FSDreamTeam forum
General Category => Unofficial F/A-18 Acceleration Pack board => Topic started by: Sludge on May 13, 2010, 02:02:05 am
-
Everyone...
Just got FULL PERMISSION from Microsoft to completely modify the Hornet. After discussing this with a Microsoft Game Support manager, he said we have complete permission to decompile/modify/recompile the Hornet, w/two caveats: 1. There is no support for FSX, so any problems/difficulties we run into are COMPLETELY UNSUPPORTED. 2. NO financial gain (ie, royalties, download fees) by anyone involved.
Once we are complete modifying the HUD, we can also post it up on any board, for ANYONE to use, the manager told me. Granted, they still have to have FSX: Acceleration purchased and installed, as is the case with anyone who wants the Sludge Hornet upgrade. And if anyone from Microsoft ever questions us about this, I have my Microsoft Case Number (#1131457191) that entails all the information talked about today.
Lets get to work fellas...
Later
Sludge
-
Sludge, that's just unbelievable, I can't even think what is possible now if someone sits down as does the work ::) I guess virtuali will have a problem on his hands ;D Anyway - you are a hero to get that permission - opens up a lot of doors for some fine things to come 8)
-
Wow, thats amazing. Time to majorly tweak the Hornet. :D
-
Sludge, you da man! ;D
Ok, will that tweaking be limited by HUD collimation issue only or what?
My two cents - I'd like to have fixed landing light texture and add/or make another version with a starboard searchlight (Canadian, Aussie etc Hornets). And yes - working approach light assembly. :)
-
JR...
Thanks, but it was for ALL OF US who see much more potential in the Hornet than was originally released. Cant wait to start ideas about brainstorming. AND getting to work on the new collimated, conformal HUD!!
Raz...
Yes, think of things that you want to tweak.
Frenchie...
Thanks, but again, it was FOR ALL OF US. Now we are free...!!
FSXNP...
Thanks. And No, the Microsoft Game Studios Manager WAS ADAMANT that we are allowed to take apart the ENTIRE Hornet file and try out any type of modifications as long as we follow the rules listed above. He was just as ADAMANT that its "at your own risk" and Microsoft bears no responsibility for what might happen to your computer or FSX if you recompile it and there are errors. This exchange all took place in a phone conversation, after getting that initial canned-response email, and getting the "run-around" of Microsoft's entire customer service system.
Also, I asked twice if he documented EVERYTHING we talked about, and he confirmed he did. He said my request ticket is now CLOSED but that it can be referenced with the Case Number by any employee who has access to Microsoft's customer service database.
Hope that helps answer everyone's questions.
Later
Sludge
-
Vitamin C...
We discussed the Interior model at length, but when I pressed him about any limits of decompiling/modding the default Hornet, he said there are no limits. He said that all the licenses were with the ACES/Microsoft team and that now they are kaput, we can mod at our own discretion. Again, he was very adamant, that once you start modding all warranties are void and Microsoft is NOT responsible for what happens.
Yeah, thats my focus right now. A collimated HUD.
Later
Sludge
-
Oops, sorry. I removed my post after re-reading your first post (where you said "completely modify the Hornet") :P.
Edit: Bleh, I can't type or read today :P.
-
Awesome, go for it.
-
Sludge, Congratulations. Thanks and thanks to Microsoft also. Well Done. Good luck with the mods.
-
Congrats, gonna be interesting for some time to come
-
Excellent work Sludge!!!
-
Does this mean that there may be a chance to at least get a centerline tank on the bird? How many Hornets do you see with absolutley nothing hanging off of it? Some ordnance would be nice too.
-
Wow, I am stunned. Great job Sludge! I never thought this possible. Way to go!! Thanks so much for keeping on that. That's terrific. You avatar picture fitted so well to your opening post of this thread. ;D
Now is there a chance for improving the leading and trailing edge flap extensions, and the flap logic in general. I believe Virtuali once stated, they had to simplify the "flap scheduling" alot during development, as I remember because MS wanted that?
Oh boy, the prospect of having the Hornet with correct flap extension (e.g. in HALF and FULL mode) and perhaps an improved landing gear suspension (corrected fully-compressed-positions) is a fantastic motivation. Whoot!
-
OK, even more good news...
Last night, early morning (1-2am), I get two emails, one giving me permission from Charlie "Skippy" Bing to modify/use his Carrier Trap Gauge (basis for JR's carrier trap gauge) and I get a repsonse from Rok Dolenec saying its OK for me to use his KC-135T aircraft model/textures. Ding-dong, the witch is dead!!
mildly bad news...
Im at work and wont be able to release the KC-135T til tonite. As well, I will need to update the Sludge README and start working on Sludge Hornet v1.1 wide-release (Carrier Trap Gauge, FSXNP Sound Pack and BlackBox Gauge) when i get home.
Bad news (but not a showstopper), just a roadblock that I think can be worked through...
In talking with Virtuali, he said he wont be able to give me the original model files due to legal/contractual issues pertaining to his development of the Hornet. Understood. Dont bother Virtuali about this as he is right to protect himself/his work legally in this manner. And these permissions dont overwrite any contracts he had with Microsoft.
However, as we are allowed to decompile the RTM FSX Hornet model, and according to Scott Printz we need access to the model, here is my request to all FSDT forum members. Go to all the boards, pull in all your assets (programmer friends, knowledgeable people) and find out means to decompile the "default" Hornet model into workable source code. If you find anyone that is hesitant due to percieved legal restraints, send them my way and I will discuss IN DETAIL my conversation with Microsoft.
Additionally, IF you are ever given any grief for doing this, the buck will stop with me on this!! Refer them to me... I can be reached via this forum, personal email, my personal cell number, person to person, whatever it takes. I will take all flak for this (if any comes out of it) and will answer any questions as to the discussion I had and the permissions given to me (and essentially US, as legitimate PRODUCT PAID FOR, users). The SPECIFIC WORDS: decompile, modify, and recompile the default FSX F/A-18A Hornet model files were used in asking for permission and the answer was yes.
This is where I am at now. I can wide release both JR's Trap Gauge and KC-135T Navy Drogue Tanker. And, since there are alot of good ideas (especially Ray's auto-flap logic FIX), please help me find a way to decompile the FSX Hornet, so we can start with modding the Hornet HUD. No ideas are off the table at this point. If you just have an idea but not sure how to accomplish it, write it down... how youd like to implement it... any NATOPS backing (not necessary, but would help). Then bring it up once we get the model decompiled into a workable source code.
Later
Sludge
-
If FSDreamteam cannot provide the source for the model, they will be the only one who can modify it - mdl files cannot be decompiled.
-
take your time, can't be done overnight or some such
-
JR...
If thats true, and there is no way to decompile the model files, I may just have to ask Microsoft for them? Ill do it, obviously, but only after we have expended all possible options before then.
Later
Sludge
-
If FSDreamteam cannot provide the source for the model, they will be the only one who can modify it - mdl files cannot be decompiled.
That's not entirely true:
http://www.fsdeveloper.com/wiki/index.php?title=ModelConverterX
-
Thanks Virtuali...
Just what we need. I gotta run to sim, and actually do some work, but should be around tonite. Gotta get that Tanker out to everyone.
Later
Sludge
-
If FSDreamteam cannot provide the source for the model, they will be the only one who can modify it - mdl files cannot be decompiled.
That's not entirely true:
http://www.fsdeveloper.com/wiki/index.php?title=ModelConverterX
Thanks virtuali, I obviously didn't do my homework ::)
-
As for decompiling:
http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showtopic=257587
-
So if you can modify the 3dmodel then maybe you could put external weapons etc on it.
-
A few of the guys on our team have figured something out in terms of decompiling. Check out the attached pic (notice the missile rails). He said give him a holler at shylock@fsxblueangels.com. He should be able to help you out.
http://i187.photobucket.com/albums/x34/justheman99/2010-5-12_17-56-51-750.jpg (http://i187.photobucket.com/albums/x34/justheman99/2010-5-12_17-56-51-750.jpg)
-
Jimi...
Much thanks. Will give Shylock a holler. Thats one of the main things I (we) need to get started w/a collimated HUD, is a decompiled aircraft model because Scott Printz will do some eye point calculations to set the default eyepoint based on real world pictures. Also, what I understand he will work on attaching the HUD (ala the aerosoft F-16 HUD) to the model (hence the need for the model to be decompiled into workable code) at a point where the it will maintain collimation.
Thats the "dumbed" down, short version of how we will work to get HUD collimation. Right now, I have a request from Scott, for all the forum members:
"1) I WOULD LOVE for there to somehow be a gathering up and sending of as many REAL Hornet pictures as we collectively have. Not in-game screenshots. Sorry to not specify. Especially useful to me would be:
a) any pics of the cockpit, w/ the HUD glass visible. (Even w/out HUD symbology is great!)
b) *Especially*, outside, profile views of the A or C model Hornet's cockpit, pics directly left or right of the cockpit, from the outside, pilot present or not, and with BOTH the HUD glass / assembly AND the area near where the pilot's head would be, all visible at once."
If you are willing to help with this, send all your pictures to saprintz@gmail.com, so he can archive and use these for reference materials.
BTW, last nite, I sent in the KC-135T Navy Drogue compilation into avsim.com and flightsim.com for wide release.
Thanks
Sludge
-
Sludge,
Hey it’s Capt. I wanted to send you some HUD pics as you requested on the forum. These are from my buddy from high school who currently is flying the super hornet for the royal maces. Hope some of these work.
http://i914.photobucket.com/albums/ac350/bhaltli/n1216748530_30042348_6821.jpg (http://i914.photobucket.com/albums/ac350/bhaltli/n1216748530_30042348_6821.jpg)
http://i914.photobucket.com/albums/ac350/bhaltli/hud.jpg (http://i914.photobucket.com/albums/ac350/bhaltli/hud.jpg)
http://i914.photobucket.com/albums/ac350/bhaltli/untitled.jpg (http://i914.photobucket.com/albums/ac350/bhaltli/untitled.jpg)
http://i914.photobucket.com/albums/ac350/bhaltli/untitled2.jpg (http://i914.photobucket.com/albums/ac350/bhaltli/untitled2.jpg)
http://i914.photobucket.com/albums/ac350/bhaltli/untitled3.jpg (http://i914.photobucket.com/albums/ac350/bhaltli/untitled3.jpg)
http://i914.photobucket.com/albums/ac350/bhaltli/reee.jpg (http://i914.photobucket.com/albums/ac350/bhaltli/reee.jpg)
OK this last one is from FSX ;)
-
Capt...
Thanks for delivering IN SPADES!! Those are amazing pictures and just what Scott is asking for...!!
Might have find a way to get Scott in contact with your buddy?! Heck, if he's OK with it, I would like to get in contact with him about some realism points. What carrier is he on, BTW?
Later
Sludge
-
Guten Tag Sludge Christian.
Microsoft Einwilligung - Hochachtung !
Habe die bisherigen HUD Verbesserungen schon bewundert.
Jetzt bin ich gespannt was noch kommt.
Viel Erfolg,
Guenter
-
...Check out the attached pic (notice the missile rails)...
jimi08
That would be awesome, 'cause I still have to paint these faked rails on my skins... ;D
-
Sludge,
Hey it’s Capt. I wanted to send you some HUD pics as you requested on the forum. These are from my buddy from high school who currently is flying the super hornet for the royal maces. Hope some of these work.
<pics snipped out>
OK this last one is from FSX ;)
*************************************
Wow, that's very helpful. Thanks for taking the time! The last one is especially impressive (heheh).
So, I know that we're all busy people, and just so that no one is wasting their time, I'll try to share exactly what I'll ultimately need.
A little conceptual background first: as you can perceive from things like properly collimated FSX HUD's, or from that nice Spanish Air Force vid link that Sludge posted, or from other sources, the HUD symbology is best viewed (and only even completely visible) when the pilot's eyes are in a certain place in the cockpit. This ideal, 3-dimensional viewing area that we want the pilots eyes to be within is usually referred to as the "eyebox." For the A and C Hornets, my educated guess is that its eyebox is something like a shoebox in shape, but probably only around 5" on its longest side. I don't know precisely.
Nailing down the distance between 1) the center of that eyebox, and 2) the HUD glass that the symbology is displayed upon, is important. (+/- is fine; we don't need it THAT precisely.) And the glass is a bit slanted, too, so let's say we're talking about the theoretically best point on the HUD glass for the waterline to overlay, the position on it that would give a "best," full, centered view of all the nice green squiggly stuff. (This area on the glass is a bit below center, IIRC.)
Oh, and the dimensions of the real HUD glass would be nice too. I swear I have those somewhere, but can't find 'em right now.
So, what would really save some time, and could avoid a lot of back-and-forth, semi-guesswork between me, the model editor, and whomever is testing, is to know some of these things about the real aircraft in a little more detail. Again, plus or minus. (And I did try, but couldn't find anything in the NATOPS I have.) Anyone who might have insight into that, it would be great if you could send it to me at the e-mail address that Sludge gave up above!
That's what I need for the *REAL* aircraft.
For the FSX *MODEL*, we need the in-sim corollaries to the above. This would be the distance between the model's default eyepoint (0,0,0) and the model's HUD glass surface. And I mean the visually depicted surface, regardless of what the HUD gauge is actually displayed on. Also, less important, but nice, would be to have the model's HUD glass dimensions. (Again, the visual depiction of the glass is what's important.)
I guess only FSDreamTeam has that model data?
That's it, really. Having some of that info would speed some things up. And if we can't get it, then I'll do my best to try to deduce it from what we DO have. But all of that is the basis of the request for really good pics of the real cockpit. Profile pics, from the seat and up to the front of the glass, are especially helpful.
Oh, and BTW, some of this may sound like unnecessarily trivial detail, but I promise it's not!
Thanks all,
Scott
P.S. -- now that collimation is in play, I must make some pretty fundamental modifications to the gauge itself. But... no problem! I have ways to do this pretty quickly. But even if it takes a week longer, I think you'll all like the difference you're going to see. ;-)
-
Congrats Sludge. Thats a big step to accomplish.I have always loved flying the F-18 and with all the mods that have been made and posted here it's even better . And now with this permission I gotta feeling you guys are gonna top the bug. ;D Thanks for all the fun.
-
one simple question... how to decompile the f-18 model so i can edit? im a CG artist, experienced with 3ds max, but no way u can extract the models to edit :P
-
Congrats Sludge. Thats a big step to accomplish.I have always loved flying the F-18 and with all the mods that have been made and posted here it's even better . And now with this permission I gotta feeling you guys are gonna top the bug. ;D Thanks for all the fun.
If you want to 'top the bug' you should fly the VRS F/A-18E, it has all the features you guys are working to get into the Acceleration Hornet along with a top notch FADEC-controlled engine sim and FCC/MC-controlled avionics sim. Truly an amazing aircraft that made me abandon the FSX and Captain Sim Hornets entirely.
-
Oh lord, we have.
-
Cloud...
Thats what Skimmer was meaning when he said "top the BUG". Now, we probly wont actually "top the Bug" (ie, weapons system, radar integration, 90% button functionality, full FCS) but with current projects going, we can mod the default and/or Sludge Hornet to the point of being a very fun, viable, and FREE alternative to people who dont want a VRS product thats getting more expensive by the day (ie, tac pack addon, ~$40), or those that dont have the monster machine to run it without it looking like a slide show (less than 15 FPS in city environment).
Right now, the Sludge Hornet is tweaked to the point of providing a better flight and landing profile (NATOPS-correct approach RPMs), and gets better frame rates than the VRS. Additionally, we can get bearing/range to the tanker, and refuel from the tanker using only one mod (Refueling Gauge) and get ANY Carrier ICLS/TACAN fully operational (Rusev/Printz HUD) with only one mod as well. So in these respects, I would put her up against the VRS any day of the week.
Later
Sludge
-
Sludge,
I often forget that budgets have to play into flightsim decisions, so you definitely have a point regarding cost. I also didn't mean to disparage any attempts at alternative aircraft, I just noticed that work seemed to be going in parallel directions to existing products and wanted to share my enthusiasm with other F/A-18 lovers. Now, that being said I respectfully disagree completely that any hornet without a true CAS FCS is going to behave more accurately to NATOPS while only using FSX's .air file to accomplish what VRS has done with CFD data, CFD simulations to fill in missing/nonpublic data, and *extensive* real world input from people who work with the actual aircraft. NATOPS-accurate RPMs are neat, but only a tiny part. Modeling drag, weight, and center of gravity the way VRS does provides flight dynamics that can't possibly be replicated any other way inside of FSX, and I have yet to see the SuperBug EVER behave outside of the NATOPS performance charts, and I use those charts to set carrier launch trim for my specific weight and desired catapult end speed and they work!
I also want to point out that the VRS bug has air to air TACAN, refueling, ANY carrier ICLS/TACAN (while moving) all without ANY mods. All done entirely within the external engine without having to configure anything outside the Aircraft Configuration Manager. My real point is that they aren't comparable because like you said, yours is free and it's indeed amazing and the VRS is a hardcore sim that requires hardcore hardware. I applaud you and your team's work because I used to use it and love it and I'm sure you'll continue to provide the flightsim community with an excellent freeware hornet pack that lets you hit the ground running with a military jet in a non-military sim. Happy flying, and I hope to fly online with you sometime!
-cl0ud
-
Cloud...
Yeah, no big deal. I flew with the VRS for a while, and even tho alot of the systems were fun, especially the weapons and RWR, I found it was lacking in the landing phase... even to the point of being almost "floaty" on approach. Plus, given that I only have a mid-level system, the slideshow simming was not fun at all, 10-15 FPS sucks. Had to either disable all my sceneries or fly out in the middle of the ocean to get even respectable frame rates. I have NO IDEA how some of those people who make the good Bug youtube videos get such good frame rates?! Must have MONSTER systems?
Again, no big deal, we can all have different opinions... thats why Im back here and enjoying the newfound life of the FSX default and Sludge Hornet. To clarify, I meant, I also read on their boards that the ICLS and TACAN arent working for the Multiplayer missions correctly (ie, Orions SFCarrier2) and thats one of my fav's. This is a requirement for me. That multiplayer mission lets me practice alot of carrier pattern work along with others, so thats also why I was happy to come back to the default and the Sludge.
Yeah, would like to fly anytime... just not this weekend. Im heading down to Fort Worth to watch the PGA Tour, Colonial on Sunday.
Take care and have a great weekend
Later
Sludge
-
Well actually I got TACAN to work in MP with SFCARRIER2 mission in the VRS Superhornet. ;)
My view is that its a very good idea to continue to improve the acceleration Hornet and make it better ideally it would be cool if there was the ability to carry external stores and also to drop them even better to be able to launch those weapons. Its pointless to compare the VRS Superhornet to the acceleration one as the level of complexity is quite immense in the VRS and everything is alot simpler in the acceleration hornet. In a perfect world though there would be both and they would both have full weapons and MP combat.
-
Cloud...
FREE alternative to people who dont want a VRS product thats getting more expensive by the day (ie, tac pack addon, ~$40), or those Sludge
You're kidding right the TAC pack is working weapons and combat enviroment I'd gladly pay 3 times that much for combat in FSX $40 is a bargain. I deally you would want the TAC pack to have an interface to allow the accel hornet to drop bombs too. LMAO a Hornet sim without combat is like a rifle without bullets. ;D
-
Subs...
No, Im not kidding. Maybe a bargain for you, but FSX will never be a "combat sim", and Ill never waste the money to try to make it as such. It can EMULATE a combat environment, but will never be a combat sim. Ill save my $40 for a real combat sim.
Im perfectly happy with the default and Sludge Hornets in FSX. Will try to add more, but in the meantime, I dont need to waste another $40 in addition to the startup $40-50 for a product that still isnt a straight up combat simulator.
Let people have their opinions, and you can have yours. Cool?
Later
Sludge
-
Sludge,
I've been flying your mod-ed Hornet now for 3 days and LOVE it. Nice job! I'm really liking the new flight dymanics.
As to combat in FSX: Yeah it's cool, but I bought FSX for exactly what the name say; a Flight Simulator. There are plenty of combat sims out there, and to each his own, but flying itself is my passion. And you just made flying the Hornet much better. Thanks. ;D
-
Subs...
No, Im not kidding. Maybe a bargain for you, but FSX will never be a "combat sim", and Ill never waste the money to try to make it as such. It can EMULATE a combat environment, but will never be a combat sim. Ill save my $40 for a real combat sim.
Im perfectly happy with the default and Sludge Hornets in FSX. Will try to add more, but in the meantime, I dont need to waste another $40 in addition to the startup $40-50 for a product that still isnt a straight up combat simulator.
Let people have their opinions, and you can have yours. Cool?
Later
Sludge
Actually you are quite wrong in assuming that the TAC pack is a bad thing, the more detailed a sim is the better and there is nothing wrong with having combat in FSX. The TAC pack could allow you to further modify the hornet to include working weapons. Such a mod has that potential. BTW I think what you are doing by modding the Hornet is a very good idea.
-
All...
Just got back from the Colonial PGA Tourney in Ft Worth and holy cheeze and rice it was HOT!! Im talking... go outside for a few minutes and melt HOT. It was around 100, the humidity was high 90s, and there was no breeze at all.
Micro...
Thanks. Coming from you, who I consider the master of all video makers right now, thats great praise. Much thanks and will continue to work on it. You might like some of the upcoming changes that will be released with v1.1, probly in a few weeks. And I completely agree with your FSX philosophy.
SUBS...
I never said the TAC pack is a bad thing. What I did say is that I (emphasis added, I) will wont spend the money for the VRS and/or the TAC pack. Thats 90 bucks (VRS S/B and TAC pack) to spend IN ADDITION to what was already paid for for FSX and/or Acceleration? Nope. Not me. I'd rather buy a combat sim thats built from the ground up for air-to-air/air-to-ground combat (ie, falcon 4) than try to make FSX emulate a combat flight simulator.
As far as my modding, thanks. I wish I had even a fraction the abilities of others, because if I did, Id have gone buck wild by now modding stuff almost to the point of a whole new Hornet. But, alas, Im just a tweaker... highly involved and motivated tweaker.
Take Care and talk to ya later
Sludge
-
The VRS Superhornet is quite an awesome addon for FSX I think its practically an entirely different aircraft to any other addon for FSX. Compared to FSXs other addons its also quite cheap. I can see where you're coming from with the added costs if you also add in FSX and acceleration but both FSX and acceleration don't give you a detailed Hornet like the VRS. Its nice to have an addon which is very close the NATOPs manual in every aspect including the pirouette they did a fantastic job with the FBW and FM of this aircraft and it includes external stores not a clean bird like the accel hornet.
-
SUBS...
OK, I understand what youre saying. But, just to let you know, this isnt a VRS sales forum. Everyone that wants it knows where they can get it, and knows what it can do.
If you post anything more, beyond real discussions of what we can do to improve the FSX Hornet, Im sure Virtuali will drop your posts because its becoming redundant. Discussion is good and dont mind comparing, but youre getting to the point of putting out sales pitches, IMO.
Later
Sludge
-
This isn't about sales pitches, the major problem with FSX regarding combat aircraft, inflight refuelling and also weapons is lack of standardisation. Now if for example FSDT decided to do an F-14 in the future(of course they could since there are experts of this aircraft on this forum) a mod such as the TACPack could be used to make those weapons work just like all the other mods that are used on FSX such as graphics enhancements/weather etc. So its not about VRS Superhornet just firing missiles instead it could be other aircraft as well. A guy such as yourself modding the aircraft such as the Hornet could add weapons feaures with such a possibility its a pity that there are such limitations though. It would be cooler if there was a sim like FSX with more modability although there are other sims in development it may be years before we start seeing those released. An example of inflight refuelling is in Accl you refuel just by sitting behind the tanker with VRS TAc pack you would have to connect to the drogue to refuel. Such features could be further enhanced in FSX such as using the LSO script and ATC to make the Tankers talk back to the pilots etc like in Falcon.
-
SUBS...
Ya, fair nuff, I see what youre saying about the expandability but I just dont see paying for it. I mean, with JR's refueling gauge we have air to air refueling thats controlled with refueling zones (level 1=big zone/easier, level 2=small zone/difficult), and its free. The tanker (boom/aircrew) talking or actually connecting to the hose would be nice, but its a complete luxury. Im also talking with others about making LSO scripts, similar to the Top Gun missions, and those will be free. Additionally, all the mods coming up for the Hornet (ie. collimated HUD, additional model changes) will always be free, at least anything I have a hand in or put out there.
Sorry to say, but I dont need weapons in FSX. It's nice but more of a novelty IN FSX. There's no air war to fight, no campaign... so there's no real point, so other than shooting down civilian airliners, or the few others who have the Tac Pack in multiplayer, so it doesnt get me fired up.
Seriously, Im good enough with the FSX Hornet, or the Capt Sim Hornet D's every now and then.
Later
Sludge
-
Hey Sludge, I have a request for a model change if you can swing it: The Accleration Hornet has two levels of detail (LOD's) built into the model. Do you think it would be possible to remove the lower LOD so only the fully animated model remains? Thx.
-
Micro...
Im not that far into the weeds (detailed understanding) of the FSX Hornet, so Ill talk to a few people that I know and see if that can be done. I'm still learning alot as I go too.
Later
Sludge
-
This isn't about sales pitches, the major problem with FSX regarding combat aircraft, inflight refuelling and also weapons is lack of standardisation. Now if for example FSDT decided to do an F-14 in the future(of course they could since there are experts of this aircraft on this forum) a mod such as the TACPack could be used to make those weapons work just like all the other mods that are used on FSX such as graphics enhancements/weather etc. So its not about VRS Superhornet just firing missiles instead it could be other aircraft as well. A guy such as yourself modding the aircraft such as the Hornet could add weapons feaures with such a possibility its a pity that there are such limitations though. It would be cooler if there was a sim like FSX with more modability although there are other sims in development it may be years before we start seeing those released. An example of inflight refuelling is in Accl you refuel just by sitting behind the tanker with VRS TAc pack you would have to connect to the drogue to refuel. Such features could be further enhanced in FSX such as using the LSO script and ATC to make the Tankers talk back to the pilots etc like in Falcon.
Don't forget that even without ALL the weapons and weapon related sim stuff like the Countermeasures Dispensing System and the Electronic Warfare Self-Protection Suite the VRS is still an amazing aircraft purely from the flight dynamics, and avionics simulation perspective. Just last night I had a generator failure on landing and had to tie the buses, push Eletrical RESET, and hope the generator came back after cycling (it did). Hydraulics, electrical, engine, and fuel are amazingly fun things to manage on a tactical fighter jet even with ZERO weapons release ability. I overheated my FCS the other day while taking 1 minute too long to start up in the Las Vegas heat (FS Dream Team's own McCarran in fact), and I can't describe how fun it is to almost ruin the jet from your own mistakes. This is a simulation on a level with PMDG stuff, and that's before you even leave NAV master mode and turn power on to the pylons.
In addition I'd like to remind everyone that the Acceleration Hornet is a F/A-18A and the VRS is a E, so I account for the lack of weapons in Accel's Hornet as a tribute to the real A's inability to carry weapons without a retrofit with C components (much like Finland and Spain did). Both planes are amazing, but the VRS is really in a class of its own even when you subtract all combat ability from it. I understand Sludge's concern about this turning into a sales pitch forum but I don't think that's the case. Everybody who owns the VRS and can run it well is just in awe that there is finally a pro quality simulation of an aircraft for a tactical high-performance fighter (not even including the weapons).
-cl0ud
-
OK - I'll bite. What happens when the moderator gets fed up with the B/S about the VRS? We lose this thread and the very worthwhile info about the FSX Hornet and the mods to it. Many a thread with great info (from me!) has been lost due to this issue when subject was the Super Hornet. I'm not complaining just pointing out the risks. Personally I don't see the point of raving about the VRS stuff. This is not the forum for it. Any points about it have been made by now. Thank you and good night. ;D
-
My point is that the Tacpack could make the possibility for weapons on the Accel Hornet as well. After using Arma and seeing all the advantages of such mods in action I see the possibility of people in the community modding weapons on the accl hornet and with the Tacpack it might be possible to add it to other aircraft as well. Ideally what FSX needs is a mod such as the Tac Pack to standardise weapons/tankers etc so that its mp compatible if there should ever be a mp mod for it. If there is no standardisation with combat mods then you wind up with incompatibility in mp and also cheating. The ideal situation is one where a combat mod is created with its own MP code that enables combat in a MP enviroment. This would allow for some awesome mods such as Ship combat, air combat and even land combat. Theres alot of potential there but I'd be happy just dropping bombs on targets or even just having external weapons on the accel hornet which could be dropped to lower the landing weight of the bird prior to a trap. Either way I encourage people to mod the hell out of the accel Hornet but just be sure to have a sticky on this forum with an install list and download mirrors/links so people can make use of the hard work people have put in to improve the Hornet.
-
Spaz...
Dont worry, if Virtuali gets bent about where this post has gone, he can just delete the "offending" posts and keep alot of the good information that was passed before this became a VRS debate.
Everybody who owns the VRS and can run it well is just in awe that there is finally a pro quality simulation of an aircraft for a tactical high-performance fighter (not even including the weapons).
Cloud...
Thats my point. It takes a monster rig and alot of tweaking to run the 'Bug well. I know this because I dont have a monster machine and when I did have it, it was a frame rate HOG (10-15 fps in city) and it wasnt all that, IN MY OPINION. Thats why Im happy with the default and Sludge Hornets.
Cloud and SUBS...
Can you leave "well enough" alone? For those of us that are happy with the default and Sludge Hornets that run "well enough". I dont want the 'Bug or the Tac Pack, wont pay for it, and there are people here that wont either. Just let it go and if you guys like the 'Bug soo much, keep flying it, brag about it somewhere else... and let us go our way. This feels like a bad VRS commercial during the SuperBowl. Wish I had a DVR to fast forward thru it.
Later
Sludge
-
Sludge, don't despair. Just had a chance to install your SLUDGE package on a new install of FSX on Win7 64bits. Works a treat. Excellent. Very nice to fly. Thanks for your hard work. With the others mentioned in your readme text you have made a very realistic flying Hornet for FSX. Thanks to all for their hard work on it. :-*
-
Can you leave "well enough" alone? For those of us that are happy with the default and Sludge Hornets that run "well enough". I dont want the 'Bug or the Tac Pack, wont pay for it, and there are people here that wont either. Just let it go and if you guys like the 'Bug soo much, keep flying it, brag about it somewhere else... and let us go our way. This feels like a bad VRS commercial during the SuperBowl. Wish I had a DVR to fast forward thru it.
Later
Sludge
Its not really the point I was trying to get accross, its not about VRS Superhornet as such its just about what is possible. So when is someone going to put a Sticky on the forum for the best mods for the acceleration Hornet? BTW what else are you planning on adding to the Hornet for mods?
-
Can you leave "well enough" alone? For those of us that are happy with the default and Sludge Hornets that run "well enough". I dont want the 'Bug or the Tac Pack, wont pay for it, and there are people here that wont either. Just let it go and if you guys like the 'Bug soo much, keep flying it, brag about it somewhere else... and let us go our way. This feels like a bad VRS commercial during the SuperBowl. Wish I had a DVR to fast forward thru it.
Later
Sludge
Exactly what SUBS said, it is about what is possible in FSX and it's exciting for the future of flight simming. Interesting that you take enthusiasm about a shared passion as bragging, so I'll just take that as my last impression of this forum. I sent a PM to virtuali to have my posts removed, since they violated the rules of this forum and I cannot report my own post to the moderator or delete my own posts. No need for that DVR sludge, virtuali will make it all better.
-
Now that that is over, hey Sludge, I'm pretty excited for the next release. I was curious if we will ever be able to get the flaps to go down to their full position. Sorry for all the requests, but this thing is really starting to come together nicely. ;D
-
Cloud...
Take whatever impression you want from the board. In the end, of all your posts, there was very little mention of what could be done to improve the FSX Hornet, specifically. As the board is named "Unofficial F/A-18 Acceleration Pack board", hoped you'd keep your posts to just that, not "VRS this", "Tac Pack" that... VRS has their board for that. At least SUBS keeps his posts in the context of what could be done to improve the FSX Hornet as well.
In addition I'd like to remind everyone that the Acceleration Hornet is a F/A-18A and the VRS is a E, so I account for the lack of weapons in Accel's Hornet as a tribute to the real A's inability to carry weapons without a retrofit with C components (much like Finland and Spain did). Both planes are amazing, but the VRS is really in a class of its own even when you subtract all combat ability from it.
Don't forget that even without ALL the weapons and weapon related sim stuff like the Countermeasures Dispensing System and the Electronic Warfare Self-Protection Suite the VRS is still an amazing aircraft purely from the flight dynamics, and avionics simulation perspective.
F/A-18s of early versions had a problem with insufficient rate of roll, exacerbated by the insufficient wing stiffness, especially with the heavy underwing ordnance loads. The first production F/A-18A flew on 12 April 1980.
If you dont consider the first two quotes bragging, then we definately disagree on definitions. A duck is a duck in my book. Also, you are incorrect, the F/A-18A can carry weapons in real life. No need for extra drama from myself or Virtuali (he can speak for himself), and obviously, since he hasnt deleted your post this hasnt bothered him. But, if you want, you can delete your own posts. Simply log-in, and when you are browsing thru the threads, you can delete your own posts by clicking on "delete". You dont have to, but thats your choice.
Later
Sludge
-
Micro...
Yes, thats another thing "on the list". Others have asked me that, because they also noticed that the full flaps position is about 5-10 degrees higher on the exterior model than it is in real life.
Once we have a fully workable pre-compiled exterior model with all the animations done, Ill try to get that fix done too.
Later
Sludge
-
Cloud...
Take whatever impression you want from the board. In the end, of all your posts, there was very little mention of what could be done to improve the FSX Hornet, specifically. As the board is named "Unofficial F/A-18 Acceleration Pack board", hoped you'd keep your posts to just that, not "VRS this", "Tac Pack" that... VRS has their board for that. At least SUBS keeps his posts in the context of what could be done to improve the FSX Hornet as well.
In addition I'd like to remind everyone that the Acceleration Hornet is a F/A-18A and the VRS is a E, so I account for the lack of weapons in Accel's Hornet as a tribute to the real A's inability to carry weapons without a retrofit with C components (much like Finland and Spain did). Both planes are amazing, but the VRS is really in a class of its own even when you subtract all combat ability from it.
Don't forget that even without ALL the weapons and weapon related sim stuff like the Countermeasures Dispensing System and the Electronic Warfare Self-Protection Suite the VRS is still an amazing aircraft purely from the flight dynamics, and avionics simulation perspective.
F/A-18s of early versions had a problem with insufficient rate of roll, exacerbated by the insufficient wing stiffness, especially with the heavy underwing ordnance loads. The first production F/A-18A flew on 12 April 1980.
If you dont consider the first two quotes bragging, then we definately disagree on definitions. A duck is a duck in my book. Also, you are incorrect, the F/A-18A can carry weapons in real life. No need for extra drama from myself or Virtuali (he can speak for himself), and obviously, since he hasnt deleted your post this hasnt bothered him. But, if you want, you can delete your own posts. Simply log-in, and when you are browsing thru the threads, you can delete your own posts by clicking on "delete". You dont have to, but thats your choice.
Later
Sludge
Yes, I already said I violated the rules, it is unnecessary for you to repeat my own admitted violation unless you're just unable to move on. I was indeed incorrect about the A/B and weapons ability, thinking of the F-18L instead. I also never mentioned the Tac Pack knowing full well that it wouldn't be appropriate, so don't attribute that to me. That's kinda why I never even brought up VRS weapons at all, just wanted to talk avionics and was hoping to steer the conversation towards a more accurate avionics sim for the Accel hornet but unfortunately you immediately got defensive and YOU mentioned the weapons/radar/other features first. *shrugs*
Lastly, praise and bragging are different words. So apparently we do disagree on definitions. Bragging would mean I had something to do with the development and wanted to flaunt it. Or that I wanted to flaunt some sort of advantage over everybody else here and that's just comical. As I stated in my previous posts, I used to use the Accel Hornet and loved it, and loved your mods too, I just went too far apparently in praising the VRS hornet in a non-VRS forum. If you read the quote you copied last you would clearly see that the same level of praise was given to your plane as well, but that's conveniently ignored when you obviously took something personally. The only thing I can think of that can be taken as 'bragging' is that I'm able to actually run the VRS alongside FSDT airports, but that's not my fault, it's the result of my hard work and how I choose to spend my money. I jokingly half-wondered if screenshots with settings on high are bragging to you, but that's purely in jest.
I also wasn't speaking for virtuali, I was stating fact: I PM'd him requesting a removal of my posts and I expected him to do it. Snide remarks about 'bad commercial during the superbowl' will be met with snide remarks about the moderator making all the hurt go away.
In summary: I made a mistake even mentioning the VRS, admitted it twice, am moving on, and I hope you do the same. FSDT rocks and I am not going anywhere, so I'll see you around the skies.
-cl0ud
-
Guys chill, there is no harm I believe in mentioning the VRS Superhornet here is because it is just as often that the Accl Hornet is mentioned in the VRS Forum. There are plenty of comments here on the VRS SH on other posts its not a big deal. Regarding the Tac pack sure some people only like to fly from point A to point B and not shoot anything no problem if they do not wish to have those features or for a dev not to implement them as I assure you at some point we will see a combat sim with a hornet if not in FSX then more likely 7G, DCS or FighterOps.
-
For Sludge
Cheer up guys
-
Cloud...
Good enough. Actually, dont want to see you leave. Just felt the posts were getting a bit outta hand, but maybe that was just me?! As I said, Im happy with the default and Sludge, so Ill just leave it at that.
SUBS...
Yeah, Im cool. Just trying to keep the board focused here. But, I probly do need to chill a bit. Little reality check, huh?
SUN444...
Much thanks!! That was a good video and a good landing. Still working on getting you some stuff to make a "tutorial" video similar to what you made before. And I do think there will be FSX'ers, beyond the 5 percent, that would like a "serious tutorial" on a USN carrier pattern with all the explanations.
Later
Sludge
-
Sludge,
Not to take anything away from what you may do with your more usable SLUDGE Hornet, here is a reminder about the FSX Blue Angels Carrier Landing (& FCLP) video. It does not have the excellent capability of the 'new improved HUD' etc. but at least gives a good overview of 'how different' Naval Aviation is compared to conventional aviation.
http://fsxblueangels.com/videoscreen%20ok3.html
Probably this video concentrates more on FCLP to further explain the method, whilst not really going further into carrier landings, relying on what went before. Perhaps this is where a SLUDGE video would concentrate as you have well explained in words (on other threads) how you 'carrier land in the pattern in FSX'.
-
Spaz...
Actually, thats one of the reasons I want to make the video. It has very good demonstrations and detailed explanations but one of the missing things was how that all worked with a good HUD and what that HUD picture should look like. In example, how the Waterline should be five degrees up and the velocity vector should be 3 deg below the horizon and a little right of the touchdown area. Additionally, other misses were the lack of full flaps and landing over speed for a given weight, and the carrier is not moving on those landing videos. I know its moving when they are taking off, but if I remember right, the carrier isnt moving when the actual landing occurs. Also, explaining the real world vs. FSX compromises that have to made. Things such as how the carrier meatball and the New HUD ICLS needles are at 4.0 glideslope, whereas the real world carrier is USUALLY at 3.5, so to get certain WoD conditions optimum, changes must be made to the natural wind direction/speed, AND carrier course/speed. Just like that gent who asked on another thread what the carrier's course should be.
I also would like to show the people how to use the Sludge's newer features and gauges. The video would include FSXNPs completely integrated BlackBox, along with 2D HUD Indexer and UpFrontControl Panel for ball call's fuel state. How to set the RALT Betty for 300' AGL (which is the most common that Ive seen used). Things like that.
Later
Sludge
-
... and the carrier is not moving on those landing videos. I know its moving when they are taking off, but if I remember right, the carrier isnt moving when the actual landing occurs. ...
Sludge, I remember I was talking about this in one of my PMs.
There is no way to record a moving carrier, at least I don't know any. Neither the FSX Instant Replay nor FSrecorder can do that. The only way is to record it directly to an avi file during the flight. When You start it's not a big problem to switch to an outside camera view. But during approach and landing you should be inside the cockpit. You can't land the Hornet by looking at it from the outside.
The only thing I can think of, I haven't tried it yet, to open a second window with an outside view, like spot view. I do have a 2 monitor system so it might work but I'm pretty sure the framerate will drop even if I have an i7 processor and a GTX285. As I said I have to test it first and I also have to check what window Fraps will use.
I'll let you know but it will not be before the weekend.
Cheers
-
Sun...
Roger that 'bout the recording problems. Will try to think of some fixes or workarounds. Maybe something from our multiplayer days when Don was recording our sessions and seemed to get decent framerates.
No worries, have a good weekend.
Later
Sludge
-
Sludge, Your intended video content sounds great. Personally I have no problem (for demonstration purposes) if many approaches and views from same are edited into 'one' approach for the video. In this way perhaps the 'moving carrier' problem can be overcome. Editing videos without good editing programs can be very tedious though (not that I have such a thing) so making one video is often what I do; but then miss out on all the intended views when playing back the video in FSX (to then record it with FRAPS but changing the views during the playback). Have never tried to make a 'moving carrier' video though.
-
One question about the HUD (didn't want to open a new topic for that, I guess it's in good hands here, hope it doesn't bother you too much).
There is this course indicator in the HUD which should be adjustable, either in the HUD gauge or in the VC. When I'm at the catapult trying to set the course to the angled deck, it always snaps back to the actual heading of the Hornet. Is this a pilot error, am I doing anything wrong?
CU
sun444
-
One question about the HUD (didn't want to open a new topic for that, I guess it's in good hands here, hope it doesn't bother you too much).
There is this course indicator in the HUD which should be adjustable, either in the HUD gauge or in the VC. When I'm at the catapult trying to set the course to the angled deck, it always snaps back to the actual heading of the Hornet. Is this a pilot error, am I doing anything wrong?
CU
sun444
The reason this happens is because the steering arrow automatically adjust itself to the carrier heading (Basic Recovery Course) - this is the course you fly parallel to in your carrier traffic pattern. When you are on the catapult, you are headed the same way as the carrier, so the arrow will point straight up. Once you take off and start making turns, you will see that it stays oriented in the direction the carrier is moving. Only in night operations or bad weather, the arrow will be oriented to the angled deck, rather than the BRC, because instead of making an overhead break and traffic pattern - you go straight in towards the runway.
-
I understand that, makes sense, but why is there a knob in the gauge to adjust the course if you can't?
CU
sun
-
I understand that, makes sense, but why is there a knob in the gauge to adjust the course if you can't?
CU
sun
When the NAV radio is tuned to a carrier TACAN channel (47X or 57X), you cannot change the selected course - it is set to the BRC automatically. When it is tuned to a normal VOR station, you can adjust the desired course (OBS) from the HUD Switch Panel (open with Shift+2, the circle dial where it says 'NAV1') or from the Hornet cockpit (at the bottom of the fuel quantity indicator, it says 'CRS').
-
Thank you so much, this thing really is intelligent.
Have a nice weekend,
sun
-
Sun...
To add on to this discussion. My personal technique for either entering the pattern or on the Cat ready to power up for launch for touch and go's. When TACAN (47x/57x) is dialed in, and I see NAV1 is auto-set to BRC, I set GPS for the downwind (-180 deg from BRC), and I set NAV2 to Final Bearing (10 deg left of BRC), so I have those numbers visually set in my brain for the pattern.
And yeah, the new HUD is tight, has alot of features, and works very well. Wait til I wide-release the Sludge Hornet v1.1 w/FSXNP's BlackBox UFC w/Betty alerts and the entire sound pack included. As well as svicar's new "grunge Sludge" VMFA-323 paint.
Have a good weekend
Later
Sludge
-
Oh guys, the video is gonna be a tough one.
Just realized that we can't even use the PLAT cam on a moving carrier. The position of the cam is fix and the carrier is moving away. At the moment I don't see no way to attach any user defined camera to the moving carrier.
So long
sun
-
Use it within my mission? :P
-
Use it within my mission? :P
I don't know anything about your mission and if it's multiplayer I've never done that. I was always flying alone.
Let's take the weekend to think about this, there are some options like mixing moving and non moving parts where you can't see if the ship stays in place (like looking through the plat cam).
Right now I'm doing a lot of recording tests to see what we can do.
And may I suggest that we start an extra thread for this video project because it's not that much related to "Microsoft gave us permission". Members looking at the title might expect something different ...
I'll join this discussion again on Monday.
And You all have a really nice weekend
sun
-
...... Wait til I wide-release the Sludge Hornet v1.1 w/FSXNP's BlackBox UFC w/Betty alerts and the entire sound pack included. As well as svicar's new "grunge Sludge" VMFA-323 paint.
Sludge
Aye, aye, will wait gladly. Looking forward to a new video thread and a new V1.1 thread.
Many thanks for the trap approach info.
-
Will it be difficult to at least being able to fit fuel tank an weaons like Captainsim f/a-18d ?
-
IRON...
Thats a possibility once we get a workable, "animated" exterior model we can mess with. Thats the hard part, because any decompiled loses its "animations" in the decompilation process. So one has to now go in "step by step" and re-animate all the parts, then add their extra parts. Not that Id even know what to do, as you might be able to tell, Im not even a modeler, so I wouldnt know the first thing to do... Im a modder/tweaker.
Will keep your ideas on "the list" of things to do though.
Later
Sludge
-
Sludge,
An idea ... assuming you're still in the KNUW area ... see if some of the Growler pilots wouldn't mind test flying your mods ... even though the Growler if E/F based, there might be some IPs in the RAG with C time.
Average Joe
-
Joe...
Long time no see! How's things been? No, Im not up in KNUW, otherwise, yes... I would try to talk to as many "real world" Growler pilots and get their inputs. Im currently stuck here in Okieland... Moore, OK, since I have a great contractor job at Tinker AFB. Even tho Okie is boring as all get out, hard to leave such a great paying and easy job, in these days.
BTW, I sent an email to you a couple weeks back about part of the reason I reconfigured the the fa-18.air, and aircraft.cfg static_thrust was because of your last takeoff numbers. In addition to FSX multiplayers telling me the Hornet was underpowered, when flight testing your numbers proved it was underpowered. I finally got a few things figured out and the new flight dynamics in the Sludge are far closer to what you sent me. Thanks.
Also, in Case I, daytime carrier patterns... do aircraft fly "on-speed" (yellow donut) all the way around the pattern (downwind to the wires)? Or do they fly 150 KIAS (maintaining separation), til "the 90" then get "on-speed"?
Later
Sludge
-
My ultimate fsx Hornet... the A+ with the IFF antenna, UHF and VHF etc... delicious ! and of course the fuel tanks.
-
Sludge, here a first test video how it could be. It's HD in 720p so best thing is pausing the video first because it will stutter.
The flying really is bad because ...
...having a pic with a moving aircarft in your sight is distracting
... being busy to keep the HUD visible (VC is moving all the time)
... not yet used to land on moving ships
But anyway the video is just to show how we could do it.
CU
sun
-
Nice video whats the mark next to the FPM?
-
Nice video whats the mark next to the FPM?
Silly me, what is FPM?
-
SUBS...
Do you mean Feet Per Minute on the HUD, just above the Boxed Altitude? Other than the minus (-) denoting a descent, Im not sure what youre talking about?
Later
Sludge
-
Not even sure if this is a part of a HUD (:P), but could SUBS mean flight path marker?
-
sun444, good idea about having the extra window in frame but probably distracting in real time as you are saying. Actually at one point I was distracted and I was not flying! ;D Perhaps if you have four arms it would be possible to change that extra view to other views?
My dream would be to have the mirror at the same size throughout in an extra window (does not have to be too large to be an obstruction) probably top left corner. In this way the mirror / ball / datum combo can be seen as well as any ordinary view (other videos show only the HUD which by my preferred view for example). Having the mirror/ball in plain view would be really helpful IMHO but how it would work I have no clue and how to achieve that I don't know.
However I'll repeat having the NEW HUD etc. makes all the difference. It is terrific.
The actual carrier landing in the video was a bit 'off' but that is not the point of the video. ;D
As far as Flight Path Marker or FPM whatever it is I reckon is irrelevant for most day carrier landings. Yes these HUD items are useful to get to a point where you can use the mirror. When that may be is up to your skill I'll agree but transition to the mirror when you can rather than just do an instrument approach (during daytime).
EDIT: Another 'window in window' idea for the FSX carrier landing video would be to have the PLAT window in upper right? or where ever thought suitable. Probbaly too distracting for a real time sim use but useful in playback video probably?
____________________
F-35C flew for first time Sunday:
[EDIT} for any FlightSimmers about F-35C differences:
"Handling with landing gear down was a key focus of the first flight as the F-35C has a 30% larger wing and uprated flight controls to reduce takeoff and landing speeds compared with the other F-35 variants. Knowles says the aircraft approached at 135 kt., compared with 155 kt. for the smaller-winged F-35A and B variants at the same 40,000-lb. gross weight. Takeoff rotation speed was 15-20 kt. slower, he says.
&
The 57-min. first flight focused on gear-down handling and formation flying with the F/A-18 chase aircraft in “an early look at handling around the carrier”, says Knowles, adding “The approach was very stable, with good roll response.” [http://alturl.com/fnsk]
http://www.fencecheck.com/forums/index.php?PHPSESSID=00e09c740fca6852fecd04893aeb136e&topic=689.msg251247;topicseen#new
http://www.bensware.com/photos/events/F35CCF1First/
(http://www.bensware.com/photos/events/F35CCF1First/images/D20_6462_edited-1.jpg)
-
Not even sure if this is a part of a HUD (:P), but could SUBS mean flight path marker?
yes
-
As far as Flight Path Marker or FPM whatever it is I reckon is irrelevant for most day carrier landings.
I'm not surprised considering you used to fly A4s. ;D
-
sun444, good idea about having the extra window in frame but probably distracting in real time as you are saying. Actually at one point I was distracted and I was not flying! ;D Perhaps if you have four arms it would be possible to change that extra view to other views?
My dream would be to have the mirror at the same size throughout in an extra window (does not have to be too large to be an obstruction) probably top left corner. In this way the mirror / ball / datum combo can be seen as well as any ordinary view (other videos show only the HUD which by my preferred view for example). Having the mirror/ball in plain view would be really helpful IMHO but how it would work I have no clue and how to achieve that I don't know.
However I'll repeat having the NEW HUD etc. makes all the difference. It is terrific.
The actual carrier landing in the video was a bit 'off' but that is not the point of the video. ;D
As far as Flight Path Marker or FPM whatever it is I reckon is irrelevant for most day carrier landings. Yes these HUD items are useful to get to a point where you can use the mirror. When that may be is up to your skill I'll agree but transition to the mirror when you can rather than just do an instrument approach (during daytime).
EDIT: Another 'window in window' idea for the FSX carrier landing video would be to have the PLAT window in upper right? or where ever thought suitable. Probbaly too distracting for a real time sim use but useful in playback video probably?
Hi SpazSinbad,
would be easier for me if you post a pic or two (just simple sketch, drawn by hand or so) with the constellation you suggest. So I could see what proportions and what content in each window exactly you are talking about.
And I probably can manage to have 2 windows in the main window (for example one on the left and one on the right).
Maybe we have to go up in the resolution to 1080p HD, depends on what framerate I get.
To have the PLAT in one corner would be nice but we have to do this with a non moving ship and I have to check if the cross hairs appear in the other windows too, that would be bad.
There is a lot of testing/flying involved and as far as I can see we have to brake up the video in individual takes, but that's okay, that's what filmmakers do anyway.
Talk to You later
Hans
-
Er, why can't you just use the PLAT camera within my mission? You'll have to record the video live, but you will be able to use the PLAT camera on a moving ship.
-
Er, why can't you just use the PLAT camera within my mission? You'll have to record the video live, but you will be able to use the PLAT camera on a moving ship.
I'll try that, thing is I've never done a mission and I have to figure out how it works. If You could just explain what your mission does and how I use it.
-
sun444, you don't have to record live with Fraps to get a landing on a moving carrier. Just use the default Carrier Practice mission, change to whatever weather conditions, fuel, etc and make a save at a certain point within the mission - for example when you are ready on the cat, or on the abeam position, or at the start. Then reload the save (make sure it is paused when it loads !!!! ) and start recording with FSRecorder 2.0 (http://www.fs-recorder.net/download/download.php?id=fsxrec2000b4). Then at any time - load the saved game (again make sure it starts paused), and play the recording you did with FSRecorder. It may sound complicated, but it's very easy, reliable and you can even get some custom views from the carrier, because they are defined in the mission. And of course you can replay it as many times as you want ;) Why does this method work - FSRecorder does not record anything else but your own aircraft, however because it is a mission - the mission system controls the carrier and it is always there and does exactly the same thing. Just play the recording from the same moment within the mission that you started the recording in the first place (this is why you need to pause and save the game before you start recording).
-
subs17, it is difficult to 'make rules' because you are free to make your own. Not having flown are real Hornet I can only recommend from my reading about Hornet operations. There is plenty of material describing how to carrier land a real Hornet online. Although the FPM may be mentioned it is not the primary method to carrier land IMHO. The only way to do it is to use the mirror/fresnel lens. This is a precise instrument. Everything is calibrated to this device to have a safe carrier landing. Instrument flying in the daytime and using the FPM are a way to get to the 'start', the 3/4 of a mile from touchdown point but from there on during the day / night carrier approach (less if a bad night so you can go down to your limit of one quarter mile) then you need to transition to a visual approach.
Now we talk about sim flying in FSX. Before the magic HUD made by the smart people on this forum it was almost impossible to reliably get to this 'start' point with any accuracy to then transition to the ball etc. However now it is possible. Before the needles in the HUD the mirror could not be seen with any accuracy to get any idea of where the aircraft was to get to a good start point. Now that is possible. However as soon as you can see the 'meatball/datum lights' then transition to that method. If you want to instrument fly during the day all the way to touchdown then you miss out on what is unique about carrier flying IMHO.
Yes, instrument fly at night. Always fly as accurately as you are able and WAVE OFF when you see the RED LIGHTS flashing - unlike some who like to carry on with their deck spotting to do a visual carrier landing. I'm guessing that they are not looking at the mirror at all. [Edit - Generic Advice only.]
I'll stress - yes this is a simulator and some people have better skills for whatever reason, but I see the point of doing the carrier approach as realistically as the sim allows.
-
To carry on with the above explanation.... I will concede that some advice from USN says fly on instruments during some parts/times in the circuit and at beginning of base turn. SLUDGE has good advice using TACAN info about how to precisely do a circuit in FSX (with his setup conditions though). This is all good. However I'll stress. Get to the 'start' and then use the mirror/fresnel lens.
sun444, I'll attempt to make a video but don't have multiplayer missions because I don't have such a setup here and can only do single player stuff. The two JPGs show what I have in mind. The second JPG with the mirror in the top left cannot be too big because I want to see the mirror during the approach. The PLAT view would be too distracting in the sim and as you say really impact on frame rates. Having the two extra views would be good for playback video though if it is possible.
Using the new HUD at larger size is the only way to go IMHO. Having a wider view means details are less easy to see, but I'll concede that everyone has different setups and different ways of using the sim. Probably the example setups are more for video playback demos.
-
Spaz, if Dino makes the carrier version of the F-35 - because it does not have a HUD framework to obscure visibility, you will have a clear view of the meatball all the way to touchdown ;D
-
neutrino, agree. It is good the way it fills the screen. In the same way the F-35C has been modified to be more responsive (and fly slower) for carrier landings then if Dino makes the F-35C version I hope that aspect is improved, but for sure as I have indicated on his website 'flies like butter' as I guess it should.
Question: Is there a way to have the new FSX Hornet HUD almost fill the entire screen? On my setup it would take about one third of screen (only a guess).
-
Question: Is there a way to have the new FSX Hornet HUD almost fill the entire screen? On my setup it would take about one third of screen (only a guess).
The HUD can fill a bigger portion of your screen only if you zoom in and you are in virtual cockpit. If you are in 2D cockpit view, there is only one zoom factor at which the HUD will be conformal - for example 0.80. If you want to fly in 2D cockpit at a higher zoom, for example 1.00, you have to change something in the panel.cfg and always fly at that zoom factor, but you will lose visibility of the meatball right after the ramp.
The HUD symbology is indeed a bit smaller that I would like to, compared for example to the F-35 HUD. The reason is the restriction that the Hornet HUD frame imposes on the size of the HUD, there is no such limitation in the F-35, so I made the symbols as big as in the real plane. They are still conformal, but numbers and letters are bigger, separated wider apart, the ladder bars are wider as well, etc. In this respect I like the VRS Superbug and the Aerosoft F-16 - they have a wider HUD frame which allows for a larger symbology. I can't say however if this is true to the real aircraft.
Also, if you refer to the default Hornet HUD - yes, it was really big in the 2D cockpit, but it was not conformal.
-
Spaz...
To tack on to what youre saying "wider HUD", I use the 2D HUD view just before the start when Im turning onto Final Bearing and about 1.0/0.9 TCN. To me, the unobstructed 2D HUD w/newer BlackBox Gauge just underneath the HUD data and 2D Indexer to the left is perfect for unobstructed viewability and flying case I, daytime FINAL approach.
I have three "hotkeys" on my x52 setup for views. One on the trigger group top right for 2D, the middle for VC, and the pinkie for "locked chase", which is setup looking from center right wing, to left wing, at .60 zoom... this setup gives me all the pattern info. I need quickly.
First off, I fly most of the pattern in VC. From take off, turn to downwind, establishing downwind, then click "locked chase" to make Abeam call. Then click on VC to start the 28 deg AoB left turn 4 secs after abeam call, then keep in VC thru "the 90", til I get past "the 45". And about 1.0/0.9 TCN where I can see the boat and the meatball, then click on 2D, make my 3/4 mile call, and fly 2D into the wires.
Thats how I do it every single time, no deviations. Others, especially with TrackIR probly dont do this, but I couldnt fly any other way.
Sun...
One other idea for this video too is basic naval aviation flying. From taking people on "side seat/shotgun" rides with me, the one problem I noticed is most FSXers have trouble with holding a "yellow donut" wings level hold altitude flight. There is still that tendency of civilian "stick down/lower altitude, throttle up/speed up" flying. After a few training rides with others, I would make them hold altitude (usn style), then once they got that concept down, I would transition to teaching them "powered descent" where the throttle controls altitude and stick controls speed/AoA, hence holding the "yellow donut" (HUD visual = waterline at 5 deg up/velocity vector at 3 deg down) on final approach. This proved invaluable as a primary teaching tool and where I have found first-hand that most FSXers would experience the highest learning curve. Teaching them this concept and making them practice it hands-on, while I coached them over the Skype, was when I saw people learn the most. Some food for thought.
Later
Sludge
-
neutrino, fair enough. No harm is asking: is there a way to change the FSX Hornet HUD behaviour to be more like the F-35 will be in FSX? Personally I don't like messing around (except during setup) the views in FSX - there is too much of that as it is - how the F-35 HUD behaves is ideal IMHO. I'll stress again though, the new FSX modified Hornet clear HUD is REVOLUTIONARY (with all the bits like needles / tacan etc.). ;D
Sludge, we posted replies at same time. I'll have to read yours but my comment about changing views applies in case of carrier approaches. There is enough to do without messing about with views but I take your 'shortcut key' comment onboard to do more with that perhaps. I could do more experimentation I guess with the Hornet views.
Good idea Sludge about getting the AoA tricks, how to fly Navy style demonstrated. It is unique. That is why FSX with Hornet is such a good carrier landing sim now. Great stuff. ;D
-
subs17, it is difficult to 'make rules' because you are free to make your own. Not having flown are real Hornet I can only recommend from my reading about Hornet operations. There is plenty of material describing how to carrier land a real Hornet online.
I was kidding because those A4s were doing carrierops without the Hud data they have with modern aircraft of today no doubt without FPMs as well.
-
subs17, I get your joke but I still wanted to make the point about doing a visual landing. On other forums/boards I see chatter about this 'other way to carrier land' but I don't post on those boards. I just wanted to make a point.
So others get an idea about what 'neutrino' and I comment on about the Dino F-35A under test here are two screengrabs. I realise I like to fly at 1600x1200 with the standard view seeing the canopy bow and seldom have looked at the full screen HUD view otherwise to see that it is distorted (squashed) I guess because it is suitable for a 'widescreen' view? No matter. It is still usable and I could change the view but you know what I think about that. ;D
-
for subs17, the pic shows an approximation of what an A4G pilot would see carrier landing on HMAS Melbourne. Having to work with what was available to recreate this view I realise now that the deck view shows this pilot is way too low but one gets the idea about looking through the windscreen to see the mirror and AoA indexer in the same field of view. The gunsight would be clear (switched off). It is remarkable how the front windscreen frame and any other distraction disappears otherwise.
-
Sludge, Spaz,
I know You doubt my skills of carrier landing. Just in case, I master perfect landings, please check my vid
This isn't the sludge Hornet, it's the Superbug. Thing is the Sludge Hornet has a totally different flight/engine dynamic and I have to get used to it first, so it will take some time, forgive me.
Spaz, Sludge, neutrino and whoever, You provided so much input it will take me a while to digest all this stuff. I'll get back to You on this one in a couple of days.
And thanks for the pics, Spaz, I know what you mean now.
One big problem is, I'm not retired yet so I do have a fulltime job and it also is summertime, that means I don't want to spend all evening in front of the monitor. This is not a tiny little project so if You want to have it done right it takes time, unless You find someone else to make the video.
Anyway, I think You are a good team and really could setup a major tutorial for FSX carrier landing.
Now let me go through all Your stuff and sort it out so I can make a plan.
CU later
sun
Sorry for spelling mistakes, but it is late night here and I'm tired.
-
sun444, good video. It would be interesting for those posting videos to give details about how they were made (FRAPS?) and some computer specs also. I have edited the post about carrier landings to reflect the generic advice. Bear with me. Over the last year or so I have seen some very bad FSX carrier landing vids purporting to be 'good' when clearly they were not but so be it. I don't bother commenting on the youtube sites about the youtube videos. My advice was generic only. Also I might stress the crosswind limit is seven knots in real world Hornet ops (for those thinking of doing crosswind carrier landings to help them with the lineup problem on final approach).
I guess this may sound odd if you don't use the visual technique from 'the start'. However if you concentrate on 'Meatball, Line up and Optimum Angle of Attack' it really is that simple. All the required actions to stay on these parameters are transparent. You will 'just do it' - to the best of your ability - without worrying about what any other instruments (FPM, needles) are saying - they should be ignored for just the basics. The basics work.
-
Sun...
I dont doubt your stick skills at all. I only question your technique for getting aboard. And yes, the Sludge takes some getting used to... as opposed to the SuperBug (lighter on approach), or the default Hornet (super over-powered and light, can float in on idle). In the last video, at 3:45, you are flying a "low ball" approach (meatball is at least "one ball" low), as when you line-up and switch to the SuperBug's VC, your ICLS shows you low and I cant tell from your HUD data (hard to read) but it seems at 3/4 of a mile, your ICLS shows you low (the glidepath needle is on the top of your velocity vector, rather it should be bisecting it). As a matter of fact, at 3:54, right before the camera cuts to the outside view, I think the meatball gives you one "red ball" indicating a low approach, almost waveoff.
Bout 6 months back, I did a comparison of youtube F-18 HUD landings and also FSX landings using the new HUD and there is a happy medium, but basically you have to be a tad higher than real life, flying a slightly sharper glidepath down cause of all FSX carriers (default/AI/Javier) and JR's HUD, 4.0 glideslope. You can use ICLS to get setup and confirm you are on the path when you roll out, but once at "the start", you need to ONLY be meatball, lineup, AoA.
Watch this youtube video, from 1:42 to 1:49, at 1:46... there is a perfect picture of a "waterline" ("W" symbol) at 5 deg up and the velocity vector at 3 deg down approach, and an on-glideslope center meatball. Plus, as Spaz said, you cant fly the needles, from ball visual in... this pilot flies a really solid approach and look how far the needles are off, in-close. ICLS needles are there for bad weather and night to get you to the Ball, and then transfer to meatball, lineup, AoA.
No worries... get some rest and yes, its gonna take some time to get this, just like those things we want done for the FSX Hornet. I have alot of patience, so no big deal. Itll happen whenever it happens.
Later
Sludge
-
sludge, good reply - I'll check the video later [great video]. Just wanted to add that the new JPALS (Joint Precision Approach Landing System) will have inch accuracy for more precise 'automatic carrier landings' when needed (very poor weather or a cockpit emergency - such as smoke/fog - that does not allow the instruments or outside view to be seen clearly - it happens) will be another level of achievement to model. ;D
I have no idea but worth a heads up. JPALS info can be gleaned from a PDF online at:
http://acast.grc.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/icns/2002/09/Session_D2-4_Wallace.pdf (about 6Mb?)
However AFAIK carrier pilots prefer to do 'visual' landings at 'the start' [at 3/4 NM] or perhaps at least at a later spot to keep their carrier landings skills going rather than do a completely automatic approach. Apparently they are encouraged to practice these 'auto' landings more to retain skills for this when needed. The transition from instrument flying to visual at 1/4 nautical mile at 200 feet (or for newbies 1/2 NM at 400 ft) is quite a challenge so acquiring the ball as early as possible during any kind of instrument approach (even in daytime) is very useful.
-
Pretty good video, Sludge.
Tha meatball could be my basic problem because I'm used to go by the ILS glideslope only. From now on I'll go by your and Spaz's instructions. Let's see how I'm gonna improve with the Sludge Hornet (it is really much more difficult to do a proper approach than with the standard F/A-18).
By the way, can't these posts be moved to the video project thread?
CU
sun
-
Sun,
I know what you mean. As soon as you transfer over to the Sludge and get used to it, it is hard to go back. It is like you and Sludge say with the different flight dynamics.
A/B
-
Yeah, but that's not bad. I like the sludge Hornet and I like the standard F/A-18. And I also don't need weapons and firing them, I'm into flying.
About difficulties to go back on a different aircraft, I do fly a lot X-PLANE helicopter lately and it can't be more different. Compared to X-PLANE chopper landing on a carrier is a walk in the park.
What I do, at least once every session, no matter if X-PLANE or something else, I make at least one carrier landing with Hornet/Superhornet. This way I don't loose the feeling for fighter jets.
Back to the video, Spaz was asking about specs.
Components:
EZdok, FSrecorder, Fraps, VirtualDub 64, Magix, orig. resolution 1680x1050
Computer specs:
OS: Windows 7 pro 64-bit
Proc: i7-920
RAM: 12 GB
Graf: GTX 285 1GB
CU
sun
-
sun444, thanks for the computer setup info. I'm guessing FRAPS is OK? in Win7pro 64bit? I have just got that but have not got around to trying FRAPS so far. As an aside I have just had my main 1TB Seagate drive go bad so I may be away from this forum for a bit getting that sorted. Yeah the Seagate tool said my drive did not need firmware fixing (over one year ago when this problem was prevalent) but maybe it did after all. Bah Humbug. >:(
-
sun444, thanks for the computer setup info. I'm guessing FRAPS is OK? in Win7pro 64bit? I have just got that but have not got around to trying FRAPS so far. As an aside I have just had my main 1TB Seagate drive go bad so I may be away from this forum for a bit getting that sorted. Yeah the Seagate tool said my drive did not need firmware fixing (over one year ago when this problem was prevalent) but maybe it did after all. Bah Humbug. >:(
FRAPS is okay if you use it on recorded data (like replay with FSrecorder and taping it with FRAPS). In this case FSX doesn't have to do much calculations since the data are coming from a file.
FRAPS does cut on the framerate quite a bit if You tape it while you're flying but You'll see it by yourself.
Hope you're not away for a long time,
CU
sun
-
Sludge, Spaz,
I know You doubt my skills of carrier landing. Just in case, I master perfect landings, please check my vid
Holy overweight trapping! If you shed some of those 2000 pounders and 800 pound missiles, you won't destroy the gear on trapping. Just a thought after seeing the main and front gear dig a trench into the deck. :)
-cl0ud
-
Holy overweight trapping! If you shed some of those 2000 pounders and 800 pound missiles, you won't destroy the gear on trapping. Just a thought after seeing the main and front gear dig a trench into the deck. :)
-cl0ud
Sorry, You don't know! Maybe You should ask before You post.
The weight was just below the max for carrier landing, this way it's much more difficult to land.
sun
-
Sludge, Spaz,
I know You doubt my skills of carrier landing. Just in case, I master perfect landings, please check my vid
I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but that isn't anywhere near mastery. You haven't seemed nice about what others thought in these posts, so I won't be either. You're low in, and you keep going lower. You're underpowered, and I have no clue who would land with full load of ordnance, even if you dumped gas to get below 44.
If you want, me and Sludge can hop on multiplayer and show you how men land.
-
You're right Razgriz,
I see we don't ge along, I don't fit into your scheme.
Good Bye everyone.
-
sun444, no need to go. This computer has other hard drives with much lesser capacity to allow the computer to work but with little data storage capacity (for making HUGE FRAPS .AVI files before they are crunched down to reasonable size by video editing/saving in another format [.WMV]). I have not tried the FS Recorder, usually make videos from an FSX 'replay' starting FRAPS at beginning or at some point during replay. Agree that using FRAPS during an FSX session just kills the framerate.
In real world carrier pilots need a thick skin to take in the sometimes very confronting comments about their deck landing ability from the LSO (and their squadron 'mates'). For the record I don't find FSX Hornet Carrier Landing easy, especially if I don't stay in practice. It is a real skill in FSX to do well and needs practice. To start I recommend during practice carrier landings ashore to master the skill of flying 'navy style' at optimum angle of attack all the time.
Always best to land with a light load IMHO, rather than at maximum weight, but it is possible nevertheless.
-
Hehe, I like a little confrontation ;D On this site it is usually very constructive. And when it comes to carrier landings, we have very objective and stringent criteria - everything must be done to the book and as close to the real world flying as possible. I sometimes even think we take carrier landings too seriously ;) But I also think everyone is open to criticism when he doesn't meet those standards. If you want to have fun - no one will bother you, but if you say "3/4 mile, Hornet, ball" - you either do it or you don't - no points for second place ;D
-
And when it comes to carrier landings, we have very objective and stringent criteria - everything must be done to the book and as close to the real world flying as possible.
I guess I won't post my pitching deck carrier ops video then :P.
Kidding! I'll post it when it's ready ;).
-
And when it comes to carrier landings, we have very objective and stringent criteria - everything must be done to the book and as close to the real world flying as possible.
I guess I won't post my pitching deck carrier ops video then :P.
Kidding! I'll post it when it's ready ;).
Just don't crash the plane ;D
-
Just don't crash the plane ;D
We'll see about that :P.
-
Pitching deck !!! no way it can't be done IMHO the best have tried and failed ;)
-
I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but that isn't anywhere near mastery. You haven't seemed nice about what others thought in these posts, so I won't be either. You're low in, and you keep going lower. You're underpowered, and I have no clue who would land with full load of ordnance, even if you dumped gas to get below 44.
If you want, me and Sludge can hop on multiplayer and show you how men land.
Well as my IP told me after my first near miss, any landing you walk away from is a good landing. BTW this video is pretty much a perfect landing but the only mistake Sun444 made was he forgot to salute(shift g) before he launched. ;D
Heres another example of a good landing.
-
sun444, good video. It would be interesting for those posting videos to give details about how they were made (FRAPS?) and some computer specs also. I have edited the post about carrier landings to reflect the generic advice. Bear with me. Over the last year or so I have seen some very bad FSX carrier landing vids purporting to be 'good' when clearly they were not but so be it.
Yes I have to admit I am one of those people on youtube with the bad landings although I have seen worse. ;D
I'm working on better landings since now I'm CAG I have to set a good example.
-
Raz...
Where the hell you been?! Havent see you on here in a while... Over at that VRS place? Haha.
Simon...
Same for you, where you been hiding these days?! We need to find some time to fly in the multiplayer. I havent seen your "stick skills" with your new x52. Nor have I done any serious "paddles" in a while. Dont make me get out the grade book.
To all...
Once I get my new processor installed and running, Ill make a 30sec fraps video with the new HUD and Blackbox on the Sludge using the TopGun mission that I have setup and post it up here. Might have NUKE my harddrive, then get everything restarted, you never know??... so be patient. Im gonna do it this week.
BTW, its a PhenomIIx4 955 BE, and its on the way from newegg.com, so we will see how well it gets here and it should be a snap to install, then get it up and running.
Later
Sludge
-
SUBS17, in my mind anyway clearly there is a before and after the 'magic new HUD' in FSX Hornet ops. In your first video you have done well to be on centreline and stayed there, difficult to see other parameters but it looked good enough in the circumstances. However no carrier pilot is content except with the 'perfect pass' from the LSO and even then the pilot probably knows stuff he could have done better on that trap. ;D I'll look at the second video now. [Is not that original HUD just awful!? :D In comparison to the new improved clear HUD ;D ]
___________
2nd video critique (tongue in cheek as always): Continuing an approach with WAVE OFF flashing is never a good idea but we are in the 'before good HUD era' here. I reckon you must have flared at the end to avoid the ramp (going low again). I do free deck take offs if that is what we see... just start from the inevitable 'taxi 1' and hoik it off ASAP. ;D
-
Sludge, go ahead and give me a call on skype. I can explain there! :P
-
SUBS17, in my mind anyway clearly there is a before and after the 'magic new HUD' in FSX Hornet ops. In your first video you have done well to be on centreline and stayed there, difficult to see other parameters but it looked good enough in the circumstances. However no carrier pilot is content except with the 'perfect pass' from the LSO and even then the pilot probably knows stuff he could have done better on that trap. ;D I'll look at the second video now. [Is not that original HUD just awful!? :D In comparison to the new improved clear HUD ;D ]
___________
2nd video critique (tongue in cheek as always): Continuing an approach with WAVE OFF flashing is never a good idea but we are in the 'before good HUD era' here. I reckon you must have flared at the end to avoid the ramp (going low again). I do free deck take offs if that is what we see... just start from the inevitable 'taxi 1' and hoik it off ASAP. ;D
Thanks for the critique its always a good laugh hearing this stuff considering the fact that every 30s I was pushing a button to make those videos with Fraps hence the low FPS. I tried to make a similar video using the VRS SH in the Jet canyon race but the insane FPS kills that idea for now. ;D
-
SUBS17, fair enough about 'free' FRAPS. Why not get a 'paid for' copy if you are serious about making FSX videos? For sure recording with FRAPS whilst flying is a frame rate killer. You should make that clear. Nevertheless the video shows some 'learning moments' - even if unintended. ;D
-
Yeah its amazing the precision one can fly at 3fps ;D, with my next PC I hope to get FRAPs and thats when I'll make a few videos of some of the cool stuff I do on FSX and other sims or what me and the 1stCAW get up to. It would be cool sometime to try the red bull air race in a VRS SH or the Sludge modded Hornet. 8)
-
Aaah Sludge you sly ol' dog... ;D sorry dude real life got in the way there for a while ..been out on tour with several artists drumming my heart out!!! :) ...have really missed the multi sessions and the laughs ...will be around this saturday if all the regulars are available for a flight... will be in contact ...thought I would post this message on here and let everybody know that I have not fallen off the edge of the planet yet but are still alive and kicking :P (for those of you do who know me )
-
Hehe, I like a little confrontation ;D On this site it is usually very constructive. And when it comes to carrier landings, we have very objective and stringent criteria - everything must be done to the book and as close to the real world flying as possible. I sometimes even think we take carrier landings too seriously ;) But I also think everyone is open to criticism when he doesn't meet those standards. If you want to have fun - no one will bother you, but if you say "3/4 mile, Hornet, ball" - you either do it or you don't - no points for second place ;D
True, that.
-cl0ud
-
Aren't some of these posts a little off subject?
Sludge has asked for people to help him work on this fantastic opportunity which he has earned by dint of his skill, hard work and commitment. I don't see videos of carrier landings, although interesting, helping him in his request. I enjoy viewing the videos, but shouldn't they be in a different thread?
Just a thought,
Tregarth