FSDreamTeam forum
General Category => Unofficial F/A-18 Acceleration Pack board => Topic started by: SUBS17 on July 31, 2010, 02:37:19 am
-
Looks quite good.
-
What an awesome video you have 8)
-
Man, that looks fantastic. Seems like they've made some huge progress there. I still have the 1.03 beta installed and play it every few days. The flight dynamics rock, they'll be even better in the latest/release version. If you're a Hornet fan, this is a must have!
And holy moly, you just gotta love that cockpit shadows and the vibrating/flexing wingtips during high-G's. ;D Greaaaat!
-
It's awesome what a modern graphic engine can do with the light and the shadows. The lightning of the cockpits in FSX is so limited after years (decades?) of patching the same graphical engine over and over again.
-
Yeah FSX certainly has its limitations although it is encouraging to see that new sims like 7G, Tacpack and DCS A-10C are on the horizon.
-
What does it do that FSX or Falcon 4 does not?
Cheers, Mark
-
As for FSX COMBAT!!!
-
Link to their web site and forums??
-
http://www.seveng-f18.com/
-
New screenshots showing JHCMS.
http://www.f4support.com/forums/showthread.php?7626-7-g
This sim is starting to look good.
-
Also, it has looked good, just hasn't been feature rich. Its extremely in-depth though.
-
Also, it has looked good, just hasn't been feature rich. Its extremely in-depth though.
I love the second video there -- a very realistic looking landing :)
Regards
-
is it me, or the glideslope angle looks lower than fsx? it looks more realistic also.
-
Fael...
Yes, more than likely, its a 3.5 glideslope which is the most common according to CV and LSO NATOPS. The FSX carrier "meatballs" and JRs HUD ICLS are set for a 4.0 (or 3.99) glideslope. Dont ask me why MS did that, and Ive tried to find out IF we can get that to 3.5, but so far NO DICE.
Later
Sludge
-
o well, i knew something was very wrong with fsx. i always felt like falling into the deck rather than landing.
anyways, this seven g looks sweet, i just hope they improve their graphics, because the engine itself already looks good.
you can notice the landing gear bouncing feel while aircraft is moving on the ground, what im 99% MS flight wont have, or any future versions, until they make another engine.
with some luck, 7g may include realistic AAR aswell ;)
-
fael97 said: "i always felt like falling into the deck rather than landing." That is what it is like. IMHO there is little difference between 3.5 and 4 degree glideslope, depending on WOD - Wind Over the Deck. However as perhaps pointed out on another thread there is an ideal WOD when TOO MUCH can be detrimental - adding to that 'falling' effect if you will. :o
The Sludge Hornet setup for carrier landings flown accurately is very realistic. Much better than any other version of MS FlightSim or other 'carrier landing' flight simulator IMHO. Truly before this aforementioned setup - they were all DRECK! ;D
-
yeah sinbad, but my complains are much more visual than anything else.
its just that watching the real trap vids, it looks smoother, while on fsx, it looks like i approach in a higher angle.
-
fael97, not sure what you mean. If you are 'deck spotting' - not looking at the mirror (IFLOLS), line up and airspeed only - then the glideslope to a carrier looks very steep; while the tendency to touch down early (forgetting the 'hook tip to pilot eye' vertical distance) means you are likely to hit the ramp (if you are deckspotting). Whatever the glideslope setting; it becomes irrelevant if you are flying 'meatball, lineup and airspeed (Optimum Angle of Attack).
A carrier pilot is not looking out the front as he might do at an airfield without an IFLOLS (mirror) and as a video viewer you likely will not able to see the 'meatball, lineup and airspeed' (because often these details are lost or you only see a view out the front through the glass). Don't be mistaken. A carrier pilot is not smooth - although it may look smooth if you do not have access to the 'meatball lineup and airspeed' indications - which is usually the case. I think you would be surprised at how 'unsmooth but accurate' carrier pilot's approaches are in fact. Trying to be smooth - at the expense of accuracy - is a bad technique.
For sure be as smooth as your primarily accurate flying will allow but above all be accurate and anticipate where the meatball is going so that an immediate correction is made to get back to the parameters. There is often nothing smooth about that way of flying at all. There are a lot of threads on this forum about flying the glideslope - worth checking them out.
Perhaps remembering also that once the meatball can be seen or earlier the pilot makes 'large' corrections to get to the correct parameters but as he gets closer to arrest he makes 'less large' corrections whilst also anticipating any corrections and making corrections to the first correction then a correction to the second correction to the first correction - if you follow - in a decreasing way, all the way to touchdown. All the while maintaining 'meatball, lineup and airspeed (Opt AoA). It requires practice to perfect. Practice on the 'fsxnp' FCLP missions - at dusk and then night time mission 5 if you can manage it. This practice will make your carrier approaches that much easier and better. :-*
One thing about FSX carrier approaches that is unreal is that videos can be made from the cockpit where others can see these indications (if video made at high quality) - not usually possible in real life - the LSO sees all though. ;D