up the orig fsx.cfg to modify. Go down to the file and under [MAIN] there should be "wideviewaspect=false". If you want to play in widescreen just change it to true. Save it as "fsx.cfg", then run FSX. The game will now widen within your current display size (ie 1600 x 1200). This setting to me is highly valuable as I dont have to zoom quite as far out yet can still see my visual cues when needed (ie crossing the carrier wake on carrier touch-n-go's).
Also, here is my current "aircraft.cfg" file. The mileage varies, but I know that for my system and setup, I get no crashes at the end of the cat stroke from any catapult shot. However, for this to work, you have to be configured correctly with FULL FLAPS selected for the cat shot. Nor do I get the tip-over/spin out problem even when on less than perfect line up. IMO, this is far more realistic as plenty of youtubing will prove, real carrier pilots dont always land on the center of the angled deck, yet they dont tip over. Throughout all of these fixes, my system has been running with all realism sliders to the max right w/"detect object collision" checked. Plus, I have my flaps modded so I manually control them. The default auto-flaps logic is too general and not based for the Hornet, so it doesnt lower FULL FLAPS (lead or trailing) til about 95 kts. That doesnt work for me, and I have no problems manually raising and lowering them at the right speeds, so I took control of them.
Anyway, here is my "aircraft.cfg" file,its not alot different but it works well and looks good for me, so have fun and give me feedback.
Laterz
Sludge
-
I thought I should post early results but haven't been on a carrier for any flight as of this writing. I'll do that in a bit. Full realism and crash , stress detection. Looks good, does taxi well and lands well as long as I am careful. I'm keeping fuel high in weight on these land runways.