FSDreamTeam forum
General Category => Unofficial F/A-18 Acceleration Pack board => Topic started by: Afterburn93 on May 08, 2010, 08:58:15 pm
-
Hello FSDT...
The ever evolving Sludge Hornet release is just around the corner. We have thought up a few ideas that could push the hornet to the edge and make it just awesome. A few ideas recently tossed around include **true** HUD collimation VERY similar in nature to the Aerosoft F-16 with the same principles in mind, and weathered texture schemes to go along with it.
Truthfully, this HUD collimation idea is very possible, giving that Scott Printz did the F-16 HUD, and he also did the original HUD for JR's newer, realistic F-18 HUD. It is just the matter of the will power to make it happen. if there is anyone out there that wishes to pursue the idea, report to Sludge and/or myself and we can make it happen!
As for the weathered texture schemes, it really all depends on who wants to do it, just like the HUD. I haven't heard much debate at all over whether or not this can actually happen, but haven't heard many people asking for it either.
Attached are a few images Sludge asked me to post for you to view for reference to the way we want the Hornet's HUD to look.
Cheers,
A/B
-
You probably missed his post sometime back when he stated the the F/A-18 was now the *legal* property of Microsoft, which is why they WON'T make fixes/adjustments to it. :'( Its in these forums somewhere...
Well; we now have the VRS F/A-18E and hopefully the F and (E/A -)G versions. ;D
-
James...
I think he was talking about anyone, not just Virtuali or any former ACES team member, who can mod the HUD towards getting it collimated just like the F-16 HUD is? From what Im understanding, its legal for any of us knuckleheads to do it, as long as the modifications still require the end-user to have FSX: Acceleration installed beforehand, and all work is properly credited. Thats what the blueangels v1.1 hornet is, a wide-released modification of the default FSX Acceleration Hornet.
Well; we now have the VRS F/A-18E and hopefully the F and (E/A -)G versions.
Some of us dont have the VRS 'Bug, and some dont like it cause its a framerate killer that still doesnt work well. Plus, the Bug's HUD is drawn w/fonts and lines that are too thick, and is anchored on the virtual pilot's viewpoint. Thats why they are having problems with the HUD being viewable from outside the physical brackets. From what I perceive, the aerosoft F-16 HUD is anchored about 5' in front of the aircraft's nose and just above, to give the illusion of "projecting" the HUD symbology towards infinity. Now Im back here dedicating my FSX time to the Sludge Hornet, trying to get some ideas of how to get the F-18 HUD anchored the same way as the aerosoft HUD. So we can get that collimated, projected HUD onto the Sludge Hornet.
if there is anyone out there that wishes to pursue the idea, report to Sludge and/or myself and we can make it happen!
whoa... easy there bulldog. If anyone can make it happen, I dont want them reporting in to me... just would like their take on it, and fire away with any ideas they might have. To have the aerosoft F-16 style projected, collimated HUD on the Sludge Hornet would just rock, so if anybody does have any ideas, please let me know.
Later
Sludge
-
To all...
Check this video out, from 6:15 to 6:35, you can see the what I mean about the HUD and how it projects outward.
Also, look at the picture... the real world HUD doesnt have big, bulky numbers and lines like the VRS Bug HUD. JR's HUD and the Aerosoft HUD have the right size lines/fonts as well. Now if we could just get JR's HUD anchored in front of the plane, instead of on the HUD glass like the default is now, we'd have a winner!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HUD_view.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HUD_view.jpg)
Later
Sludge
-
James...
I think he was talking about anyone, not just Virtuali or any former ACES team member, who can mod the HUD towards getting it collimated just like the F-16 HUD is? From what Im understanding, its legal for any of us knuckleheads to do it, as long as the modifications still require the end-user to have FSX: Acceleration installed beforehand, and all work is properly credited. Thats what the blueangels v1.1 hornet is, a wide-released modification of the default FSX Acceleration Hornet.
I don't think you understand; it REQUIRES that you modify the model itself to get that effect... I'll let Virtuali explain more... or, you can always ask Mr. Kok at Aerosoft about their F-16's Collimated HUD.
Well; we now have the VRS F/A-18E and hopefully the F and (E/A -)G versions.
Some of us dont have the VRS 'Bug, and some dont like it cause its a framerate killer that still doesnt work well. Plus, the Bug's HUD is drawn w/fonts and lines that are too thick, and is anchored on the virtual pilot's viewpoint. Thats why they are having problems with the HUD being viewable from outside the physical brackets. From what I perceive, the aerosoft F-16 HUD is anchored about 5' in front of the aircraft's nose and just above, to give the illusion of "projecting" the HUD symbology towards infinity. Now Im back here dedicating my FSX time to the Sludge Hornet, trying to get some ideas of how to get the F-18 HUD anchored the same way as the aerosoft HUD. So we can get that collimated, projected HUD onto the Sludge Hornet.
...
Their FSX F/A-18 is the one I'm most interested in and their HUD is NOT created like Aerosoft's F-16, in fact its like the default Acceleration F/A-18's. I think they'll be changing that with the next set of upates.
-
James...
Seriously?? Well, if thats the case, then its probly a no-go for modifying the HUD. That really sucks, cause Aerosoft F-16 has THE BEST HUD style, bar none. Wouldve loved to see that on the Accel. Hornet, oh well, guess not... if what youre saying is true. If anyone else has some info. or opinions about this, please chime in.
As far as the VRS HUD, some people dont like it, including me. Its too thick and anchored wrong. If the lines and fonts were smaller, and it were anchored somewhere on the aircraft, then maybe... but its not, it looks like a collimated, correllated MFD display simply put up on the HUD, IMO.
Here's what Im talking about to compare... when looking at these pics, if you think the VRS Bug HUD looks even close to how good the Aerosoft HUD does in relation to real world HUD of the 1st pic, lets just agree to disagree...
Later
Sludge
-
You probably missed his post sometime back when he stated the the F/A-18 was now the *legal* property of Microsoft, which is why they WON'T make fixes/adjustments to it. :'( Its in these forums somewhere...
Well; we now have the VRS F/A-18E and hopefully the F and (E/A -)G versions. ;D
Extending what Sludge mentioned, I put up this thread ONLY to discuss ideas going back and forth with Sludge's hornet, not to turn it into a court room. And yes, I apparently did miss something saying that it was "legally" Microsoft's property, I'm going to look for that post.
The VRS Superbug IS a framerate killer, and though I personally still fly it anyway, would like to have a plane that could always get better and still keep my framerate, which is so far what the Sludge hornet is.
Sludge,
All I meant by saying that is to let us know if it can happen, and if they want to help is all.
A/B
-
I don't think you understand; it REQUIRES that you modify the model itself to get that effect... I'll let Virtuali explain more... or, you can always ask Mr. Kok at Aerosoft about their F-16's Collimated HUD.
Yes, and no...
It would require to modify the model, if it was done like the Aerosoft F-16 which, if I understood the explanation, it's using a big projection plane, moved away from the view, in order to simulate collimation. Which, btw, it's something we did long ago in the Cloud9 Phantom gun collimator.
But, it might be possible to use an entierly C++ gauge-based approach, which means it can be used without changing the existing F-18 model. Of course, we can't simply modify the gauge we did for Microsoft (the whole F-18 code it's just a single gauge .dll which contains everything, including the HUD code) because, even that one is obviously now 100% MS property.
But we could theoretically create a whole new gauge from scratch, that contains only a new HUD and THIS could be legally released, since it wouldn't contain any of the original MS code.
However, I'd say it's unlikely we'll ever find the time to do something like this, considering all the other things we are involved at this moment.
Do you think it there might be a market for a generic HUD, maybe user-configurable, that can be used with any airplane ?
-
Virtuali...
Much thanks for your reply!! I understand that you have alot of other stuff on your plate and this would be a back-burner project AT BEST.
IF Microsoft ever gave the permission, would that make this process easier? Would you be able to extend your knowledge of the model and HUD to all of us, so say someone such as JR might be able to integrate his HUD into the model? Im going to ask them for permission to modify the HUD for just this fix, and although its a "lottery-ticket" shot, the worst they can do is say NO and then we are back to trying the C++ gauge method, right?
A/B...
No worries, it was just a very strong worded statement, thats all. I know what you meant. Thanks for putting this out there though...!!!
Later
Sludge
-
I don't think you understand; it REQUIRES that you modify the model itself to get that effect... I'll let Virtuali explain more... or, you can always ask Mr. Kok at Aerosoft about their F-16's Collimated HUD.
Yes, and no...
It would require to modify the model, if it was done like the Aerosoft F-16 which, if I understood the explanation, it's using a big projection plane, moved away from the view, in order to simulate collimation. Which, btw, it's something we did long ago in the Cloud9 Phantom gun collimator.
But, it might be possible to use an entierly C++ gauge-based approach, which means it can be used without changing the existing F-18 model. Of course, we can't simply modify the gauge we did for Microsoft (the whole F-18 code it's just a single gauge .dll which contains everything, including the HUD code) because, even that one is obviously now 100% MS property.
But we could theoretically create a whole new gauge from scratch, that contains only a new HUD and THIS could be legally released, since it wouldn't contain any of the original MS code.
However, I'd say it's unlikely we'll ever find the time to do something like this, considering all the other things we are involved at this moment.
Do you think it there might be a market for a generic HUD, maybe user-configurable, that can be used with any airplane ?
I think a generic hud would be great. If you could put it in any commercial aircraft, that would be even better.
-
I can say for myself that the HUD is great the way it is. The biggest thing is you need is a dimmer control. To see aircraft in day time and carrier in IFR conditions at night better. :)
-
I can say for myself that the HUD is great the way it is. The biggest thing is you need is a dimmer control.
Which HUD you are refering to ? The default Acceleration HUD always had a dimmer, and a night/day switch.
-
This one- NEW Realistic HUD for the Flight Simulator X Acceleration F/A-18 Hornet
Version 1.0, November 29, 2009
Jivko Rusev
-
Virtuali...
Email sent to Microsoft, asking their one-time permission to modify the model to improve the HUD. I still think we have a "lottery tickets" chance of getting permission, but might as well ask. And on the chance that they actually say yes, do you know what we would need to do to get JR's HUD put on the model? Or a realistic HUD that you made but got left off the final "default" Hornet?
Later
Sludge
-
Virtuali...
Email sent to Microsoft, asking their one-time permission to modify the model to improve the HUD. I still think we have a "lottery tickets" chance of getting permission, but might as well ask. And on the chance that they actually say yes, do you know what we would need to do to get JR's HUD put on the model? Or a realistic HUD that you made but got left off the final "default" Hornet?
Later
Sludge
Sludge,
What do you mean by getting JR's HUD put on the model? I thought that it already was. Regardless, it's pretty obvious that if we can't get that thing collimated, we are SOL.
I've been looking around to try and find weathered textures and ways to make them, but no such luck so far. The next guy would probably know much better than me about the matter anyhow in terms of how to make them. I just thought it would be a neat and unique thing to have on top of the cake.
Also, Sludge, I've been meaning to talk to you over skype about minor tweaks that I thought could be done, or if you've already made an attempt at them.
I will continue to see what can be done about the weathered textures, but i understand that in general, the HUD is the most important item on topic.
A/B
-
I've been looking around to try and find weathered textures and ways to make them, but no such luck so far. The next guy would probably know much better than me about the matter anyhow in terms of how to make them. I just thought it would be a neat and unique thing to have on top of the cake.
...
I will continue to see what can be done about the weathered textures, but i understand that in general, the HUD is the most important item on topic.
Just curious, what do you mean by speaking 'weathered textures'? The ones that dynamically change during aircraft's life? Or the ones that are representing a weary and dirty aircraft? AFAIK, the former are gonna be first implemented in Storm of War series, but in FSX there are just 'static' textures. The latter is easy, just a matter of some artistic abilities and time...
-
Just curious, what do you mean by speaking 'weathered textures'? The ones that dynamically change during aircraft's life? Or the ones that are representing a weary and dirty aircraft? AFAIK, the former are gonna be first implemented in Storm of War series, but in FSX there are just 'static' textures. The latter is easy, just a matter of some artistic abilities and time...
I took it he meant the latter, but now that you mention it, it would make a lot more sense if he was talking about the former, since pre-weathered textures are easy (assuming you're good with graphics, unlike me).
-
fsxnavypilot,
By weathered, I mean how the aircraft over its time of life being used gets to appear dirty, making it look like it's been around a significant period of time, not like the default where it looks brand new out of the factory.
A/B
-
I want something close to this effect: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/89/Spanish_Air_Force_EF-18_DD-SD-00-02833.JPEG
Something like this is a bit much, but brings the overall point across.
A/B
-
There are two guys at fsxblueangels website - 'wingmate' and 'svicar' - who are really good at textures and liveries for the Hornet. They have made some of the best I've seen. You can send them a pm or just post a thread about the 'weathered textures'...
-
There are two guys at fsxblueangels website - 'wingmate' and 'svicar' - who are really good at textures and liveries for the Hornet. They have made some of the best I've seen. You can send them a pm or just post a thread about the 'weathered textures'...
Thanks JR, I'll see what I can do.
A/B
-
A/B...
I mean JR's HUD on the F/A-18 model like the aerosoft HUD is on the F-16. Right now, the "default" UGLY HUD is hard-coded on the model, and if we get permission, would get some help to hard-code JR's HUD on the model at a fixed attachpoint that would ensure collimation along with correllation. If Im understanding Virtuali correctly?
And yeah, the weathered textures would look cool. Im not against it at all. If you find more people to help, keep the thread going in that direction. IF the permission comes, then it comes....
BTW, on that note, I just got a reply email from Microsoft and they gave me a phone number to move my request up their corporate chain, so I guess we will see what happens from here. Ill try to call tomorrow. Got tornadoes to deal with here in Okieland tonite.
Later
Sludge
-
Sludge, Good Luck with the TORNADOES (and I'm not referring to Microsoft here). :-)
-
There are two guys at fsxblueangels website - 'wingmate' and 'svicar' - who are really good at textures and liveries for the Hornet. They have made some of the best I've seen. You can send them a pm or just post a thread about the 'weathered textures'...
Many thanks for the compliment neutrino. Very kind words from someone who's work I really admire and appreciate.
-
There are two guys at fsxblueangels website - 'wingmate' and 'svicar' - who are really good at textures and liveries for the Hornet. They have made some of the best I've seen. You can send them a pm or just post a thread about the 'weathered textures'...
Many thanks for the compliment neutrino. Very kind words from someone who's work I really admire and appreciate.
Hey svicar,
I'm curious, just to what extent would it be possible to carry out a texture to be weathered? It is true that the default hornets are very *slightly* weathered, but not nearly to the extent of what we are looking for. I mean, I just want it to look like it's been flying, and through quite a few of traps and launches. Basically, like a real airplane. That photo of the Spanish F-18 in my other post is fairly close to this.
A/B
-
You can weather them as much as you like. When I do repaints I start with the plain white scheme that comes with the default acceleration pack, (texture.13). I then make a duplicate layer of the original texture panel I'm editing and in the layers window set it to "linear burn". This makes the duplicate texture panel somewhat transparent while retaining the details of the rivets and seams. By adjusting various parameters such as brightness or contrast ect., you can enhance or impair the weathered effects. That's basically it an a nutshell. Oh, and of course, I'm using Adobe Photoshop as my editor.
-
A/B...
I think what your trying to say is you want to know if someone has the skillz to make the F-18s paints look like this?! I think you mean more than just simple weathering, you want engine grime and SLUDGE (yes, I know that's me) on the lower engine panels, and all the stuff that makes a Hornet look like its come back from a strike mission?! A Hornet with some frickin' testosterone...!!!
I dont have the artistic skill, nor do I have Photoshop to touch up the textures or layer them as svicar was saying.
If anybody can come up with this, please give it a try and put the new textures up... or if you can give tutorials to a rock like me, Im game, just hope you have some patience.
Later
Sludge
-
Sludge, I second that... I cannot make these textures either, I would need someone with the "skillz" for it.
-
A helpful excerpt from plastic model painting guide
-
To all...
A new Sludge (v1.1) is on the way... currently in final testing phase and re-writing the README.txt.
Already testing out a new BlackBox UFC gauge (thanks FSXNP), and might include the updated ALA lights, as they now work within the F-18's default light structure without taking away the light functions as the previous version did. Also, I have reworked the drag values so that the gear is the main source of drag, then the flaps, then the airframe. The engine is fully powered (11k static) but still maintains the classic Sludge landing profile, meaning one needs to be up (85-88 percent) on the RPMs in approach, just that now there is enough engine power to "bail out" of a bad low approach without needing 'blower. Additionally, the new Sludge will include Ray Gagnon's paint "Grunge Sludge" VMFA-323 as the fifth selectable paint. Only bad news is that the collimated HUD is hitting a brick wall that I dont have the skills or knowledge to go around. If anybody KNOWS or can get me in touch with a good, no-BS 3D modeler, send them my way, as I have a big task for them, that I would PAY THEM to complete. However, as I said... if this ever gets done and we get a collimated HUD, it will cost nothing. Also, for some of the gauges (ie, BB UFC, 2D HUD Indexer), I'm computing alternate values for users that have wideaspectview=false in their fsx.cfg (non-widescreen) and 16:9 ratio will have pre-computed values to use for the 2D HUD, Indexer, and BB UFC. By putting them on a rem "//" line, all one has to do is remove the old values and the "//" and their new values will be used.
Believe it or not, the biggest pain is rewriting the README.txt, and making sure all the needed files for install. Such as .gau files or .fx files are where they need to be for the everyday user to install w/out problems. In giving out the new Sludge, Ive run into a few problems where I missed some obvious install files being included in the right place and also, some errors in my instructions. Please bear with me as this is a pain staking process that is sometimes done at 1-2am.
Later
Sludge
-
Hey friends do you if someone will work on texture of the virtual cockpit, I think it would be nice to have a little lifting.
-
What kind of texture lifting do you suggest?
-
Maybe something more about the colors (darker just like the modernized cockpit of the A+) and the details of the knobs.
-
What about this cockpit?
(http://www.diggerhistory.info/images/air-recent/hornet-cockpit.jpg)
or this?
(http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/imgs_cockpits/mcdonnelldouglas-fa18-hornet.jpg)
-
Looks just like the one I have now ;D
-
Gigglin' Girl needs to turn off that damn stupid 'head bob' stupidity then she may not have 'the jerks'. ;D
Next here is a classic 'deck spot' carrier landing video FSX, first one bad - second one looks alright compared to the first one. Music is OK so it is bearable. 8) Chap could benefit from 'SLUDGE HUD mods' of course.
&feature=related
-
User Herbie has been banned from the forum for 3 days, for the language used on his post (which has been removed).
Moderation, please.
-
To all...
A new Sludge (v1.1) is on the way... currently in final testing phase and re-writing the README.txt.
Already testing out a new BlackBox UFC gauge (thanks FSXNP), and might include the updated ALA lights, as they now work within the F-18's default light structure without taking away the light functions as the previous version did. Also, I have reworked the drag values so that the gear is the main source of drag, then the flaps, then the airframe. The engine is fully powered (11k static) but still maintains the classic Sludge landing profile, meaning one needs to be up (85-88 percent) on the RPMs in approach, just that now there is enough engine power to "bail out" of a bad low approach without needing 'blower. Additionally, the new Sludge will include Ray Gagnon's paint "Grunge Sludge" VMFA-323 as the fifth selectable paint. Only bad news is that the collimated HUD is hitting a brick wall that I dont have the skills or knowledge to go around. If anybody KNOWS or can get me in touch with a good, no-BS 3D modeler, send them my way, as I have a big task for them, that I would PAY THEM to complete. However, as I said... if this ever gets done and we get a collimated HUD, it will cost nothing. Also, for some of the gauges (ie, BB UFC, 2D HUD Indexer), I'm computing alternate values for users that have wideaspectview=false in their fsx.cfg (non-widescreen) and 16:9 ratio will have pre-computed values to use for the 2D HUD, Indexer, and BB UFC. By putting them on a rem "//" line, all one has to do is remove the old values and the "//" and their new values will be used.
Believe it or not, the biggest pain is rewriting the README.txt, and making sure all the needed files for install. Such as .gau files or .fx files are where they need to be for the everyday user to install w/out problems. In giving out the new Sludge, Ive run into a few problems where I missed some obvious install files being included in the right place and also, some errors in my instructions. Please bear with me as this is a pain staking process that is sometimes done at 1-2am.
Later
Sludge
I'm anxiously awaiting Sludge. I've held off on some of your later mods until I can get the whole thing all bundled up. Nice job.
/r,
Paco
-
Hey bros I'm not able to post pictures... Am I retarded or what ?
-
No, you ain't :)
There are two ways to post pictures:
- Insert picture
- Attach picture
To insert a picture you have to have a hyperlink to that externally stored (on a webpage or a file storage) picture. This link is then put in an img tag when editing a post. You can type this tag manually, but it's more convenient to use an Isert Image button above your post text window.
To attach a picture you open up Additional Options (below your post text) and then select and attach a file (i.e. picture).
The difference is that inserted pictures are placed inside your post in their full size but attached pictures are placed at the end as small previews followed by fullsize picture hyperlinks.
-
This one ! ;)
-
New LCD displays and maybe if a talented bro can improve the resolution of the existing cockpit that would be great. Im not texture artist or a modder but God I love the Hornet so much and I think it's really cool to have such a dedicated community. Ok bros I have to go for a CAP over Quebec province with my CF-18B with the special repaint Ray gagnon (really nice gentlman) made for me .
-
IRONDAN, do you know what Hornet Version (also is it Canadian?) cockpit we see in that great cockpit photo you have posted please? Thanks.
-
That pics is an autralian one but the Canadians got heame one too
-
Thanks for photo info IRONDAN.
-
...improve the resolution of the existing cockpit would be great...
Unfortunately increased resolution (from 1024 to 2048 pix) doesn't improve in-game image that much. When painting in an editor small letters do look crisp but in VC they appear somewhat blurred. (hud.jpg) In the original resolution mid-sized letters are ok (buno.jpg)
Anyways it's possible to change overall cockpit appearance, remove chips and make it more fresh painted... (like chaff dispencer button - disp.jpg) 8)
-
...............but in VC they appear somewhat blurred. (hud.jpg) ......
http://www.fsdreamteam.com/forum/index.php?topic=1197.0 Does this affect appearance of the HUD ?
-
To all...
The Sludge Hornet, v1.1 was released today. You can find it on my sig or at: http://flightsim.com/file.php?cm=SEARCH1&fsec=89&fname=sludgehornetmodification_v1_1.zip
Enjoy.
Later
Sludge
-
downloading now, thanks
-
Do you need to remove the previous installation prior to loading the modification?
-
Wow 51mb there must be some serious modifications here good stuff Sludge.
-
Dear Sludge,
Thank you for some very good work, your holiday has obviously paid dividends.
I have printed your ReadMe, can you please explain
"TO INSTALL "MEATBALL" LIGHTS FIX AND BETTER DANTES STROBE/BEACON LIGHTS FOR SLUDGE HORNETS:
- Recommend download/install DFLIGHTS.zip from flightsim.com, as the Sludge Hornet uses the beacon/
strobe lights from that modification. And, the included "halo.bmp" helps light definition
as well as using a value of 1.3 on the FSX.CFG light scalars will make the Meatball far easier
to breakout and discern each light individually."
The only DANTE I know of had an inferno, is this the same one? I have downloaded DFLIGHTS.zip, but I don't see a file called halo.bmp
I guess that to add the IFLOLS into the T-45 I simply copy the file into the equivalent sub-folder in the T-45 main folder. Is this right?
Thanks again, I may contact you soon to arrange a check flight, if that is OK with you.
Tregarth
-
Frenchie and Wily... Thanks, it was a while coming, and hopefully worth it to everyone.
USAF Ret... Yes, with the Sludge Hornet I always recommend a fully CLEAN INSTALL. Simply delete the previous versions, then download/install the new one per the README file. Will eliminate most problems, and will make it easier for me to help you if you need my support.
SUBS... Yes, there's alot in there. Some stuff I couldnt add (no permissions) to the original release and stuff that just got made (UFC "BlackBox/Betty" and IFLOLS, much thanks to Serge "FSXNP" Luzin). So I had to put it all together, make the README.txt, and error check it. Long, tedious, pain-in-the-#$$ process, but its out there now...
Tre... The "halo.bmp" file should be in that package, along with instructions about where to install it. On the T-45, a partial yes. You need to copy the .cab over into the Panel folder, but also, you'll have to modify the panel.cfg file to include entries so that the .xml gauge is recognized and applied. You have the T-45 with JR's newer Realistic HUD right? We will have to meet on Skype sometime and get you setup, then we can take a buddy flight again...
Again, many thanks to all involved on this board... especially Serge (FSXNP Inc. genius), Ray "svicar" Gagnon for his "Grunge Sludge" paint, and all the people here for their inputs and help.
For anybody needing any help, or something not working, feel free to PM, IM, email, or Skype me anytime.
Later
Sludge
-
Sludge,
Found it, it is in the Texture folder. If you ever need someone to proof read for you, I will be very willing to make a contribution to show appreciation for what all of you do.
Thanks
Tregarth
-
Bravo and many thanks to you, Sludge, and all those who contributed their time and talent towards the production of this great package! ;D ;D ;D Loved it so much that after some minor editing I substituted the default F-18 with "Sludge Hornet". Although I and very greatful for this modification I hope that it won't be the last.
Great package!
-
thanks sludge. Kind of suspected that but wanted to make sure. Wasn't sure if it was just an update or totally new. Always like to check first. tks...
-
Much thanks fellers...
Well, hope everyone enjoys it, thats why I do this... and of course, so we can trap like crazy (and realistically as possible in FSX)! Its good to hear the enthusiasm and Im happy to have it finally out there.
Just wish I had FSX modeling skillz, because right now, thats the hold up to getting us a collimated HUD. Absolutely CANNOT DO IT without the remodeling/re-animating of the decompiled Hornet interior model. And I mean, you have to re-model everything ("mousepoints", buttons, animations, and anything that moves) in the interior model before HUD collimation work can begin.
Anyway, since this is done and will be a while before any major releases come from me, the only thing I have to ask... try to find a real life 3D game modeler who would help me re-animate the default model, so we can get a collimated HUD. I will even pay the guy well for any help given!
Later
Sludge
-
Thank You Sludge for the mod. About Tanker: KC-135T2.ZIP this is only a modification to KC-135T1..
KC-135T v1.9 Patch
This is a patch for "KC-135T v1.85 for FS2002/2004", filename "kc-135t1.zip". This installer presumes you have it installed in "...Aircraft\KC-135T" folder. If you installed the original package in different folder, you will have to overwrite old files manually. My question:
Do we need the KC-135T1 installed first or did your installation keep care of it? I started Sludge F18 at KSEA on the ground: got RAD blinking in the hud. How do I set it to default to Alt without going to Shift+2 every time a load the plane?. Herb
-
Herbie...
I would say just delete your current KC-135 package (or just cut/paste it from your FSX/SIMOBJECTS/AIRPLANES folder and move it to your desktop, or wherever?). Then download/install the KC-135T.zip stand-alone tanker that I have in my sig. This is a culmination of several KC-135's thats been made flyable for FSX with minimal installation difficulties. It doesnt have an installer, but has decent instructions, so that you can manually install it. It doesnt need any updates, as they have already been incorporated into the aircraft folder. Also, there is only 1 version, the Navy Drogue in the package, but if you install it and you want the airforce boom version , I still have those files, so I can send them to ya.
Hope that helps
Later
Sludge
-
Hello Sludge!
Thanks for the Info, No I did not installed the kc-135, I'm all clean,toi,toi. knock on wood. I will follow your advise right now. :) Herb
-
Hope I haven't missed or forgotten something obvious (bit lost since I just got back from my trip), but what exactly is new in the Sludge Hornet 1.1?
-
Well Orion if you like to read it first before install, Here are the highlights:
New HUD/Gauges:
- Newer Realistic HUD
- PLAT Cam
- Carrier Wire Trap Gauge
- Refueling Gauge
- UpFrontController "BlackBox" Gauge w/2D HUD Indexer
- Improved Fresnel Lens Optical Landing System Gauge
- Landings Lights Gauge
- Nose Gear Approach (AoA) Light Assembly Gauge
Recommend download/install Orion Lyau's Multiplayer SFCarrier2 multiplayer Mission. As it
compliments the Sludge Hornet and works very well with the PLAT CAM gauge for all potential LSOs.
--------
Features
--------
1. New Realistic HUD. Great looking, correllated, realistic VC HUD. Shift-2, opens HUD Control
Panel. Excellent symbology and spacing, along with ICLS needles and TACAN from either the
default, AI Carriers, or Javier's Carriers. Using 47X or 57x for default or Javier's carriers.
2. GPS-9 Panel. Shift-3. Standard GPS-9 for navigation.
3. Beech Bonanza Radio Stack and Autopilot Control. Shift-4. Allows setting all comm/nav radios
w/standby frequencies available for quick switching. Also allows easy autopilot
manipulation on lower portion of the panel.
4.# 2D HUD Indexer. Shift-5. Lower left side of HUD for non-TrackIR, 2D HUD users who
like to fly "meatball, lineup, indexer" on carrier approaches without the physical HUD
brackets getting in the way when flying in VC.
5.# Improved Fresnel Lens Optical Landing System (IFLOLS) gauge. Shift-5. For VC and/or
TrackIR flyers who would like to see the "Meatball" all the way down to the wires. Based on
IFLOLS 12-ball system, w/cut lights and reduced datum lights. Gauge position can be moved.
6. Carrier PLAT Camera Crosshair Gauge. Shift-6. Required for all FSX LSOs.
7. Carrier Trap Gauge. Shift-7. Modified gauge that gives Wire Trapped, Landing Speed, Alpha, and
Rate-of-Descent at carrier touchdown.
8. Refueling Gauge. Shift-8. Allows air-to-air refueling w/internal fuel percentage/status
updated on the HUD.
9. UpFrontController "BlackBox" Gauge/2D Indexer Logic. Shift-9. This Gauge is similar to the
Super Hornet's UFC by look, and has several integrated features. It controls Betty BARO
and RALT warning calls, fuel state is displayed in nearest hundred pounds in decimal form
(ie 5500 lbs = 5.5). Refuel Probe button extends refueling probe and opens Refueling Gauge
(shift-8) for use. Fuel Dump button activates the fuel dump switch. Bingo can be set using
your mouse wheel over the Bingo knob on the Fuel Panel in the VC, and will get accompanied
"Bingo" call from Betty when indicated Fuel State is reached.
2D Indexer Logic. Hook button will toggle between Carrier/Field, and will flash/not flash
Indexer according to real-world NATOPS-based logic if hook is lowered/retracted. Betty will
also call "fuel low" and illuminate the Master Caution when fuel drops below 800 lbs. in either
Left or Right Main Feed Tanks.
10. Landing Light will now auto shutoff when gear raised. User will not be able to activate
until landing gear is lowered. Can be selected AUTO via UFC gauge for automatic activation,
once landing gear is deployed.
11. Lowered landing gear profile and better behavior (ie, no-crashes or spin-outs on even
slighly off-center carrier traps).
12. Higher landing gear and flap drag values. Higher realism lower speed on-approach flight
profile. 85-88 percent N2 RPM on approach p/NATOPS standards.
13. Manual Flaps Modification. Allows manual command of Flaps (Leading Edge Flaps/Trailing Edge
Flaps): Flaps Up (0 LEF/0 TEF), Flaps HALF (15 LEF/20 TEF), and Flaps FULL (30 LEF/45 TEF).
14. Hook force change. More realistic time for hook to slow Hornet to a stop when wire caught.
15. Realistic Sound Pack. Real-life sounds for the Hornet, utilizing FSX Sound Cone
technology.
16.*Newer "Grunge Sludge" VMFA-323, dirty "desert combat tour" paint scheme. Selectable within
FSX in-game menu as the 5th Sludge Hornet paint.
# Only one of these two gauges can be installed, either the 2D HUD Indexer OR the VC
IFLOLS "Meatball" in the shift-5 slot. So the user will have to choose which one to install and
follow the instructions below.
* Both Basic/FX "Sludge Hornets" have 5 paints: NASA (416 FLTS), Aggressor (VFC-12),
USN (VFA-132), USMC (VMFA-314), and USMC (VMFA-323). They are now properly designated and
FSX-selectable by their squadron names. The "Grunge Sludge" will also be selectable from the
default Hornet paints, as it needs to be installed there as well, to work as a Sludge Hornet paint.
** However, anyone who doesnt install the "Grunge Sludge" Hornet paint MAY see a partially drawn
Hornet if they select the VMFA-323 Sludge Hornet. Also, in multiplayer, if not installed, your
selection MAY default back to the default Blues' paint scheme. FSX can be very unpredictable when
handling mismatched installs or unknowns.
-
Well, Herb, good to know you read readme files. I didn't want to know what was in there though, as I already know what the Sludge Hornet is. What I'd like to read is a changelog to see what's different, new or removed.
-
Orion...
The main differences from the original Sludge Hornet release are: Serge's UFC "Blackbox/Betty" gauge, IFLOLS gauge, Nose Gear ALA lights gauge, the Wire Trap gauge, and the new "Grunge Sludge" Hornet paint. As well as modded the .air files and aircraft.cfg to give more power but still keep within the NATOPS approach profile that we all know and love (85-88% N2), and I tweaked the landing gear numbers a tad, as Afterburn pointed out the Sludge looks a tad nose up/butt low. Its now about as level as I can get it without really messing it up.
Herbie...
Youll have to ask JR, if can make a FA18_HUD_VC_R_INIT.cab that contains the .xml you want. IF he does, simply copy/paste that .cab into the SludgeFA18_Basic or FX/Panel folder and overwrite the old .cab file. Its actually very easy, but not sure how busy JR is.
Hope that helps.
Later
Sludge
-
Thanks Sludge. I'll be sure to grab it when I get a chance.
Also wait, what does Herb want regarding the HUD initialization? If it's only a matter of editing the CAB file, I'll be happy to help.
-
Dear Sludge,
Just flown your new improved Hornet around Manston, truly marvellous and awesome. Thank you.
One point for you, can the size of the IFLOLS be changed? I am using it with my TripleHead with 3 x 19" widescreens and TrackIR; it is strange to see the rest of the cockpit moving about and the lights staying fixed but this is a detail.
I have moved them to the upper left side of the screen but they are a bit large and consequently, overpowering. At present they are 9" wide on the middle screen, is there any way to reduce the size to say 6"? Then I can put them just outside the cockpit so they appear as if they are on the carrier.
Thank you very much,
Tregarth
-
Tre...
Yes, you can resize. You'll have to MOD the panel.cfg file, as I rem'd out (//) the necessary numbers (window_size= 0.xxx, 0.xxx; size,mm= 300, 100), so people could have those smaller numbers avail for quick mods. Its a smaller but still very workable size for the IFLOLS. Dont forget to change the last two numbers as well. The line that reads "gauge00= ..." and ends with something "0, 0, 384, 260", or something close. Makes sure you put 0, 0, 300, 100" on that gauge line as well.
In my videos, I used the 300, 100 numbers along with the respective "window_size=" and position=1 (center), and the IFLOLS was right on the upper HUD physical VC bar where no active controls are used. Just like in my IFLOLS test videos.
Hope this helps and if not, find me on Skype later and Ill walk you thru it...
Later
Sludge
-
Dear Sludge,
Thanks for the reply but I don't understand it.
I have printed the file out but cannot reconcile what you have written in the reply with the text of the file (shown below)
[Window04]
size_mm= 384, 220 // smaller size w/ bigger LCDs (1920x1200) = 300, 100
position=4 // 1 = upper center, 4 = center, 3 = left center
window_size= 0.2, 0.204 // window_size= 0.2, 0.204 deflt; 0.156, 0.083 for 300,100 at 1920x1080
// window_size= 0.1875, 0.143 for 1024x768; 0.2, 0.204 for 1920x1080
// window_size= 0.2, 0.183 for 384, 220 at 1920x1200
background_color=0,0,0
visible=1
ident=10101
gauge00=IFLOLS!IFLOLS.xml, 0, 0, 384, 220 // smaller size, bigger LCDs (1920x1200) = 0, 0, 300, 100
I see that screen resolution plays a part, my display is 3 x (1360 x 768), which numbers do I change? Once I know which ones to change I can experiment. If I want the gauge on the left of the screen which numbers are changed?
I show a screen grab of the current set up
http://s795.photobucket.com/albums/yy235/Goldsworth/?action=view¤t=LargeIFLOLS.jpg
As you can see it is a bit of a distraction!
Best regards,
Tregarth
-
Tree...
Sorry for the confusion. Sometimes my explanations need clarity.
OK, Here's what you need to input.
[Window 4]
size_mm=300, 100
position=3 // 0 = upper left; 3 = left side
window_size=0.220, 0.130 // 300/1360=0.220; 100/768=0.130
background_color=0,0,0
visible=1
ident=10101
gauge00=IFLOLS!IFLOLS.xml, 0, 0, 300, 100
So, input the above and a smaller version of the IFLOLS should come up and be displayed on the middle left side. I BOLDED the changes, new values, and calculations so you could see where I came up with the "window_size= x.xxx, y.yyy" numbers. Also, if you want to move the gauge around, the positions are left-to-right/top to bottom keypad starting with zero. IE, upper left = 0, upper right = 2, center = 4, lower right = 8. Im sure you can figure out the others in-between.
Also, for everyone, I had an error pointed out to me... there is an error of omission in the SludgeFX/Panel folder (if you use the PANEL_VC_IFLOLS) panel.cfg for the carrier trap gauge [window] entry. In the "gauge00.." line, the last entry reads "0, 0, 1024, 102". To fix, simply make it read "0, 0, 1024, 1024". Now you should be able to select the Carrier Trap Gauge and it will display as intended. Sorry about the mistake.
BTW, just edited my carrier pattern video to include a few "notes" and expected verbiage.
Later
Sludge
-
Thank you very much for this,I will give it a go tomorrow.
-
Dear Sludge,
For info, I tried your settings
size_mm=300, 100
position=3 // 0 = upper left; 3 = left side
window_size=0.220, 0.130 // 300/1360=0.220; 100/768=0.130
background_color=0,0,0
visible=1
ident=10101
gauge00=IFLOLS!IFLOLS.xml, 0, 0, 300, 100
but the gauge was still too big for my taste.
I changed them to:
size_mm=150, 50
position=1 // 0 = upper left; 3 = left side
window_size=0.110, 0.0650 // 300/1360=0.220; 100/768=0.130 (i.e. These values were divided by 2)
background_color=0,0,0
visible=1
ident=10101
gauge00=IFLOLS!IFLOLS.xml, 0, 0, 150, 50
i.e. I divided your values by 2 to keep the same ratio. As you did I have highlighted the changes in BOLD The gauge now exactly fits into the gap between the AoA gauge and the edge of the screen. I hope this will be of help to others who want to resize the gauge.
One other point; on a 3 screen system the positions you refer to are as follows
Screen 1 Screen 2 Screen 3
Left edge Middle Right edge
Top 0 1 2
Middle 3 4 5
Bottom 6 7 8
I hope this makes sense.
Tregarth
-
Tree...
Hey, if that works, then right on. And thanks for posting the values for others that wanna use them. Usually if you have a question, someone else did as well, and just may not have asked it? Or a Sludge Hornet newbie might come on today and find your numbers useful?
And thanks for the gauge position matrix for 3 monitors. Good to see you do some experimenting. The more you do it, the more comfortable you'll get with mods. Thats how I started, and look where I am now.
Anyway, if youre up for some sideseat flying, let me know... we can setup a weekend session, and I can see where you've progressed in holding altitude using the throttle and how you are in the landing phase.
Later
Sludge
-
Dear Sludge,
At the risk of being tedious, I have found that on my monitor (which is 1360 x 768) if the following lines are changed as follows
size_mm=100, 50
window_size=0.730, 0.0650
gauge00=.........0, 0, 150, 50
I have a really nice set of lights which sit brilliantly on the screen , they are not at all "overpowering", are very realistic and work extremely well. They are a real credit to all the work which went in to creating them.
Whilst in the pub with my wife I also had a flash of brilliance, change the line position=3 to 3.75, then the lights will appear toward the centre of the screen. Didn't work, clearly this command only likes integers.
Who said romance was dead? Back to the cider.
Thanks again,
Tregarth
-
Tregarth, an 'interesting' factoid about cider and NavAv: http://www.tailhook.org/hookmag.htm
-
Thank you for this; I have always maintained (and tell my wife) this is a very erudite and informative site. My education has been improved.
Cheers!
Tregarth
-
This is for Herb, or anyone else who would like the Sludge Hornet to automatically display the barometric altimeter instead of the radar altimeter:
Grab the attached zip file, extract to a temporary folder and copy FA18_HUD_VC_R_Init.CAB to your Sludge Hornet's panel folder. Replace the existing file, and you should be set. I've also included what should be the original HUD initialization file included with the Sludge Hornet 1.1 (FA18_HUD_VC_R_Init.CAB.bak), but you may want to back up your existing one, just in case.
Just to note, I haven't tested it yet, since I haven't gotten to fly in FS. Just reinstalled Windows along with the FSX SDK, and this was one of my first things done.
-
Fellas...
Here's something the Sludge CANNOT do, and I wish it could.
Fast forward to 7:35, and keep watching...
Later
Sludge
-
Fellas...
Here's something the Sludge CANNOT do, and I wish it could.
Fast forward to 7:35, and keep watching...
Later
Sludge
Hornets can't do the Cobra so it would turn a partially realistic Hornet into an Arcade addon if it did. Cobra is still interesting though you can do that in Lockon in the SU27, 33 and Mig29. For a dogfight manouver its a suicidal move since it makes you into a sitting duck however in some cases it can be used for an advantage.
-
Subs...
Yeah, I know its unrealistic, just fun to think of as an add-on. Ive done it to the Sludge by tweaking the aircraft.cfg elevator responsiveness scalar. It looks really cool, and I agree it would be unrealistic, but I love how it looks when done correctly.
I dont think its a suicide maneuver, when done in a 1 v 1. In "1 v 2" or "1 v unknown" and you execute it on the first guy, you'd be dead as dinner. Id think a turning cobra would be the best bet, in terms of practicality. Granted, Russian birds still have the deck stacked in their favor in the merge (off boresight heaters, higher maneuverability fighters), so its kinda a moot point, but if US fighters could pull the turning Cobra it would help to level the playing field, in the merge. Even defensively, I think the "level, nose up cobra" is a last-ditch resort that means "I gotta do this or I get shot."
Just some thoughts I had about including a Cobra. If you wanna try it and have the default or Sludge, simply open up the AIRCRAFT.CFG, find the "elevator_responsiveness_scalar=" and crank it up to 2.0 or greater. Start up FSX, go free flight with the Sludge. Get to level flight, around 10k at 200 KIAS, then input about 6.0 nose up trim so you have hold the stick down for level flight. Idle throttle. As airspeed drops past 180, pull back full on the stick then extend half flaps. Rotate the nose about 90 deg up, then nose back down to level flight. Granted, the Russians in their SU-27s can get to 120 deg from level flight, but the 90 deg is just a starting point for someone who's never tried it.
Enjoy.
Later
Sludge
-
Well a US fighter can do the Cobra and thats the F22 perhaps its better if you mod an F22 addon with that feature. BTW in my experience I've used the Cobra in a dogfight against an F15C in Lockon and still got OWNED so its not a super move all the other guy did was a high g barrel roll and maintained his energy at corner speed.
-
Subs...
This is just a loose idea that I played with, Im seriously NOT gonna mod another plane. Do you know how much trouble it is, and I dont get paid a cent.
BTW, where did you execute the Cobra and what Cobra did you do? Turning or level?
The turning is the only one to be used in a dogfight (will explain) and the level Cobra is a "I'm locked up, I do this or I'm dead" maneuver. See, I look at the turning Cobra as a tool and from my knowledge, the usaf knows its a matter of time before other nations figure out how to use it at the right times. First, India used it against F-15s to great success. However, the eagle drivers figured out the "weakness" of the turning Cobra by fighting F-22's. That once the opponent executes it, they better be doing it coming into shot parameters, because if not, they will bleed far too much airspeed for AoA and will little drop like a rock. However, Russia and India will figure out that once they initiate the turning Cobra, its an end-game only maneuver... meaning, the Flanker/SuperFlanker is just a bit short in the turning fight to get within weapons parameters and needs that couple of extra deg/sec turn rate to get inside an opponents turn to get the shot. Sorta in the same way how USN learned to use the Pirouette to take advantage of low speed, hi-alpha... used at the right time and not putting the Hornet into a bad position but a reversal.
Im not one who believes the Cobra is an end-all, be-all manuever that wins dogfights. Nor am I one who thinks its only for airshows. But it is a useful tool, that if needed, will give the Flanker even more of an edge in-close. They already have been employing close-in weapons training for decades, and their turn rate is second to only the F-22, along with longer range IR weapons.
Later
Sludge
-
From APPROACH Magazine 01 December 2003 - 'Cobra Off The Cat' Hornet story (see below). At moment it seems the APPROACH Archive is unavailable (website in transition apparently).
-
Subs...
This is just a loose idea that I played with, Im seriously NOT gonna mod another plane. Do you know how much trouble it is, and I dont get paid a cent.
BTW, where did you execute the Cobra and what Cobra did you do? Turning or level?
The turning is the only one to be used in a dogfight (will explain) and the level Cobra is a "I'm locked up, I do this or I'm dead" maneuver. See, I look at the turning Cobra as a tool and from my knowledge, the usaf knows its a matter of time before other nations figure out how to use it at the right times. First, India used it against F-15s to great success. However, the eagle drivers figured out the "weakness" of the turning Cobra by fighting F-22's. That once the opponent executes it, they better be doing it coming into shot parameters, because if not, they will bleed far too much airspeed for AoA and will little drop like a rock. However, Russia and India will figure out that once they initiate the turning Cobra, its an end-game only maneuver... meaning, the Flanker/SuperFlanker is just a bit short in the turning fight to get within weapons parameters and needs that couple of extra deg/sec turn rate to get inside an opponents turn to get the shot. Sorta in the same way how USN learned to use the Pirouette to take advantage of low speed, hi-alpha... used at the right time and not putting the Hornet into a bad position but a reversal.
Im not one who believes the Cobra is an end-all, be-all manuever that wins dogfights. Nor am I one who thinks its only for airshows. But it is a useful tool, that if needed, will give the Flanker even more of an edge in-close. They already have been employing close-in weapons training for decades, and their turn rate is second to only the F-22, along with longer range IR weapons.
Later
Sludge
I used the Cobra in a dogfight in Lockon and I have used both vertical horizontal cobras in the same situation in either case the F-15C just held his corner speed 440-550kts and used a yoyo type manouver to remain in the 6 o'clock position.
(http://battlestarcerberus.wdfiles.com/local--files/fightercombat/high_speed_yoyo.jpg)
The real potential of manouvers like the Cobra is not just being able to execute such manouvers but to use preprogrammed FBW(like the pirouette in the Superhornet) combined with Thrust vectoring nozzels to allow the pilot to take full advantage of the ability to turn on a dime and keep turning.
In Falcon we have a mod which allows us to use the F-16 pit in other flyable aircraft such as the F22 and hornet I suppose the same is possible in FSX if you got the maker of the 3d model to combine it with FSX accelerations hornet pit but with your FM which has the cobra script. BTW could you please post a video of this cobra with smoke on so we can see exactly what it is you've managed to do with FSX?
-
Spaz...
Good post, I like the crazy story about inadvertently launching of the cat right into a mini-Cobra and surviving the launch. Id have been scared out of my mind.
Subs...
Do you have a video of what your dogfight was? I know the F-16 yo-yo, but was hoping you had something that depicted what you actually did in the lock-on engagement. I keep hearing this but have trouble seeing it. Are you saying that the Eagle was at your six, was in a corner turning fight, 1v1, and he kept you in his forward WEZ? And youre flying an SU-27 and you couldnt break him off your six? I dont see how thats possible unless the game lets you pull 12 plus sustained Gs (unrealistic for an Eagle)? But if you can diagram or explain the full situation, I might "see the light"? Also, my idea was not to "unleash" the turning Cobra til the last possible moment when you needed that extra couple of deg/sec turn to get within weapons parameters. Not as a main tactic to use, such as a Split-S, Immelman, or horizontal yo-yo, but that little boost to get your front end within weapons launch paramters. Additionally, the SU-27 can out-turn an F-15 in a turning fight, so how did he get behind you?
And does Lock-On have G-limiters/AoA-limiters or can the F-15s also pull 15-20 Gs with no ill effects, like in FSX. Thats one of the things I always hated about mock dogfights in FSX, is the lack of realistic aircraft LIMs or even human LIMs. I mean, understandably, the FSX 5 G LIM is far too low, but when you turn it off, you can pull 15 plus Gs w/no aircraft damage or pilot G-LOC, so its always a trade-off in game realism. Maybe Ill have to get Lock On to see what the game does and what its LIMs are? And Ill try to make a video of the Sludge Hornet Cobra when I get a chance... its nowhere near as beauimus as the SU-27/30/37 or the F-22 cobra, but its decent. Plus, it has to be done at such a lower speed than the real thing, that it would be crazy to try that in combat. Id rather do a pirouette and try for a real reversal than a level- or turning-cobra and lose ALL my energy.
Well, IF you know any 3D modelers, send them my way. Would rather work on the collimated HUD than anything else, and right now, I need a good 3D modeler.
Later
Sludge
-
Sorry there is no track of that dogfight yes there is blackout, grey out and red out modeled in Lockon in fact it is substantially more sensitive than Falcon/FSX in this respect as it also features stamina. Eventhough the SU27 can out turn an F-15 in this particular dogfight I was not that good at dogfighting and the guy I was up against is very good he basically used a Yoyo each time I pulled the cobra to remain at my 6. I highly reccomend Flaming Cliffs 2 if you should decide to get it but bare in mind that you will need the original Lockon as well or get a combination of Lockon and Flaming Cliffs 2 as this will allow you to fly in the same theatre as DCS A-10C and Ka50. Yes Lockon does feature G limiters and AoA Limiters and a bitching betty. Just look on youtube there are plenty of videos there of dogfights.
-
Subs...
I looked at the youtube videos last night. They are OK, just wondering what settings there are for realism. I hear "betty" wailing about "over-G" and "high-AoA", so Ill have to see what's available and what multiplayer anti-cheats are used. Also, will have to see if there's a padlock view, since Im not a TrackIR user... but still want SA in the merge.
On a real life note, I got a response from one of my Eagle driver buddies and things are still the same, Eagles dont like to go into the merge against SU-27s/SU-30s. They will mix it up in the merge in real life obviously, and we would have other air assets to help, but as far as exercises, no... they'd rather shoot BVR. Especially if there are no "handcuffs" on off-boresight Archer (AA-11) shots. The Archer is easily better than the AIM-9X (even with HMD) in all respects, probly only equaled or bettered by the Israeli Python-5, and the Ruskies/Chinese/Indians have been practicing with it for a full decade. Luckily, we still do exercises with the Indians to learn our failings (Cope Thunder) and get better at ACM/DACT. Also, his take on the "cobra" was quite different that anything Ive heard. He didnt like the idea of doing full turning-cobras as the airspeed bleed would leave him dead in the air, but more about doing "micro-pull" cobras to slowly get the edge in a turning fight. Now, Ill have to get LOMAC and see whats possible.
Anyone else have any "real world" inputs? I mean my buddy couldnt answer specifics as ranges/tactics are still classified secret or better, but he still was pretty up front about not wanting to go into the merge against SU-27s/SU-30s. But I would like to hear if anybody else has some real world stories.
Later
Sludge
-
Thats interesting coming from an Eagle driver I seem to recall IRL a pair of SU27s got totally owned by a pair of F-14s when the 27s were first developed. As for Lockon the F-15 has changed over time with patches initially it had a higher pk with the Aim120 and then after a patch the pk became much lower and the SU27s A/A missiles much higher but with FC2 they upgraded the Aim120 to a more realistic capability and also the F-15s performance was tweaked. In Lockon you can also use the Aim120s to take HOJ(Home on Jam) shots if the other guy is using his jammer. As for realism settings if you have it on the highest setting it handles quite well and fairly realistically although it does not have a clickable pit and the FM is still Simplified compared to the SU25T and A-10C which both have Advanced Flight models. Maybe later on ED might do a F-15C DCS addon but at this stage Lockon Flaming Cliffs 2 is the best thats available. For LO I suggest you get a trakir because I used to use external views etc when I lost talley on the bandit but Trakir is the way to go.
-
Thats interesting coming from an Eagle driver I seem to recall IRL a pair of SU27s got totally owned by a pair of F-14s when the 27s were first developed.
Subs...
Where was this? I have never heard of SU-27s getting "owned" by Tomcats, especially if they were in the merge. The Tomcats ONLY saving grace was the B-D models engines. I could only envision this happening if the SU's were flown by the incompetent Iraqi (pre-invasion), Iranian, Libyan drivers. No way a Russian, Chinese, or Indian Flanker driver gets "owned" by a Tomcat.
Provide a reference for that, what theatre and what happened.
Later
Sludge
-
Maybe it was a bit before your time I'm sure its been mentioned on this forum before. Soviet SU27s harrassing a P3 Orion got intercepted by a pair of F-14s all they did was get on their 6 and the 27s broke off and headed back to Russia. BTW don't knock the F-14 as an Iranian F-14 has beaten a Mig29 too.
-
Maybe it was a bit before your time I'm sure its been mentioned on this forum before. Soviet SU27s harrassing a P3 Orion got intercepted by a pair of F-14s all they did was get on their 6 and the 27s broke off and headed back to Russia. BTW don't knock the F-14 as an Iranian F-14 has beaten a Mig29 too.
Subs...
It couldnt have been that much before my time. Do you have a reference article for either of these events? Id like to see the where, when, whys of how F14s stayed on the tails of SU-27s. And also would like to see the specifics of the Iranian F-14 beating a MiG29. I mean, I was USMC EA-6B maintenance (vmaq-2/4) from '89 to '94. And was stationed at Whidbey Island next to a P-3 squadron and heard nothing of the sort that you just talked about, so if you could, would like some real world references.
Also, I paid attention to the Tomcat IRL since high school (84-88) since I saw Top Gun in the theatre (JR, are you jealous? haha) and thought the Tomcat was the coolest looking jet. Still is, but I've definately known for a long time its NOT a good dogfighter.
I think, getting back to my original point, the turning-Cobra can make the SU-27 even more lethal if used correctly. And Im sure by now, the Ruskies and the Indians have come up with better in-fllight real world tactics than I have talked about using that post-stall maneuver.
Later
Sludge
-
The F-14s vs SU27s incident took place in the 80s and was in an article in Janes Defence magazine. The F-14 vs Mig29 incident is mentioned in a book about Iranian F-14s from what I've heard it was just a dogfight practice that took place after the first Mig29 arrived in Iran. As for the Cobra it would probably be better suited combined with TVN.
-
Subs...
Well, I've tried to verify your listed incidents/activities and have come up with complete blanks, so I'll just let that go 'til you get some specific links that we can all read up on. However, I did find another forum that talks about dogfighting that correlates some of what I was discussing with my Eagle driver buddy AND how the F-15 and F-14s are close-in turning PIGs. Look at the "teufelhund1918" user posts. He seems legit. Also, the "displacedjim" user seems to be in-the-know as he talks about "a-pole" parameters correctly and has some good points about technology. I disagree with a few points about the AMRAAM being the best missile (unless he knows) and launch parameters, as the airforce will rarely (1 blue v multiple red) if ever, launch "off the rails". Also, how the AA-10C (R-27ER) or the -10E (R-27AE) has some very nice ranges/specs that make it comparable to AMRAAM-120C.
http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/9-66/page2.aspx
And this is in addition to the F-15 and their well known structural problems. After this, as an Eagle driver, would you have confidence pulling 7 or more Gs. Some dont.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/aging-aircraft-usaf-f-15-fleet-grounded-04149/
Later
Sludge
-
F-15s have beaten Mig29s IRL on many occassions the only jet that has ever shot down an F-15 is another F-15.
BTW FYI
The US Navy had been having a naval exercise in the northern Norwegian Sea. Su-27 started harrassing the P-3 Orions which normally patrolled that area. On the final day of the exercise the carrier sent two F-14D's to escort the P-3. The F-14's flew in very tight formation with the P-3, until Norwegian GCI warn them of approaching aircraft. When the Su-27's got close, the F-14D's broke formation and rode the tails of the Su-27's. There was a big party aboard the carrier that night with gun camera footage being shown.
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?t=32218&page=2
Theres a little more to this story from what I understand though the SU27s pilots were shocked as to how fast the F-14s got behind them. I admit the SU27 has alot of advantages over an F-14 but I think all this comes down to the experience of the pilots that were flying those F-14s. Regarding the Aim120 it depends on what version you are talking about when comparing it to other missiles when talking of the R27ER it is not comparable to an Aim120 because it is a Semi-active homing missile the AE is supposed to be an active radar homing missile up to 130km but limitations are with the radar and the ECM suite that the targeted aircraft might employ. Basically eventhough it might have a longer range than an Aim120 it will still be relying on the launch aircrafts radar or wingmans radar to burn through the ECM to get to the tgt or it might use HOJ but that can be countered with towed decoys. IMO an R77 is more colser to the Aim120 but even that missile has gone through its own modifications with the Aim120D having quite a good range.
-
Subs...
Yeah, the only reason they havent gotten shot down is 'cause they havent gotten tangled up with SU-27s. Easily a match for an F-15 with a good pilot. And now with the LIMs on sustained G's, no match at all. The F-15 would come apart at the longitudinal spars before winning a turning fight with an SU-27/30MKI/37. Dont buy into the hype that the Eagle is the world's best combat proven aircraft. The USAF can thank the Israelis for the bulk of the air-to-air kills against the great airforces of Syria for that and Hussein's pity-party of an "airforce" for the bulk of US Eagle kills. All hype.
When the Su-27's got close, the F-14D's broke formation and rode the tails of the Su-27's. There was a big party aboard the carrier that night with gun camera footage being shown.
Still have trouble believing that story. I did a year on the USS GW as EW division officer and there were never any parties or anything else after a successful mission or whatnot.
Theres a little more to this story from what I understand though the SU27s pilots were shocked as to how fast the F-14s got behind them.
Can you provide a legitimate reference about the SU-27s harrassing the P-3? You mentioned something about a Jane's story, but I cant find anything on Jane's anywhere even remotely close to what youre talking about. I need that to verify what youre saying and what actually happened. And how could our forces actually tell the Flanker pilots were "shocked"? Interviews? X-Ray vision to see thru their helmets and masks, as their eyes bulged out and jaws hanging in disbelief? What carrier battle group was it? What exercise? Again, can you provide a solid reference to back up the quote?
Now the real meat and potatoes question. Do you think, pilots being equal, an F-15 could take an SU-27 in a 1 v 1 merged dogfight? You already know my answer, but I want to hear yours.
Later
Sludge
-
Well lets look at it this way the Janes magazine was before the internet in the 80s from where I read about it, as mentioned in the link it was also in another magazine so it was quite a long time ago(incident North Cape and Bear Island) and it won't be on the internet. Both the F-14 and the F-15 back then were different to what they are now both aircraft were newer and so the Glim etc doesn't apply if you compare both aircraft. So if you compare an F-15 from back then to an SU27 back then my answer is the F-15 would win because of the technological advantage that the F-15 had over the SU27 and also the pilots were better trainned and did alot more flying than the Soviet counter parts. Just to give you an idea of how those SU27s performed aircombat wise then look at the Eritrea vs Ethiopea war which was SU27s vs Mig29s and how they handled eventhough the missiles were export versions practically all radar guiding AAMs failed and most A/A kills were with IR missiles or guns. Now days SU27s are a different aircraft and the SU30MKI,35s, 37s etc are much closer to what western aircraft have as far as electronics etc. As for the legitamacy of that story it was during the cold war so it could have been propaganda for all we know as far as I'm concerned it is just a good story I read but I have no trouble in believeing it considering the F-14 pilots also did alot of trainning back in those days particularly with dogfighting.
-
Subs...
So if you compare an F-15 from back then to an SU27 back then my answer is the F-15 would win because of the technological advantage that the F-15 had over the SU27 and also the pilots were better trainned and did alot more flying than the Soviet counter parts.
I disagree with your premises, w/the facts that the Soviets were not poorly trained, had "off boresight" systems when the US knew nothing of the sort, AND the SU-27 could turn with anything except an F-16 at max corner speed. The Russians provided very good expertise (albeit "mercenary" expertise) in your afforementioned "Eritrea vs. Ethiopea" war.
Here's an article (excerpt from AirForces Monthly magazine, volume August 2000 w/conclusion) that shoots down the "export" version of missiles, holds up your theory of in-close missile engagements (they were Russian R-73/AA-11 Archers) and supports my contention that the SU-27 is a great in-close "merged" dogfigher (SU-27 "OWNED" MiG-29s in the E-E air war). It also shows what a difference the Russian trainers made FOR the Ethiopian air forces. Once the Ruskies pulled chocks, the Ethiopian airforce fell apart.
http://s188567700.online.de/CMS/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=138&Itemid=47
Later
Sludge
-
But the other point to note here is that the SU27 at the time was quite new so I doubt that they had fully discovered its capabilitys either that or the pilots may have been new to the aircraft and less inclined to pull any fancy manouvers. BTW Soviets didn't invent the Cobra manouver either the Sweedes did. Its nothing new since it was done at air shows since the 1960s the Cobra turn and the Kulbit seem the better moves to use for a dogfight. It would be cool to be able to pull this in a flight sim without scripting and with an advanced flight model such as the SU25T in Lockon or the VRS F/A-18E in FSX have quite advanced FM that are not scripted. The cool thing about the VRS SH is being able to do the Pirouette which is a very useful move in a dogfight. I'd expect when ED does a DCS Mig29 or SU27 then you'll definately see some interesting dogfights as it is in LO you push K at the right parameters to execute the cobra although it is scripted it still looks cool. In LO you also have the Helmet Mounted Sight so you can do off boresight shots with the R73(up to 67 deg). I think you'll have alot of fun with LO just remember to buy a Trakir otherwise you'll learn the hard way like I did in MP. ;D
The question nowdays is which is better the F22 or the T50?
-
At the risk of being both off topic and disrespectful by posting a report of a payware FSX native SU-27 about to be released I offer the info as there are so many discussions in this thread of the SU-27.
http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/showthread.php?t=40309
announcement made 26 July
-
That'll make a good target for the VRS Superhornet when the tacpack is released. ;D
-
Wily...
Actually, I think its a good posting, cause it will be good to dogfight against the Sludge Hornet and the VRS and see what the results are. Granted the SU-27 and the Sludge Hornet dont have a "bullseye" to call shots from, but we can do visual calls (ie, "Hornet 2, fox 2 kill Flanker, left hand turn 22k.") when in a multiplayer session.
BTW, Subs... Ill take the Flanker and toast you in a dogfight in a multiplayer session. I'll even use FRAPS, so everyone here can throw in their opinion on the "validity" of my shot calls when I make them.
Later
Sludge
-
BTW, Subs... Ill take the Flanker and toast you in a dogfight in a multiplayer session. I'll even use FRAPS, so everyone here can throw in their opinion on the "validity" of my shot calls when I make them.
Later
Sludge
This man doesn't lie, I thought I was hot shit and he smokes me 3/4 times.
-
Wily...
Actually, I think its a good posting, cause it will be good to dogfight against the Sludge Hornet and the VRS and see what the results are. Granted the SU-27 and the Sludge Hornet dont have a "bullseye" to call shots from, but we can do visual calls (ie, "Hornet 2, fox 2 kill Flanker, left hand turn 22k.") when in a multiplayer session.
BTW, Subs... Ill take the Flanker and toast you in a dogfight in a multiplayer session. I'll even use FRAPS, so everyone here can throw in their opinion on the "validity" of my shot calls when I make them.
Later
Sludge
Sure how about F4AF then you can still have your SU27 if you like.
-
Subs...
Sure, Ill have to buy and fly with those programs for a little while and get used to them, then see how I connect online, no problem. Until then, what about a weekend FSX session? Ill fly against ya with the Sludge and you can take the VRS. Since I know the VRS and it has a realistic flight model along with g-limiter, any kill calls I make will have to be backed up by FRAPS video. Specifically, the CURRENT and MAX-G that we both agree to beforehand. If you want, we can go 7.5 for starters. I know that the VRS can go beyond 7.5 every now and then, but Im cool with 7.5 MAX G. Anything more on my part "invalidates" my kill calls.
Later
Sludge
-
My PC is quite slow with very slow frame rates in FSX even in mp its quite bad but F4AF it runs quite smooth often me and other guys from SVN do dogfights with 2 vs 4, 6, or 8 migs gunzonly and the FPS is still quite good. I'm hoping to save up for a new PC next year and maybe then my PC will run FSX better.
-
SUBS...
You ready to fight it out? Will meet you on the multi whenever you want, you can take whatever you want and I'll take the Sludge. I'll have FRAPS loaded up to my missile button, so I have to validate my kill calls in that manner. What is a good max-G for you? I'll start with 7.5 if you want? And I have to call "guns, guns" or "fox 2 close" as my v/vector crosses your flight path? For you, if you take the VRS, all you have to do is give me a screen shot with me "IN LAR" ("IN Launch Acceptability Region", I think), meaning if you pull the trigger, its a guns kill. We can take off from Nellis and use the Red Flag range, using a hard deck of 10k and blocks up to 30k? Fair? Also, do you know military rules for being "in the blocks" (blue air, 5-9s; red air, 0-4s)?
BTW, here is a real world example of how pilot's use gun camera footage to validate kill calls. Hence the real world meaning of "camera's on, tape's on... fight's on."
Especially watch from 1:28 to 4:50, the guy gives one of the best dogfight HUD video breakdowns that Ive seen on the YouTube or the 'Net. Actually, this whole video series (Red October) is great. The only time Ive seen better is when I was a ABM student debriefing the ACMI at Tyndall AFB with F-15 students and their instructors... very humbling watching ACMI results. No arguments, only valid or in-valid kill calls.
In case you can't tell, I'm just itchin' for a dogfight, been beatin' down people left and right on the multi... hell, I haven't had someone get on my six and stay there anything more than passing, except after I called "knock-it-off" and rolled in for a landing to get gas. Its worse than the time that kid harrassed people over Edwards with his "better than everyone else" F-16. He had no idea how to really dogfight in it, and was just getting on people's six and calling kills, so I kindly whupped up on him, and he quit by dropping his gear and getting in a landing config.
Can you tell, I'm ready?! Haha... Enjoy the pic, where I forced this annoying, harrassing kid down, and he logged off.
Anyway, let me know if you're up for it?
Later
Sludge
-
I'd fly if the max G is more like 75 ;D.
(realism off, of course :P)
-
I'd fly if the max G is more like 75 ;D.
(realism off, of course :P)
No max G I've pulled with the FSX Acceleration Hornet was 12G and that was vs the UFO in the UFO mission. I had to disable GLOC and some other features in order to keep pace with the UFO which moves very quick. I managed to complete the mission though.
LMAO this guy makes it look easy though when I did this mission it was from in the pit with trakir.
-
SUBS...
You ready to fight it out? Will meet you on the multi whenever you want, you can take whatever you want and I'll take the Sludge. I'll have FRAPS loaded up to my missile button, so I have to validate my kill calls in that manner. What is a good max-G for you? I'll start with 7.5 if you want? And I have to call "guns, guns" or "fox 2 close" as my v/vector crosses your flight path? For you, if you take the VRS, all you have to do is give me a screen shot with me "IN LAR" ("IN Lethal Attack Range", I think), meaning if you pull the trigger, its a guns kill. We can take off from Nellis and use the Red Flag range, using a hard deck of 10k and blocks up to 30k? Fair? Also, do you know military rules for being "in the blocks" (blue air, 5-9s; red air, 0-4s)?
BTW, here is a real world example of how pilot's use gun camera footage to validate kill calls. Hence the real world meaning of "camera's on, tape's on... fight's on."
Especially watch from 1:28 to 4:50, the guy gives one of the best dogfight HUD video breakdowns that Ive seen on the YouTube or the 'Net. Actually, this whole video series (Red October) is great. The only time Ive seen better is when I was a ABM student debriefing the ACMI at Tyndall AFB with F-15 students and their instructors... very humbling watching ACMI results. No arguments, only valid or in-valid kill calls.
In case you can't tell, I'm just itchin' for a dogfight, been beatin' down people left and right on the multi... hell, I haven't had someone get on my six and stay there anything more than passing, except after I called "knock-it-off" and rolled in for a landing to get gas. Its worse than the time that kid harrassed people over Edwards with his "better than everyone else" F-16. He had no idea how to really dogfight in it, and was just getting on people's six and calling kills, so I kindly whupped up on him, and he quit by dropping his gear and getting in a landing config.
Can you tell, I'm ready?! Haha... Enjoy the pic, where I forced this annoying, harrassing kid down, and he logged off.
Anyway, let me know if you're up for it?
Later
Sludge
Hey Sludge as I said my FSX the frame rates are too low for a dogfight to be flown in MP especially if I'm using the VRS Superhornet because it uses alot of CPU power for the Flight model etc. But if you want a dogfight then feel free to get either F4AF or even LOMAC(1.02 and yes you can cobra) and we can do this the proper way. The reason being is that although fighter pilots have an excuse not to shoot the other guy in trainning for a virtual fighter pilot it has to be with weapons not screen shots. 8)
Now issues with FSX
1 the FM is not realsitic even with tweaks so cheating is possible
2 weapons are not yet simulated so a sim that does have weapons is needed
3 there is no outside view permitted in dogfights
At the moment the SVN fleet is preparing for a war in the middle east theatre so I may be buisy in the next few weeks in mp although I will try to make time between hops for a few dogfights if you like. BTW F-16 CAT 1 is 9G and CAT 3 is 5.5. I did a trainning dogfight vs 2 SU27s today which I recorded and I'll try to post it on youtube sometime. 1st bandit was down within 2.30min and 2nd took 10min to nail.
-
I've done about 100Gs
-
Raz...
Geez, only a hundred? What did you do? Have you worked on your dogfighting skillz? Especially the "snap turn".
SUBS...
Why cant you turn everything down and do the "lite" versions of the DDIs? Even on "max low" for FSX and the SB, you still dont get good frame rates? We could fly out over the ocean from MCAS Miramar and have all that open airspace, no traffic, no clouds, NOTHING but two jets and open sky?
And Im not talking about a screenshot. Well, for least not for me. Ill use FRAPS to record my shots (5 sec window) which is just fine for shot validation. I said YOU can use a screenshot, if you so choose, because I know the SH can lock up with its weapons systems and putting a locked gun pipper would be good enough for you to call a kill on me. What's bad or unfair or unrealistic about that?
Also, with your "issues":
1. The flight model is not that bad, and as I said, if we limit to 7.5 max-g on the HUD, how can I cheat? I dont cheat, ever.
2. So you cant mock-dogfight without weapons? People do it all the time?
3. Whats your point with "outside view"? You need an outside view? I dont use or need an outside view when I dogfight. The only thing close I do, is that in multiplayer I use the padlock view, which isnt all that unrealistic. Granted, IRL, a pilot cant see when an adversary is behind and low, but such are the LIMs of someone without TrackIR.
Were those SU-27s REAL people behind them or the typical computer AI? If you took that long (2.5 min and 10 min, respectively) against AIs planes, against me you'll be toast, if I ever get that game. Also, getting the game might be a while, as Ive scoured WallyWord, WorstBuy, and GameSpot and have yet to find a copy. BTW, real dogfights (merge/post-merge) last about a minute AT MOST. Please post your SU-27 kill video soon and post the link here, would love to see it.
Later
Sludge
-
Getting behind the bad guy was easy its the shooting part thats a little tricky yes they were AI but I've been up against plenty of people in gunzonly.(including real fighter pilots online) The rules that I stated are how its done and the reason being is that I've encountered cheating in the past with such sims and not only that FSX simply does not yet have the capability of reproducing a dogfight the same way that Lockon or F4AF does. BTW 1 vs 2 you would call that a long time for a dogfight well just remember that I'm up against aircraft that can out turn me. 8) So 10mins 1 vs 2 seems fair enough.
Like I said just grab a copy of F4AF or Lockon and we'll go for a flight.
$7.90
http://cgi.ebay.com/FALCON-4-0-ALLIED-FORCE-PC-NEW-SEALED-BOX-GUARANTEED-/130388386503?cmd=ViewItem&pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item1e5bc0e2c7
$3.00 for Lockon
http://cgi.ebay.com/Lock-MODERN-AIR-COMBAT-sim-game-NEW-PC-98-XP-CD-ROM-/400140461991?cmd=ViewItem&hash=item5d2a3ae7a7
You'll be blown away by F4AF.
-
Heres my dogfight vs 2 SU27s in Lockon guns only. This is part 1 the 1st kill.
Dogfights are like fishing some you win and some you lose. ;D
Yes I am a lousy shot thats why the 2nd kill took 8minutes. Also note this is with patch 1.02 which is before ED changed the G-Loc parameters where Stamina was added to the G-loc. I'll have to try this again with Flaming Cliffs 2.0 just to compare the differences between G-Loc and Flight model as the F-15s and SU27s also had FM tweaked.
-
SUBS...
That was a decent video of a dogfight. But seriously, that is some of the worst guns tracking I've ever seen. Did you win against these so-called "real world fighter pilots"? The only way I see that happening is if they used an integrated stick/throttle combo and were on a laptop. Additionally, you criticize the FSX Hornet's flight model but that Lock-On Eagle flight model doesn't look great either. Last time I checked, you can't just keep pulling "over-G" (Bitchin' Bob screaming at you through-out the fight), and get behind a guy to keep maneuvering for a guns kill that took you about 2 mins to get. I mean how much airframe stress/damage would you do trying to fight with an Eagle like that. Nor do you manage your energy state very well. You just keep turning with no regards to cutoff angles or airspeed.
Also, I'll ask this just ONCE. Drop the "cheating" insinuations. I'm not some knucklehead who tweaks their jet (elevator_effectiveness_scalar=1.5 or more, thrust=20k+, etc.) just to win online dogfights. I could care less about winning at any cost. I'd rather lose a realistic dogfight than win one that's slanted in my favor due to cheating on my part.
BTW, I found a copy of F4AF... installed it, w/the 1.0.3 patch and couldn't get past the startup black screen. I looked on the forums and nothing worked for that. So that's a no-go til I get Lock-On. I'll try the demo tonite and see if it works... in the meantime, so why are you against a fight in FSX? We can both take Sludge v1.1s, you can host the session "no cheats" and we can fight there?
UPDATE: Last night, I played the Lock-On demo at high realism and it is NOT all that. Yes, you can fire weapons and they have decent tracking/percentages, but the flight model is ridiculously arcade-like. I cranked up the realism and did max-G, even over-G turns and got on the plane's six every time. I may get the game anyway, but the FMs are not all that you say they are, SUBS. No better or worse than FSX.
Additionally, went in the multi. last night and had an epiphany. Got to mock-dogfight the new F-35 against the Sludge. It was definately a good go around, as nobody got any "guns close" or "fox 2 close" calls, and we stayed in a turning fight the whole time. Broke the hard deck of 10k, losing energy and called terminate. He was only in my HUD for a few snapshot microseconds and then we would pass off one side or the other and we would re-engage the turning fight. Of course, this guy "Razor" (VFA-122?) was saying something about being on my six, but thats really not the case. I had the multiplayer padlock on my upper right hand all the time, and only saw him in my six when we would do a pass and I would then plug in burner/max-G pull and get him just above my canopy rim. Which is the classic indication of a turning fight. However, for an "experimental" FSX airplane, he was pretty jacked up on it, as far as CAPEs/LIMs... will probly buy it when I get paid. Its only 15 bucks.
Later
Sludge
-
If you're worried about cheating, both take the Sludge Hornet 1.1, and try shared cockpit. If there are any major differences in the FD parameters, FSX will throw you a message. Exit shared cockpit, make sure you're both using the same aircraft (check the title) and off you go.
-
Orion...
Great call. I'm all up for that, but I'm guessing SUBS won't go for it, no matter what is said or offered.
Anyway, how do you like the F-35? As you probly read, I had a mock dogfight with one last night and it was alot of fun. It can definately turn the corner, but who knows what it will look like when actual specs come out when its rolled out from production lines. Pilots will take them to Top Gun, Red Flag, USMC-WTI... then we will get the real scoop on the flight model and how it behaves in the merge.
Take care
Later
Sludge
-
Sludge: I quite like it. Great plane to fly around with, brilliant VC, nice HUD (courtesy neutrino & Scott Printz ;)) and overall it's just a fun plane to fly. I can't say whether it's very realistic or not, well, definitely not on the sound aspect, since they're just aliased to the default FA-18, but other than that, I can't really say. Few minor gripes towards the technical side (of FS, not the accuracy of the model/simulation), but I'm sure they can all be resolved. As I said, it's a fun plane to fly, and I highly recommend it, especially if you've liked Dino's T-45 or F-14.
-
SUBS...
That was a decent video of a dogfight. But seriously, that is some of the worst guns tracking I've ever seen. Did you win against these so-called "real world fighter pilots"? The only way I see that happening is if they used an integrated stick/throttle combo and were on a laptop. Additionally, you criticize the FSX Hornet's flight model but that Lock-On Eagle flight model doesn't look great either. Last time I checked, you can't just keep pulling "over-G" (Bitchin' Bob screaming at you through-out the fight), and get behind a guy to keep maneuvering for a guns kill that took you about 2 mins to get. I mean how much airframe stress/damage would you do trying to fight with an Eagle like that. Nor do you manage your energy state very well. You just keep turning with no regards to cutoff angles or airspeed.
Also, I'll ask this just ONCE. Drop the "cheating" insinuations. I'm not some knucklehead who tweaks their jet (elevator_effectiveness_scalar=1.5 or more, thrust=20k+, etc.) just to win online dogfights. I could care less about winning at any cost. I'd rather lose a realistic dogfight than win one that's slanted in my favor due to cheating on my part.
BTW, I found a copy of F4AF... installed it, w/the 1.0.3 patch and couldn't get past the startup black screen. I looked on the forums and nothing worked for that. So that's a no-go til I get Lock-On. I'll try the demo tonite and see if it works... in the meantime, so why are you against a fight in FSX? We can both take Sludge v1.1s, you can host the session "no cheats" and we can fight there?
UPDATE: Last night, I played the Lock-On demo at high realism and it is NOT all that. Yes, you can fire weapons and they have decent tracking/percentages, but the flight model is ridiculously arcade-like. I cranked up the realism and did max-G, even over-G turns and got on the plane's six every time. I may get the game anyway, but the FMs are not all that you say they are, SUBS. No better or worse than FSX.
Additionally, went in the multi. last night and had an epiphany. Got to mock-dogfight the new F-35 against the Sludge. It was definately a good go around, as nobody got any "guns close" or "fox 2 close" calls, and we stayed in a turning fight the whole time. Broke the hard deck of 10k, losing energy and called terminate. He was only in my HUD for a few snapshot microseconds and then we would pass off one side or the other and we would re-engage the turning fight. Of course, this guy "Razor" (VFA-122?) was saying something about being on my six, but thats really not the case. I had the multiplayer padlock on my upper right hand all the time, and only saw him in my six when we would do a pass and I would then plug in burner/max-G pull and get him just above my canopy rim. Which is the classic indication of a turning fight. However, for an "experimental" FSX airplane, he was pretty jacked up on it, as far as CAPEs/LIMs... will probly buy it when I get paid. Its only 15 bucks.
Later
Sludge
Hey Sludge well it has been a while since the last time I did anything with Lockon which is why my shooting isn't that good. The whole point is to show though that in a sim with combat such as F4AF and LOMAC just because the guy is in your sights does not warant a kill in fact you may just damage him and he can still potentially nail you which has happened to me in the past. So its a combination of things that allows the bullets to hit the other guys aircraft otherwise its like shooting tenis balls on a tennis court with a slug gun while someones playing a game. And thats why this screenshot/gun cam stuff doesn't measure up. As I mentioned in its current state FSX is not ideal for this stuff as theres not yet the ability to employ realistic combat especially as far as dogfighting. Virtually the only aircraft with a realistic FM is the VRS Superhornet in this area. Even if you could with the VRS SH (eg Tacpack) I could not because of the low frame rate which is very difficult even for landings its a difficult task to accomplish. Its good that you have F4AF when you get that cranked up you'll be blown away its immensely better than FSX ever could be as far as combat goes. Even worse still if you should be keen to download Open Falcon as that features complexity beyond F4AF.
-
SUBS...
You ready to fight it out? Will meet you on the multi whenever you want, you can take whatever you want and I'll take the Sludge. I'll have FRAPS loaded up to my missile button, so I have to validate my kill calls in that manner. What is a good max-G for you? I'll start with 7.5 if you want? And I have to call "guns, guns" or "fox 2 close" as my v/vector crosses your flight path? For you, if you take the VRS, all you have to do is give me a screen shot with me "IN LAR" ("IN Lethal Attack Range", I think), meaning if you pull the trigger, its a guns kill. We can take off from Nellis and use the Red Flag range, using a hard deck of 10k and blocks up to 30k? Fair? Also, do you know military rules for being "in the blocks" (blue air, 5-9s; red air, 0-4s)?
BTW, here is a real world example of how pilot's use gun camera footage to validate kill calls. Hence the real world meaning of "camera's on, tape's on... fight's on."
Especially watch from 1:28 to 4:50, the guy gives one of the best dogfight HUD video breakdowns that Ive seen on the YouTube or the 'Net. Actually, this whole video series (Red October) is great. The only time Ive seen better is when I was a ABM student debriefing the ACMI at Tyndall AFB with F-15 students and their instructors... very humbling watching ACMI results. No arguments, only valid or in-valid kill calls.
In case you can't tell, I'm just itchin' for a dogfight, been beatin' down people left and right on the multi... hell, I haven't had someone get on my six and stay there anything more than passing, except after I called "knock-it-off" and rolled in for a landing to get gas. Its worse than the time that kid harrassed people over Edwards with his "better than everyone else" F-16. He had no idea how to really dogfight in it, and was just getting on people's six and calling kills, so I kindly whupped up on him, and he quit by dropping his gear and getting in a landing config.
Can you tell, I'm ready?! Haha... Enjoy the pic, where I forced this annoying, harrassing kid down, and he logged off.
Anyway, let me know if you're up for it?
Later
Sludge
The 2nd half of the video showing the Mig 29 was a great insight of its capabilitys.
-
Okay, Here is what Ive seen.
1st, Slude mod is great.
2nd. SUBS is using the OLDEST version of Lock on, 1.02 is from 5 years ago.
There was Flaming Cliffs 1.0, 1.1 and 1.12
There is now Flaming Cliffs 2.0 And are now on version 1.2.13
And it is compatible with the DCS series. So its realism is improved around 10 fold.
So if you guys wanted to truly dogfight.
Get Flaming Cliffs 2.0, Fly the most advanced aircraft in the game ( Su-25T, You can rip the wings off flying it wrong, pop the tires ect )
And its all based on physics, That my friends would be a true dogfight test.
/End Rant. Great Sludgemod Guys!
-
Nike...
Thanks for the good words on the Sludge. Several other people on FSX have told me they like it alot, so that's pretty satisfying and is a credit to alot of the people who made the mods, especially Serge, JR, and Ray Gagnon.
Actually, I want to dogfight on both programs. I love dogfighting in FSX in the multi and/or anything else I can get my hands on, installed, up and running. Definately will look for FC 2.0, and get that installed. Why is the SU-25T Frogfoot the most advanced aircraft in the game?
Later
Sludge
-
That's cool, "Sludgemod". :P
Still like "Sludge Hornet" though :P.
-
@ Sludge And Orion, It's a whole new hornet it my eyes! ;)
It's truly great, I have some PM questions for you about it though, mostly regarding FM, ect.
It was built from the ground up taking nothing but physics into account ( Much like the now in dev A-10C ) All of it's systems are modeled in their entirety, It's very touchy to begin with, and Personally I Love it. I have broken the wings off one too many time in a high speed dive, Causing airframe over stress.
FC2.0 Is the best, New graphics, physics everything. Highly recommended!
-
Definately will look for FC 2.0, and get that installed. Why is the SU-25T Frogfoot the most advanced aircraft in the game?
The SU25T in FC has an advanced flight model which takes into account everything as well as momentum, drag for each pylon etc. IMO its a pig to fly fully loaded and you rely alot on the autopilot and trim to fly the thing. One good thing about the SU25T though is you can load it up with gun pods which can depress for hitting ground targets when slaved to the Shival or for A/A combine them with the 30mm cannon to absolutely destroy everything infront of you.
BTW yes I've managed to rip the wings off.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v452/SUBS17/ScreenShot_544.jpg)
The reason why I stick to 1.02 is because I do not yet have FC2.0 although I do plan on getting it at some stage.
-
For Sludge heres the downloads page for F4AF:
http://www.lead-pursuit.com/downloads.htm
You need patch 1.0.13 to fly with us ;D.
Also reccomended downloads:
Weapons Delivery planner
Ramp Start trainer
-
SUBS...
Might join up later, IF I ever get that working. I'm off for the weekend, but here's a little eye candy for those that think the F-22 is all that... I'm NOT one of those people. Its great BVR, with all assets helping it (AWACS, other OCA players), but in-close its just another jet.
BTW, as a sidenote, this is a how training kill calls are made when doing ACT/DACT in the US military.
Enjoy.
http://www.patricksaviation.com/videos/Contrail_25/4024/ (http://www.patricksaviation.com/videos/Contrail_25/4024/)
Later
Sludge
-
HEy Subs, I have F4AF installed as well as FC2, and would love to do some dogfighting, even using the superbug if you fancy. Anychance of trying to set up some flights? I would really like to practice against some real life pilots.
Let me know dude< I am in the uk, so would have to fly between 7 and 11 pm GMT
Cheers, mark
-
I mentioned that I have flown with some real life pilots and against them in Falcon although that was a while back and some of them have left SVN. We are gearing up for a war at the moment in the middle east theatre you're welcome to join us although you would need to qualify first before we could slot you in.
-
SUBS...
Just got Lock On Platinum and I rate it overall "above average". The combat and weapons modeling are great and the systems (ie. realistic radar w/scan features) are first-rate. However, the flight models and the non-damage animations are wayy below par, especially in comparison to FSX. I mean, the worst is actually trying to pull maneuvers besides a simple, full-blower 1 or 2 turn fight. I bet no one has pulled off a Pirouette in LOMAC, have they? I do it regularly in FSX with the Sludge Hornet. And I now know why there has to be a button to do a "Cobra" in the SU-27. Cause you cant do it manually, no matter how hard you try... the in-game flight model has to do it with a cheap "fix" (in this case, a selectable button that activates the maneuver).
Still would rather do simulated dogfights in FSX. Ill take the Sludge and you can take whatever you want? Im sticking with online dogfights in FSX, as LOMAC: FC2 is too weak in its flight modelling. Also, I have F4AF, and cannot get it past the black startup screen even after the patches, so other than Open Falcon, I guess Im stuck w/FSX online fighting. I know there are no actually bullets, but Ill take sim kill calls, and enjoy the far better flight model any day of the week. Anyone else up for some online dogfighting?
Later
Sludge
-
Try taking the SU25T up for a flight there is only one aircraft comparable in FSX and thats the VRS Superhornet although comparing the two is like comparing apples with oranges since one is FBW and the other is not. BTW latest patch for FC2 is 1.2 and that allows for MP coop with the DCS KA50. The Cobra IRL in a SU27 the pilot has to overide computer to give full deflection of the elevator and thats why LO uses the K key to represent that. The aircraft all got a tweak with the FM in patch 1.2 they are regarded as SFM(Simplified Flight model) with the exception of the SU25, SU25T and KA50.
As for your problem with F4AF:
2. When I start the game up I get only a black screen and not even a User Interface.
FSAA (Full Screen Anti-aliasing) currently causes problems, especially when set to 4x, though 2x can cause some problems in cockpits too, particularly for nVidia graphics cards. Switch off FSAA via your Display Settings menu for your graphics card. Consult your graphics card manual or the manufacturer's website if you have difficulty finding this. Also, uninstall and reinstall your graphics card's drivers, and install the latest version of DirectX from the Microsoft website. If you have "ffdshow" installed at the same time, it might be a cause of a conflict, too.
-
SUBS...
Tried the F4AF stuff, still doesnt work. Not messing with it anymore. And the FC2 patch is still not that great, the avionics are tight, but the planes feel DEAD. Tried a couple of maneuvers (hammerhead, immelman, split-s, some hi-alpha) and the plane just feels dead, like I'm in an arcade jet with a great radar and avionics. Even tried the SU-27, so I could take it up against the F-15 and still just doesnt do hi-alpha well at all, when that is supposed to be the SU-27/30/37's FORTE. BTW, the pilot disables the AoA-limiter of the SU-27 FCS, so he can do a Cobra. If LOMAC had it right, it could just put an aoa-limiter disable switch and let the pilot try it on his own. However, I dont think the SU-27 flight model in FC2 is capable of it.
I'm done with other programs, so if you wont fight with FSX, lets just let this go, cool? We'll just agree that you love those others, and Im happy with FSX. Unless you're one of those people that has to have the last word?
TO EVERYONE ELSE...
If youre up for some FSX multi, give me a holler, as Id like to fly and fight with someone who has either the Hornet, the Sludge, the aerosoft F-16, or Dino's F-35. I'll probly get Dino's new bird, as I'd like to see how it dogfights, its cheap, and people really like it.
Later
Sludge
-
Sludge
I've been doing lots of carrier ops/formation flights again, so if your down, get on skype.
-
SUBS...
Tried the F4AF stuff, still doesnt work. Not messing with it anymore. And the FC2 patch is still not that great, the avionics are tight, but the planes feel DEAD. Tried a couple of maneuvers (hammerhead, immelman, split-s, some hi-alpha) and the plane just feels dead, like I'm in an arcade jet with a great radar and avionics. Even tried the SU-27, so I could take it up against the F-15 and still just doesnt do hi-alpha well at all, when that is supposed to be the SU-27/30/37's FORTE. BTW, the pilot disables the AoA-limiter of the SU-27 FCS, so he can do a Cobra. If LOMAC had it right, it could just put an aoa-limiter disable switch and let the pilot try it on his own. However, I dont think the SU-27 flight model in FC2 is capable of it.
I'm done with other programs, so if you wont fight with FSX, lets just let this go, cool? We'll just agree that you love those others, and Im happy with FSX. Unless you're one of those people that has to have the last word?
Later
Sludge
You can disable the AoA limiter in the mission damage setup, I've seen it done in a demo where a guy flys an SU27 in LO in high AoA. I don't know how much the FMs were tweaked in FC2 but in FC1 and 1.02 they are not that bad. Although another problem area is the curves for your joystick axis for the SU25T and SU25 the curves for pitch and roll are a straight line from the bottom left to the top right. For SFM aircraft the curve is supposed to be:
http://www.freewebs.com/konkussion/Ch%20axis%20mapped.jpg
With AFM its a straight line generally the curve for the SFM aircraft is tighter than the above curve and some guys put a straight bit in the centre.
http://www.lockontr.com/dosyalar/joystick.jpg
Theres some nice High AoA stuff here:
-
SUBS...
Im done. Let it go. Sticking with FSX.
JR and Serge...
JR, are you up for doing a realism fix in your HUD? I noticed in YouTube carrier landing HUD videos that the Glideslope HUD Needle comes up at 90 from the Final Bearing, and the Localizer Needle comes up at 60 degs from Final Bearing, along with a whistle noise.
Watch from 2:05 and til the landing and you'll see what I'm talking about...
You guys will need to combine your skills to make this happen. JR, can you make the glide slope come up at 90 deg, and the localizer at 60 deg from runway heading? And once thats done, Serge, can you add the sound from the video, when the localizer needle comes up? Dont know if you two would have to coordinate, but I'm guessing so?...
Also, JR, is there a way to make the TACAN read point one more than you currently have it? Meaning when it currently reads .6 on the TACAN, have it display .7? Also, have it go no lower than 0.1? I've seen both of these things in many HUD videos. And I think I've discussed how the current TACAN is .1 short of real life.
This would be a nice realism addition, that could be added to both the HUD and the Sound Pack update. It will be included in the Sludge v1.3 release. Yes, I'm already starting on that. It will include this proposed update, if it happens. Also, there were some errors that I have fixed and some .fx file additions that have to be included.
Later
Sludge
-
Nice video will V1.3 be a once only install or will it require the other 2?
-
JR and Serge...
JR, are you up for doing a realism fix in your HUD? I noticed in YouTube carrier landing HUD videos that the Glideslope HUD Needle comes up at 90 from the Final Bearing, and the Localizer Needle comes up at 60 degs from Final Bearing, along with a whistle noise.
Watch from 2:05 and til the landing and you'll see what I'm talking about...
You guys will need to combine your skills to make this happen. JR, can you make the glide slope come up at 90 deg, and the localizer at 60 deg from runway heading? And once thats done, Serge, can you add the sound from the video, when the localizer needle comes up? Dont know if you two would have to coordinate, but I'm guessing so?...
Also, JR, is there a way to make the TACAN read point one more than you currently have it? Meaning when it currently reads .6 on the TACAN, have it display .7? Also, have it go no lower than 0.1? I've seen both of these things in many HUD videos. And I think I've discussed how the current TACAN is .1 short of real life.
Later
Sludge
Hi, Sludge, I have researched the two things you say during the development of the HUD.
First, when the glideslope and localizer turn up? This depends on the ILS reception range. My research showed that the ILS needles appear when you are within +/-35 degr from centerline (this is a wider area than for civil ILS). Consequently, when you are the 90, the angle between your position, the ILS antenna and the centerline is about 35 degrees and this is why you see them first at the 90. Of course, if you are further away from the carrier, the angle at the 90 will be smaller and they will appear earlier. If someone can provide a more accurate reception range for the ILS (different from the +/-35 degr I implemented), perhaps different for the two antennas, I can easily change that.
The sound from the video you hear is not from the ILS, but from the altitude warning. You will notice the radar altitude starts to flash at the moment the sound alarm goes. The needles appear at that moment only by chance :)
The TACAN distance is very accurate. If you look at the other video by WhiskyRomeo2 ("FA-18 600kt CV break carrier break"), you will notice that the distance does go down to 0.0 nm. So I see no reason to degrade the accuracy on purpose here 8)
-
Sludge, in response to JRs post.
1. I was right
2. I was right
3. Lol, I have the brains, you're the guy that can wipe the floor in ACM though :P
-
Raz...
OK, you were right about that, and yes, I did get a confirmation. The pilot responded he had the altimeter set for 450, so he uses that as a checkpoint about when he passes 90 in the pattern. So I guess we can ask Serge if he can mod the RALT Betty to make that sound instead of "altitude, altitude"? I own ACM, but you forgot I also own carrier patterns and landings too... haha.
Serge...
Can you mod the BlackBox RALT sound to be those two tones? I can get a recording of that specific sound, if you need it?
JR...
But in that video specifically, the Carrier ILS Glideslope and Localizer come up at different times. Is there a way to change that? From monitoring the video, it looked to be glideslope first at 90 deg, and the localizer comes up at 60 deg off runway heading. They dont come up at the same time, you see that part, right? I think civilian systems are the same way, the glideslope has a wider projection, and the Localizer needle has a more narrow field, but the main point Im talking about is that they dont come up at the same time in any carrier landing HUD videos Ive seen. On the TACAN, its a good thing you brought that other video up, cause thats the first one Ive seen go to 0.0, but I think I know why. RAZ pointed this out. That the TACAN xmitter might be located on the tower and his landing is on the right side of the runway, so thats why? Well, here's the cut and dry, I'll simply ask him about both, and if he comes back, Ill post his reponses and we can go from there, cool?
Later
Sludge
-
Sludge,
no problem to add that sound. If you can get a good sample, I'd be appreciated :)
-
Sludge, I agree and it makes sense that the needles will come at different times, but I saw no reason to complicate matters without accurate information. I wanted to keep it simple - both needles come at the same time, i.e. they have the same angular range. I guess I can run some calculations and provide two separate values, that correspond to 90 and 60. Give me some time and I'll get back with results, I will check other videos as well.
-
JR...
Much thanks my friend. Run your calculations, but also, this guy has been really good about getting back to me quickly. Hopefully, I can get back with some real world values. At worst, if he doesnt have the documentation or answers, we can use your calculations, which have already proven to work well. I mean, you can probly leave the glideslope needle activation at +/-35 deg., then calculate what it would take to get the localizer needle activated at 60 deg. Oh BTW, on the GPS/NAV HUD text can you make it a bigger clipping, for at least 5 to 6 digits? The reasoning being is that some ICAOs are long, ie. KNUW (wide-displayed letters), and the ranges also come in decimals, such as 248.5 (wide-display numbers), so it clips that off. I guess if you just add 2 or 3 digits extra more than what it is now, that should account for all possibilities.
Getting back to real world, I've explained our situation to this fella and asked about both ICLS glideslope/localizer needle activations as well as where the TACAN xmits from and why most youtube Hornet carrier landings show 0.2/0.1 at-the-ramp and 0.1 into the wires and stops at 0.1, with his one exception that you pointed out. So far, he's been very quick to respond and I'm guessing I'll get an answer tonite when I get off work.
FSXNP...
When I get home from work, Ill get you that sound file. Is .wav 22khz format good? And I think we can keep the BALT "altitude, altitude" Betty warning as is.
Later
Sludge
-
To all...
For the next Sludge release, I'm also working on a "thinner" exhaust gas smoke effect that would kill less frames, and look far more realistic than the wide, expanding blooming out effect it is now. Plenty of people have requested I work on this and RAZ has been toying around with it for a few days. If anybody else wants to submit changes, feel free.
Personally, I feel that if you can make it more straight line out of the feathers and less of an expanding cone shape, with the current color and texture, I would be most apt to include that in the next Sludge release. However, feel free to mod the current effect and send me your version of what you think is best. I will seriously consider all submissions. Just because I dont like it initially, doesnt mean you cant win me over in the long run. The toughest one to try to sell me on is the baseline "heat shimmer" effect, tho. I think if it behaved halfway between a "thinned out" EG Smoke that doesnt go thru physical objects like JBDs, and the current heat shimmer (not altered at all by physical objects, specifically JBDs), it would up the chances that I'd buy off on it. Along with a tad of brownish/black coloring, those are the ways you'd sell me on including a combo EG Smoke/Heat Shimmer effect for the next Sludge.
Id definately consider an effect that has a middle, thin, darkish interior smoke that dissapates the longer you keep the engine spooled up above the required N1, but with an outer-layer heat shimmer style to it. Sorta how VooDoo's wake is shaped/formed, but as a smoke effect. Where the carrier bow wake is wide, less defined and breaks up earlier (heat shimmer equivalent). The aft wake from the engines is clearly defined, thinner, and longer (EG Smoke equivalent). Also, if you design it, keep in mind that in the .xml, the "heat shimmer" part could run all the time, but the darker smoke would have to activate within the current Sludge Hornet's N1 parameters. Those are setup for a specific purpose, to be close to NATOPS numbers on-glideslope power, and when a "power" call is received, the LSO can see the momentary darker "puff" of power added.
Thanks
Sludge
-
Also, Serge, once this is added can you make it at a selectable altitude?
-
Raz...
If you're talking about RALT and BALT betty warnings, you must be asleep at the wheel, as BOTH are selectable as is. Simply click on the appropriate one (BALT or RALT) and use the keypad to enter the altitude.
JR...
Just got a response and its not as good as I'd hoped it would be.
"The TACAN going to 0.0 is probably an anomaly as it is measuring slant range from station to aircraft. So even if you fly directly over the TACAN your altitude is still measured as distance from the station. Hope that helps."
So I guess you can keep on working on calculations for the localizer to activate and we will just use the glideslope needle and TACAN as-is, unless we get some better real world data on how to compute it.
Thanks JR, Serge, and Raz.
Later
Sludge
-
J.R., about the TCN,
Your TACAN center is radiating out of the center of the model, which is behind catapult 2 somewhere in the hanger. You can find this easily in the SDK or using a program, but that isn't necessary. Now, IRL, the TACAN will be radiating out from the antennas on the tower, where the radio equipment is. So, it isn't as accurate as you portray it. It is accurate to the normal person, but for me or Sludge, the TCN isn't the level of accurate that you describe.
-
JR...
Just found out the TACAN antennas are located on main radio mast on an aircraft carrier. Hence, the reason why the TACAN reads 0.1, and how the pilot's explanation makes sense. When he talked about slant range, that cleared things up as to why TACAN only read 0.0 that one time and as he said "an anomaly" because it should've still read 0.1 due to the slant range (distance in length and height) from the TACAN xmitter and the aircraft receiver.
So its up to you if you wanna change it or not, just updating you with my search results.
Later
Sludge
-
And I think we can keep the BALT "altitude, altitude" Betty warning as is.
Yes, sure, BALT logic is kept unchanged. And here's the BlackBox gauge with new RALT sound added. Just unpack this zip into your SLUDGE Panel folder, confirming replace.
-
J.R., about the TCN,
Your TACAN center is radiating out of the center of the model, which is behind catapult 2 somewhere in the hanger. You can find this easily in the SDK or using a program, but that isn't necessary. Now, IRL, the TACAN will be radiating out from the antennas on the tower, where the radio equipment is. So, it isn't as accurate as you portray it. It is accurate to the normal person, but for me or Sludge, the TCN isn't the level of accurate that you describe.
Well, I know where the TACAN is radiating from because I put it there ;D And it is precisely from the center of the TACAN antenna as shown in the picture below. The HUD is showing the slant range from the aircraft to the antenna, which is just what the real one is showing. In the picture the distance happens to be 56 meters which is 0.03 n.miles, which rounded to the nearest tenth is 0.0 and not 0.1 !
(http://i589.photobucket.com/albums/ss333/neutrino2009/TACANSlantRange1.jpg)
-
Thanks for the photo, great explanation. I recall we had exchanged info on this TACAN location long ago testing the 1st HUD before release. Can't recall if the comments were in emails, PMs, or postings ---- or all three, lol.
The photo defines the location clearly.
-
Serge...
Thanks my friend. Already included and working well.
JR...
Not enough thanks to go around for your solid work. As soon as I get the new EG Smoke effect done, Ill work to get the new Sludge released with all your inclusions. Glad to have you back.
Later
Sludge
-
JR,
There's one thing that really needs to be fixed - a flashing recovery arrow. Here's an exerpt from A1-F18AC-NFM-000, stating that the arrow is steady. ;)
-
FSXNP, the recovery arrow on my HUD is not flashing... I thought it was flashing but it isn't :)
-
Hey fellas! I was missing my roots and started tinkering with some of the old sim stuff. I ended up re-doing the textures for the IFLOLS to give it some more depth. As I still dont have FSX working I wasn't able to test em so be careful. You should be able to unzip it right into your panel folder after cutting and pasting the current IFLOLS cab into your documents for back up. Let me know how it works.
-
FSXNP, the recovery arrow on the my HUD is not flashing... I thought it was flashing but it isn't :)
Oops... somehow I've managed to mix up your NEW Realistic HUD for the FSX F/A-18 Hornet and the Sludge HUD. The latter doesn't flash, really. My apologies... :(
-
FSXNP, the recovery arrow on the my HUD is not flashing... I thought it was flashing but it isn't :)
Oops... somehow I've managed to mix up your NEW Realistic HUD for the FSX F/A-18 Hornet and the Sludge HUD. The latter doesn't flash, really. My apologies... :(
Wait, they're different?
How much have I missed in the past month or so? :P
-
Yes, they are. The one at avsim.com file library does have a flashing recovery arrow.
-
Anything else, or is that all?
-
Looks like the arrow is the only difference :)
-
Sludge asked me to post this screenshot.
-
Thanks Orion...
Micro...
Glad to have you back, hopefully for the long run, and as you can see, I put it on to test it out. Do you mind if I put that on the Sludge? Is that cool with you Serge?
Later
Sludge
-
Yes, they are. The one at avsim.com file library does have a flashing recovery arrow.
Are you talking about the HUD in the Sludge Hornet 1.1, or some other separate HUD? If there is a separate HUD, I'd like to take a look at it and see what's this flashing arrow :)
-
I mean a separate HUD, available at avsim.com. The Sludge one has a steady arrow. As I said before, I've managed somehow to mix these two ;D
-
..Is that cool with you Serge?
Yeah, it's cool 8) Incidentally, my initial IFLOLS looked almost like Micro's ;D
-
I mean a separate HUD, available at avsim.com. The Sludge one has a steady arrow. As I said before, I've managed somehow to mix these two ;D
I found the one you are talking about, it is the original HUD by Scott Printz, and indeed the recovery arrow flashes. For some reason I made my version not flash, may be I checked the NATOPS, but I am not sure. Anyway in the Sludge Hornet everything is OK :)
-
Glad it worked!!! Sorry I couldn't remember who came up with the orginal gauge, but outstanding work Serge! I was actually just bored on a Sunday and felt like fiddling around with photoshop. Sludge, consider the textures yours. Feel free to add them if you like. I'll drop by from time to time but I'm still enjoying my vacation!
-
Micro...
Cool. I may resize it smaller, just so its not as obstructive and would fit right in the lower physical HUD area. Glad your back even if, its only a few times...
JR...
Do you remember that Enrico B. guy, who did the clear HUD glass that I use? Was wanting to know if you ever talk to him and if he is gonna put out that newer glass texture with the light greenish projection? The one you used in your newer HUD youtube videos.
Later
Sludge
-
Sludge, I haven't spoken with him since he gave me that glass. I urged him to publish it since he made so many iterations to get the final look, but at the time he said he was busy and even suggested that I do it. You can shoot him an email if you need.
-
JR...
Have you ever thought of doing a "weapons" panel to go along with HUD control panel? I mean, make a "left side armament panel" that would have a Master Arm switch, then an A/A switch (maybe get the A/A and A/G lights working), and a weapons select switch that would pull up a Gun Pipper w/cone "locked InLAR" logic, Heaters with proper sybology/growl, or AIM-120s and its wide-lock dashed line cone. Dont think the USN/USMC aircraft even use AIM-7s anymore, as the remaining ones have been reworked to be shipboard defense missiles.
If you did this, perhaps with some help from Scott, it could be the first stage of a whole Hornet avionics upgrade. Right now, I might have a guy who will re-animate and re-model the interior .mdl for the Hornet. Of course, HUD collimation is the first order of business for me, but if you already had the HUD Armament panel working along with weapons tracking, it would be a natural progression to integrate those functions into the interior model. Once it gets done.
Just an idea. Ill write Scott and see what he's up for as well.
Later
Sludge
-
.......ever thought of doing a "weapons" panel .....
You guys are just amazing.
-
... Of course, HUD collimation is the first order of business for me ...
Sludge, a working field/carrier hook switch will be the second, I suppose ;)
-
Serge...
Yes sir, that it would be. Then we could concentrate on the weapons panel if JR's up for it. Which would be cool, and of course we couldnt actually FIRE weapons, but just to have tracking for online or multiplayer dogfights would rock. And everyone knows how much I like dogfighting in the multiplayer.
Anyway, just some ideas for the future... maybe for the Sludge v1.5 or 1.6, depending on when I lose my sanity and/or every last brain cell I have left.
Later
Sludge
-
To all...
I know this might be corny to some of you, but for me, this email I just got makes all of OUR efforts worth it. Yes, I know he was thanking me, but seriously... I'm just the name on the package. This goes out to all the fellas here that designed a gauge or two or three (JR, Serge), helped out (Orion, Raz), or even just gave inputs (Paco, Ave_Joe, Spaz) to make the Sludge Hornet what it is today.
"Hi, my name is Raul Aubele and y am from Argentina and y have to tell you that the work you have done with the Hornet is absolutly EXELENT and y have no words to describe your changes, for example the sound makes Turbine Sound Studios looks like a litle mouse under your work, All of the changes you have done are incredible real and makes so confused to know what is virtual and what real in real world. Please excuse for my English because y speak spanish and thanks you for ever and ever."
- Raul Aubele and Family.
Serge, I had to laugh because now you're making TSS seem like a little mouse! Its funny how some things dont get lost in translation.
Anyway, just thought Id share that as I had a good laugh and glad someone cared enough to write. Usually, we complain loudly about the bad things and dont praise the good things.
Later
Sludge
-
....Usually, we complain loudly about the bad things and dont praise the good things....
Hey Sludge,
I am sure you already know, what a wonderful airplane you have created.
I am a part of a virtual military, and if it makes you feel any better, we have a whole squadron based off the 'Sludge Hornet'.
Mickey.
PS: I have always said, you guys are doing some wonderful job. Ciao
-
JR...
Have you ever thought of doing a "weapons" panel to go along with HUD control panel? I mean, make a "left side armament panel" that would have a Master Arm switch, then an A/A switch (maybe get the A/A and A/G lights working), and a weapons select switch that would pull up a Gun Pipper w/cone "locked InLAR" logic, Heaters with proper sybology/growl, or AIM-120s and its wide-lock dashed line cone. Dont think the USN/USMC aircraft even use AIM-7s anymore, as the remaining ones have been reworked to be shipboard defense missiles.
If you did this, perhaps with some help from Scott, it could be the first stage of a whole Hornet avionics upgrade. Right now, I might have a guy who will re-animate and re-model the interior .mdl for the Hornet. Of course, HUD collimation is the first order of business for me, but if you already had the HUD Armament panel working along with weapons tracking, it would be a natural progression to integrate those functions into the interior model. Once it gets done.
Just an idea. Ill write Scott and see what he's up for as well.
Later
Sludge
Sludge, I don't know about this, it's a serious work, and I think the functions are not documented unlike the other HUD symbology which is described in the NATOPS. The math is not very difficult, but still, even if I do have all the necessary information, it will be a partial solution - you can't really carry weapons, can't fire weapons, can't shoot down some one in multiplayer. Flight Simulator was not designed to be a combat sim and going in that direction is not a cool exercise. Keep in mind that what we put in that HUD, cost me and Scott a lot of research and gathering background information, and when I put the adjective "realistic" this was not a marketing buzz word. You can see this from the recent TACAN distance discussion. How could I possibly know where the TACAN antenna is from the 20 antennas the carrier has? I could still be wrong about it's position. But I searched around, looked for close-up pictures of carrier masts, looked at diagrams of TCN antennas etc. What about the ILS antennas (we improved that a little thanks to you)? What about the glideslope angle - how do I know it's 3.99 degrees in FSX carriers and how do I know the angled deck is 8.496 degrees in Javier's carrier and 9.193 in the default carrier? As I said, it's a lot of work and I don't like to do partial solutions that are almost like the real thing - then it's not a simulation, it's a game. An exception would be the refueling gauge, but it's a separate gauge, not part of the HUD.
My personal opinion, is that we should keep the Acceleration Hornet realistic with the focus on carrier landings. This would include of course flight model, HUD collimation, sound, smoke, livery etc. Anything outside that, especially combat simulation, is IMHO a step in the wrong direction. Carrier landings are all about flight simulation at it's most difficult - it's about precision, discipline, understanding the fundamentals of flight, concentration, monitoring a number of variables at the same time etc. So is of course formation flying. Air combat is about situational awareness (TrackIR !), pulling hard G's, energy management, understanding of ACM etc. It's a different ball game and there are better sims for that :)
-
JR...
I definately understand its serious work. It takes a long time, you have to research, and also there is very little REALIZED reward for your work other than a thank you email, or someone telling you they liked your work. Personally, I just like upgrading the default to something better... that's why I'm gonna start the research on weapons/HUD parameters.
Now, here is where we disagree... that going down this road is NOT the wrong direction, nor will it end up with me wanting to have A/A or A/G weapons that actually work in FSX. I wont. First of all, my ONLY hope is to have avionics and associated HUD cues for the weapons; I don't need actual weapons to fly off the jet, blow up, or rake an "enemy" over the coals w/gun rounds. You'll NEVER HEAR THAT CALL FROM ME, nor would I release anything like that on the Sludge. I mean, if someone designs drop tanks, AIM-120s, AIM-9s, and gives them weight for a more realistic look and feel, ala the CAPTSIM Delta Hornet, I'm all about that... but not actual weapons employment. I'd be happy with just being able to have a lock box, a gun pipper, or missile cues w/correct symbology, or even locking up the tanker for air refueling and having the associated HUD lock box... and that'd be the end of this road for me and the Sludge Hornet. Then, we can incorporate that into a collimated HUD... if that ever comes to fruition.
If you're thinking about it, know that you wont be alone in doing the research. I'll also be working on this, and if you need, we can go over stuff that you need from me. There is obviously no timeline, I dont care if it takes months. Nor would this be a step towards the default Hornet into a full combat jet. VRS already did that, and I'm happy with this Hornet... as evidenced that I had to take back this thread from becoming a commentary on what is the "best combat sim" from you know who.
If you're not in, no big deal, just need to know if you dont wanna do it.
Later
Sludge
-
Agree with you my friend, just having external fuel tanks and the hud symbology would be amazing.
Dan
-
Dear Sludge,
I don't understand your fascination with a collinated HUD. I used to have Aerosoft's F-16 for FSX on my PC but have taken it off. The reason is your Hornet is better and I couldn't spot the difference between your "standard" HUD and Aerosoft's. (one of the reasons why I bought the F-16).
It could be that I am missing something but for my money your HUD is definitely superb and good enough so why spend time on a detail which won't be noticed? I have Track IR on my PC and your HUD is very believable.
The Law of Diminishing Returns applies to HUD's as it does to many other things.
I don't want to be negative but I feel sure your talents could be put to better use than this.
Tregarth
-
Sludge, I don't want to do any missile targeting systems, I find them too complicated and I don't want to simplify them. I am looking however into a possible gun sight solution for guns only dogfight.
-
Sludge, I don't want to do any missile targeting systems, I find them too complicated and I don't want to simplify them. I am looking however into a possible gun sight solution for guns only dogfight.
Neutrino, if that happens, it would be so great.
-
Tre...
Holy cow. We are on two different sides on this matter. I understand what youre saying, I just disagree with it. A collimated HUD would be fantastic. I can spot the difference easily, and if we could get it done right, it would also allow us to shift the default eyepoint UP where it belongs. There are soo many youtube videos that show the correct eyepoint, from pilots with a micro CCD attached to the side of the helmet on their eye-level. Where the pilot is looking forward and almost down from the top of the physical side HUD brackets. Plus, with a collimated HUD, as a TrackIR user, you could actually use all the degrees of freedom without losing HUD correllation.
Watch this video to see what Im talking about, as far as where the eyepoint should be... as compared to where it is now.
Its funny you mention the aerosoft F-16 HUD as I LOVE that HUD. Seeing that HUD is what got me into this quest (holy grail?..haha) for a collimated HUD to begin with, as that HUDs "projected out" style made me want to integrate that on the Hornet HUD. For the record though, the current HUD included in the Sludge is JR's and Scott Printz's baby, not mine. They were gracious enough to let me include it in the Sludge Hornet releases. They are the real workers behind the scenes, that dont get enough credit. Thats why when I posted that email thanking me, I made sure to mention specifically JR and Serge. Most of the Sludge Hornet mods/add-ons are their doing, they just let me include them.
JR...
Thats good enough for me. At this point, Ill take what I can get... its better than having nothing. Again tho, please dont feel any need to rush. This is purely a WANT on my part and not a need by any stretch of the imagination. BTW, I did some reading into .xmls and C++ guages and found that MR Virtuali (using MR cause he probly deserves it), is a really genius programming fella. If youve ever read his in-depth responses on FSDeveloper.com, geez... they made me feel as though I dont understand .001 percent of how this bird and sim are programmed. Which is probly true enough, but its just eye opening how much more layering there is. And for what I can understand, his use of C++ gauges and the GDI/GDI+ (his creation, if I read that right) is something WE should look into... dont know if you have, but Im definately making it a point to learn more about it.
BTW, thanks for hearing me out. We dont always agree but thanks for having patience and giving me a chance to elaborate on my views.
Later
Sludge
-
Tregarth
I don't know about you, but the HUD is, to me, the most important instrument in the cockpit. It is what I spend most of my flight looking at, and when you compare it to real videos of real HUDs, its pretty ugly. HUD collimation will be amazing, it will give the HUD a projected look instead of a 'right in your face' kind of look. That way, it will work as the real HUD. The human eye can focus on close objects, or far, but not both at once. When the HUD is "right there" and in your cockpit (the actual HUD in the Sludge F/A-18 is mounted on the actual HUD glass), you have to focus on your instruments, and then on the outside view. That is one of the reasons HUDs were implemented after several Phantom crashes behind the boat. Here (http://www.rockwellcollins.com/products/cs/at/avionics-systems/head-up-displays/system-overview/hud-basics/index.html) is a good link that explains a fair amount about HUDs. HUD collimation also will fix the TiR 6DOF issue that the HUD gets uncorrelated.
Now, here are even MORE benefits. We will need to completely re-animate every switch in the cockpit, because when we decompile, we loose animation. Now, once that is done, and the modeler has the source files to the cockpit, we can do whatever we darn please with the cockpit, as long as we don't charge money for it. We can fix the Hook Bypass switch, we can fix the oversized HUD frame/AoA indicator misplacement, we can integrate the HUD controls to the VC (below the UFC), or any other issues we see present (such as throttles not be able to go below IDLE to shut off the fuel flow). Now, that is going far beyond the original design, and we need to keep it just to the collimation at this point, but I'm saying thats what we unlock when we progress on this.
JR/Sludge
C++ seems to be an extremely powerful tool, and its what the default F/A-18 avionics were coded in, not XML. That being said, MS has more experience in this then us, and probably knows better. If anyone wants to give C++ a go, feel free. I'm trying to, but I don't have any decent online courses to learn from.
Now, on a total side note that I don't really think deserves its own thread but would be a nice upgrade/fix
JR, is there any possibility that you can do a few tweaks to the HUD to make it a T-45 HUD? The HUD is based off of the F/A-18 it seems a fair amount, and also the biggest difference that led me to making this post is that the T-45s optimal AoA for landing is 17 units. A whopping 17 units.
Source(s):
(see first comment)
http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?showtopic=20902 (search for downwind)
(As soon as he touches down, you can see his AoA drops, but it started at a number above 12, and he was within 2 units of optimal AoA on touchdown)
-
Also, on another note, the HUD will never be nearly as big as the HUD frame allows, which for some reason everyone gets wrong.
(http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9850355/hud.png)
-
And I also noticed that T-45's HUD TCN readings never drop below 0.2 ;)
-
I'd like to see videos where the T-45 drifts to the right of the runway.
-
Nice video Sludge the shot of the Hornet going through the clouds was quite cool.
-
RazGriz commented above: "... the biggest difference that led me to making this post is that the T-45s optimal AoA for landing is 17 units. A whopping 17 units." Units are not 'degrees of angle of attack' usually units are relative to the Optimum Angle of Attack - the be all and end all of carrier aviation.
I'll check the Hornet NATOPS but I think recall that the Opt AoA unit is also approx 17. Without looking at all the USN aircraft NATOPS for this info I would assume that today and in recent past (for example A-4 is 17.5 UNITS for Opt AoA) for standardisation purposes all AoA information is in units that are relative to the Opt AoA which is around 17. A-4 NATOPS says that the gauge is not calibrated either so any UNIT above or below Optimum is arbitrary also. The main point of the indexer is Optimum. Probably today the Hornet/Goshawk have more accurate AoA indications for cruise control at altitude. Anyway I digress - below is relevant T-45C info. Graphic will follow.... In the meantime attached are some pages from the T-45C NATOPS about AoA and how it is used.
From T-45C Goshawk NATOPS:
"AOA Indicator.
The AOA indicator functions throughout the entire flight regime to display AOA information, see Figure 2-38. The indicator registers units of AOA to the relative airstream, from 0 to 30 units. An OFF flag is visible if electrical power is lost. The indicator is set with the optimum unit setting at the 3 o’clock position.
AOA Indexer.
The AOA indexer, located on the glareshield in both cockpits, consists of three indexer lights; the upper chevron (e) is green and indicates a high (=18 units) AOA, the center donut (O) is amber and indicates the optimum (17 units) AOA, and the lower chevron (d) is red and indicates a low (=16 units) AOA. Two intermediate conditions are also indicated by illuminations of the donut (O) with the upper or lower chevron."
-
Thanks SUBS...
One of my favorites, because along with the viewpoint you get to see flashes of a realistic collimated HUD thats "projected forward" of the actual glass so you get to focus on it and the outside environment. Also, I like the Creed song in that video. That was big when I was going thru primary in the summer (insanely HUMID and HOT) of '01 at NAS Corpus, brings back some fun memories. Hehe, good ole T-34C Turbo TORMENTOR, as SNAs refer to it.
Spaz...
I think Raz has a valid point. This is without documentation, but have a gander at these videos... if you can find some documentation FOR or AGAINST, would like to read up on it. As of right now, I was under the opinion that 8.1 units was Optimum AoA for the Hornet to land at? Either way, after looking at these videos, I would think its safe to say, something needs to get fixed for the T-45 HUD as the T-45 and F-18 seem to land under different optimum AoA. If possible, just have to find out the FOR SURE, PUBLICATION-VALIDATED reasoning and implement that into the T-45 version.
Forward to :16, watch the landing, and freeze where the 15.8/15.9 AoA comes up when the AoA goes out of the plus-minus AoA "no-display" limits before he even lands. Then watch the landing and see that 13.5 AoA shows up on touchdown. Also, in the pattern, at 2:30, the high end of AoA displays for a few flashes and 18.6 shows up. Also on the second landing, 15.5 comes up on touchdown.
Same with this video, watch from 1:22 on, and watch the occasional flash of 15.7/15.8 when the AoA bracket goes a little too far out of paramters.
Now, compare that with this video at 3:24 where on touchdown, the Hornet shows 6.9
Also, JR...
Dont know if you answered this or not, but I think someone was asking you about the TACAN readings for the T-45 only going to 0.2? In all the videos Ive seen the its 0.3 crossing to 0.2 into the wires and going no lower than 0.2, so I think you have it right.
Later
Sludge
-
The sound from the video you hear is not from the ILS, but from the altitude warning. You will notice the radar altitude starts to flash at the moment the sound alarm goes. The needles appear at that moment only by chance
JR...
This is just something to file for later, but I noticed this while watching F/A-18 HUD dogfighting vidoes. I think it has something to do with a 10k BARO ALT, as it's common for fighters to set a hard deck of 10k. And it goes along with the logic of your previous post about RALT warning flashing the numbers.
At 1:29 and 2:28, you'll see the ALTITUDE drop below 10k, start flashing, and the BARO ALTIMETER SETTING (QNH) comes up flashing below it. Could this be what happens for a BARO ALT warning?
I really didnt want to bother you with this, as I've put enough on your plate, but you are a stickler for realism (good trait to have) and thought you'd want to know.
Later
Sludge
-
Sludge, this is correct - the barometric setting should appear and flash for 5 seconds when the aircraft descends below 10,000 feet at an airspeed less than 300 kts. It's automatic, you don't have to have the alt warning set at that altitude. Remember, I told you I was working on showing the barometric setting - this is what I was working on :D It also comes up when you adjust it (in the simulator by pressing the 'B' key) - this was pointed to my by jimi from the fsxblueangels. Unfortunately, I had a problem with programming that 5 second interval, so the version I sent you doesn't have this functionality yet.
-
JR...
OK, cool. So you're aware of it and working on it. Musta spaced-off the conversation we had about you working on it. Sorry.
Later
Sludge
-
Sludge, Yes you were correct about the Optimum AoA setting for the Hornet being 8.1 units (degrees?). Earlier I did not have time to check and was guessing from the known Goshawk and Skyhawk OptAoA settings as indicated. The GIF graphic shows the NATOPS diagrams info for the Legacy Hornet. Looking at this info again I note that the 'degree' symbol is used instead of 'units'. I'll investigate further what this means - although it may be obvious that it is what it is (rather than using the 'units' of T-45C and A-4 for example).
Now attached is the NATOPS Legacy Hornet AoA Indexer info - once again showing 'degrees of AoA'. While the F/A-18A-D NATOPS carrier circuit diagram is thrown in for good measure. Also attached are some AoA PDF pages from the PCL (Pocket Check List) NATOPS for said Hornet.
-
Just divide the units of AOA by two and you will get degrees of AOA ::)
-
Which units? (to be obscure). :o GIF graphic from Legacy Hornet NATOPS shows AoA info. With a NATOPS cautionary tale about a mod which puts a discrepancy between Indexer and HUD AoA indications considered acceptable.
-
Spaz...
Good NATOPS pulls again, to show documentation of AoA and landing configs w/AoA. Also, one discrepancy to be considered is some of the pages shown have the -400 engine while others have the -402 engine. For our purpurses (FSX), we need to use the -402, as the default and Sludge work on -402 engine outputs.
Later
Sludge
-
Sludge, I'll try to keep '402' engine in mind - what is seen on this thread is what is here available. Came across this nice illustration from an old PDF online about 'Field of View....' for carrier landing sims in 1980: http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA087012 (3Mb) We have all come a long way to have today what is on the desktop.
-
Also, on another note, the HUD will never be nearly as big as the HUD frame allows, which for some reason everyone gets wrong.
What is shown in that picture is an effect of the collimation. If you shot the image of the HUD placing the camera close to the frame, the frame seems very big and the HUD image tiny. But if you'd see it in real life the image is always a big projection several meters away from you. An effect similar to look at a medium sized theater screen.
A shot made 2 meters away from the frame would look the opposite: a tiny frame and a very big HUD image that doesn't fit into the projection area.
Or are you refering to the projection area itself, that is quite small compared to the HUD glass?
-
What version or Block of the Hornet are you guys trying to develop? And do you guys have the F/A-18C NATOPs and Tac manuals? I think you can get some of those manuals:
http://www.flight-manuals-on-cd.com/F18.html
-
F/A-18A, and we aren't even developing a new airplane really..
-
Found a great video that shows the F/A-18 eyepoint and has the HUD in view.
-
To all...
If anybody wants a closer, detailed look of what Im talking about IN DETAIL, regarding the new EG Smoke/Heat Shimmer hybrid idea, just look at these photos (great resolution, BTW). In particular, look at the photos ABOVE the captions "Downtown Seattle can be seen in the background." and "Someone has a nice view from the tower. Yes, I'm jealous!". Both these pics show a small bit of very light brownish exhaust smoke color, along with the associated heat shimmer.
http://home.comcast.net/~bzee1a/SeattleBlues/SeaFairBlues.html
Thats the effect I'm hoping for, and since all of my own efforts have fallen face-first on the deck, maybe someone else will have luck fixing them.
I'll just start calling this idea "dirty heat shimmer", since that's what the desired effect looks like.
ADDITION: Look at the picture above the title "Going for altitude." Thats a PERFECT EXAMPLE of what the EG Smoke should look like...
http://home.comcast.net/~bzee1b/ElCentro/ElCentro.html
Later
Sludge
-
I was able to save some of the data on my old hard drive. This is the text from the engine smoke effect I used. You should be able to copy and paste this into an fx file to test it out. There is no shimmer just smoke, so maybe the shimmer can be added in.
[Library Effect]
Lifetime=5
Version=2.00
Radius=-1
Priority=0
[Properties]
[Emitter.0]
Lifetime=0.00, 0.00
Delay=0.00, 0.00
Bounce=0.00
Rate=100.00, 120.00
X Emitter Velocity=0.00, 0.00
Y Emitter Velocity=0.00, 0.00
Z Emitter Velocity=0.00, 0.00
Drag=0.00, 0.00
X Particle Velocity=-10.00, 10.00
Y Particle Velocity=-7.00, 7.00
Z Particle Velocity=-120.00, -100.00
X Rotation=0.00, 0.00
Y Rotation=0.00, 0.00
Z Rotation=0.00, 0.00
X Offset=0.00, 0.00
Y Offset=0.00, 0.00
Z Offset=0.00, 0.00
Pitch=0.00, 0.00
Bank=0.00, 0.00
Heading=0.00, 0.00
[Particle.0]
Lifetime=3.50, 6.50
Type=19
X Scale=0.50, 0.75
Y Scale=0.50, 0.75
Z Scale=0.00, 0.00
X Scale Rate=5.00, 10.00
Y Scale Rate=5.00, 10.00
Z Scale Rate=0.00, 0.00
Drag=-1.30, -1.00
Color Rate=0.33, 0.45
X Offset=0.00, 0.00
Y Offset=0.00, 0.00
Z Offset=-1.00, 1.00
Fade In=0.05, 0.05
Fade Out=0.55, 0.57
Rotation=-60.00, 60.00
Shade=1
Face=1, 1, 1
[ParticleAttributes.0]
Blend Mode=1
Texture=fx_1.bmp
Bounce=0.00
Color Start=129, 114, 80, 3
Color End=176, 151, 95, 0
Jitter Distance=0.05
Jitter Time=1.00
TempK=107.00
TempRate=0.00, 0.00
uv1=0.00, 0.50
uv2=0.50, 1.00
X Scale Goal=9.00
Y Scale Goal=9.00
Z Scale Goal=0.00
Extrude Length=0.00
Extrude Pitch Max=0.00
Extrude Heading Max=0.00
-
micro...
Thanks buddy. Does it have a control .xml? If not, will just rename it and plug it into the control .xml I have for the current EG Smoke.
Later
Sludge
-
Fellas...
Just got done modding/tweaking the old Sludge_FX effects files. After actually reading parts of the SDK and learning what most of the values are, how to manipulate them... I gave it a shot with some really decent results. IMO.
The Hi-G/AoA effect is now alot less obnoxious, more transparent, and is not as "puffy".
The EG Smoke effect is a thinner, darker greyish/black color, that is higher in transparency and doesnt look like a giant gas blob behind the jet. I cut out the other two leading "nozzle" thrust effects, as they didnt add much to the overall effect and the result is a nice jet out the back that's a lot less frame rate killing than before... you can be the judge.
If you have the Sludge FX Hornet installed, make sure to back up (.bak) your old files. Then download and unzip these two effects files, copy/paste them into the FSX/EFFECTS folder (overwrite? YES.) and it will be ready to go. Let me know what you think.
BTW, to those who are trying these effects out, please post some pictures or some video of your results... and any criticisms as well.
Later
Sludge
-
Seems too think and blunt to me.
-
Raz...
"Too thick and blunt to me." Is that from actually flying with it, or from the pics? What do you mean, too blunt? Be specific because I'm just starting to understand how to manipulate effects to the point that I might be able to change it.
Later
Sludge
-
Sludge
Blunt may not have been the right word, but its waay too noticeable (from the pics). In the Blue Angels videos, its kind of noticeable until you look hard at it. It also seems textureless and smooth.
-
I don't know anything about how it's supposed to look, but I'd say it's a definite improvement :).
Still a bit puffy and smoky, though (in my opinion anyways).
-
Raz...
From what Im understanding, you'd like it to have more transparency? Meaning the smoke is too pronounced (opaque)? If so, thats a pretty easy fix. As my family is coming down for the holiday weekend, I wont be able to do much til after, but Ill try to work on it Tuesday.
Orion...
As far as the "puffy and smokey", I'm not sure how to change that other than giving the "particle x/y scale rate" a lesser number? That way, it would stay relatively small til it "evaporates" (effect jitter and alpha=0) at the end of the effect? Or maybe give the particle "z velocity" so that it jets out more from the emitter point, as opposed to "leaking" out as it is loosely described in the msdn ESP guide on effect creation.
Ill get back to work on this when the weekend is over, and the family is back home.
Have a great weekend and talk to ya
Later
Sludge
-
I'm guessing this is a Super Hornet Mockup? Anyway that HUD looks interesting:
http://i842.photobucket.com/albums/zz349/ontheroger/rhino-1.jpg
(http://i842.photobucket.com/albums/zz349/ontheroger/rhino-1.jpg)
-
Yes thats a SH pit you should get the VRS SH very nice to fly and shoot with.
-
Raz...
Finally back from the family weekend, so Ill get to work on the engine textures. Have you flown with the new files yet and seen the effects for yourself? Id like to know what you think about the Hi-G/AoA effect now that its got a low alpha and some of the effects particles taken off.
Later
Sludge
-
Fellas...
My "new" hard drive crapped out (defective), so I took it back and am operating on my old recently-nuked hard drive. Give me a few days and Ill get you some new smoke effects. Right now, its looking very good, and compared to the old effect, is much less pronounced but still there. I think I got the alpha transparency down pat. Now, Im just fighting the color mixture to make it a darker brownish grey, just like the pictures. Once I get that done, Ill get the effects out for everyone to test.
Then Ill work on the Hi-G/AoA effect to narrow it down more, so it doesnt look like its "poofing" out, but more following the airstream along the LEX and up over the wing root. Anybody have any inputs about the current Hi-G/AoA effect? Too much alpha transparency? Close to the front end of the LEX? Is it positioned right? Would like some critical inputs from people that have used it, so we can improve it for everyone.
Later
Sludge
-
First of all thanks Sludge for the great mods to the F-18. I'm currently flying Dino's T-45C in my own "virtual Strike pipeline" training at the boat and doing other stuff to prepare me for the VRS Superbug. I tried to move over the Carrier Trap Gauge and the Up Front Control to the T-45 because I'm specifically looking for a Low Altitude Warning that I can set as well as being able to set my own Bingo level. I noticed in Dino's T-45 the bingo was always set at 2000 in the MFD and you couldn't change it. Anyway I attempted moving over the cab files for the 2 gauges and added the lines to Panel.cfg. I was able to start the Carrier Trap gauge however the font was extremely small and I couldn't see it but I didn't try any traps. Is this normal? The UFC also was visible and I was able to set a Radar Alt level but I never heard any warning when passing through that altitude. I also could not set a BINGO level...it would not let me select it and change it much like the default Dino T-45...it stayed set at 2000lbs. Any recommendations or a guide out there as to how to get these features into the T-45C? Thanks!
Brandon
-
Thetford...
Thanks. The mods are alot of fun to work with, even tho it can get frustrating changing values all the time.
OK, for the bad news. I cant help you on Dino's T-45 cause I dont fly that bird at all. Also, I didn't design the UpFrontController gauge, FSXNP did. You may want to ask him for help, or he might just help you out after reading your post? I have some knowledge on how his gauges interact/interface with the FSX Hornet but not how they work with the T-45, so either Serge (FSXNP) or some other user here might chime in and help you out.
Later
Sludge
-
tf569, Dino Cattaneo - maker of the Goshawk T-45C - may be able to help, but as his current web page notes he may not answer your question for a few weeks:
http://indiafoxtecho.blogspot.com/2010/09/f-35-update-to-version-115-almost-ready.html
"Since I will leave for few weeks for a businness trip, I've decided to pack the latest improvements I did on the F-35 and release an update before leaving."
http://indiafoxtecho.blogspot.com/
-
Thetford...
Thanks. The mods are alot of fun to work with, even tho it can get frustrating changing values all the time.
OK, for the bad news. I cant help you on Dino's T-45 cause I dont fly that bird at all. Also, I didn't design the UpFrontController gauge, FSXNP did. You may want to ask him for help, or he might just help you out after reading your post? I have some knowledge on how his gauges interact/interface with the FSX Hornet but not how they work with the T-45, so either Serge (FSXNP) or some other user here might chime in and help you out.
Later
Sludge
Spaz,
Yes I check Dino's blog pretty often and knew he was busy so I didn't bother asking him. Luckily he is planning on a new Goshawk release eventually and maybe this will be something that will be in there since he is using the NATOPS manual to design the jet. Sludge thanks for the info. Maybe FSXNP will read this and have some input. I am guessing that there is something in the Goshawk that won't allow the BINGO level to be changed and that's transferring over to the gauge. As far as the LAW sound I was thinking maybe I needed to change the path for the sounds since they were pointed to the F-18 Sound folder and not the T-45. The LAW may have been working I just wasn't hearing the sound for that reason. I'll try that and see...
Brandon
-
Thetford,
Low Altitude warnings should work on Dino's Goshawk provided you've copied Panel/Sound folder to your Goshawk Panel folder. Also there should be dsd_xml_sound3.gau file plced either in Goshawk Panel folder or in FSX main Gauges folder.
Other UFC functionality largely based upon Hornet's model internal variables, not present in Dino's model. That's why you couldn't set Bingo level.
-
Fellas...
Just got done with a major renovation of both effects. I'm hoping to get some more EG Smoke pictures, but Ill post the Hi-G/AoA LEX vapor pics and I think alot of people will be happier with the new stuff.
I should be able to get em out for download to all here, sometime this week.
Later
Sludge
-
I hate to keep nitpicking but to me it looks too transparent. I think our biggest problem is that the vapor is such a dynamic effect in real life and has so many variables, so you can't get it spot on, so I would just stop messing with it here, where it looks pretty good.
-
Sludge,can these be seen from the inboard position.I mean can I see them while sitting in cockpit.?? Thanks :)
-
Raz...
Well, I can make it look even better, so Ill keep trying. I mean, Ive been trying to learn how to 3D model in 3ds and gmax (for obvious reasons) and thats a major undertaking. In the meantime, I may as well just stay with this, as it gives me something to do 'til I get enrolled in the autodesk 3ds courses at the local college. Plus, I know I can definately make it look better... more airy/transparent at the front end, and thicker/smokey near the back.
Skimmer...
I dont think so. Ill recheck when I get home tonite and fly around and see if I can see the effect from inside, but I havent seen it in my test flights, so Im guessing no. Although, it would be really cool if we could.
Later
Sludge
-
I MAY be able do some avionic work, I'm learning Visual Basic 2008 at school and I'm #1 in the class. I don't find it hard really, its just knowing your stuff and problem solving skills combined with knowledge of the coding language. I'm hoping Virtuali gives me an answer if C++/VB.NET can be used, or only C++.
-
I'm pretty sure gauges are only either C++ or XML.
You can make a SimConnect addon in VB.NET, though.
-
You can always convert VB.NET to C++, but that is bound to cause problems.
-
You can always convert VB.NET to C++, but that is bound to cause problems.
Hurrah, a subject I know more about than the local gurus for once. C++ is nothing like Visual Basic, for what it's worth. It's probably the hardest mainstream language to become reasonably competent in, and unequivocably the hardest language to become a guru in. C++ meta-template programming can cause brain damage.
Or, for an aviation-themed metaphor... C++ is to programming as a carrier landing is to general aviation ;-)
Forgot my point. Oh, yeah, I'm a software engineer by trade... This thread has inspired me to put FSX on my dev laptop so I can get acquainted with the SDK whilst I'm on holiday next week.
And how about this for a random offer... I'll donate an hour of C++-FSX-SDK-fu for every critique I get on my recently uploaded FSX/Superbug carrier pattern (it's the best pattern I've flown against my current standards so I'm looking for more experienced folk to rip it to pieces so I can re-set my standards a little higher):
-
Thanks Sludge.
-
Heh if you want to play that game, I noticed two on the first 15 seconds. I'll watch the full video clip later, I have to get going.
- 30 degree rotation after catapult launch
- off speed for the turn and climb
-
Trent...
Glad you have you aboard here. Its been a while since we've had some new blood that actually knows what a decent carrier pattern is and not just flying in a blind circle and slamming the Hornet onto the deck with no idea about glideslope or they are aiming for a 3 wire. Wait for Spaz to give you his grades, I'm definately up for that one.
Raz...
Dont get all carried away on the guy, just give some good critiques and pointers. He's come here in good faith for us to critique on his pattern... which I might say, is a really good effort on his part. Remember, either of us are not the end-all, be-all of carrier patterns either...
Spaz...
Tee it up. I'm definately waiting for your critique. Also, when you are done, can you compare how your critique is from real world against FSX. The usual stuff, 4.0 meatball (FSX) and 35+ kts WoD vs. 3.5 meatball (RW) and 25+ kts WoD. What differences that makes in the pattern (AoB turns, 180 turn RW/180 turn FSX). I mean, of all people, you'd know about the differences... and I think Trent would like to hear the difference from you as well?
Later
Sludge
-
Skimmer...
I didnt see it at all from the VC. I even moved the effect up the nose to just -10.00, so I could see it literally coming off the sides of the radar nose cone, and still couldnt see it in the VC. So I'd have to say no on that one.
Later
Sludge
-
Trent & Sludge, I was hesitant to give any feedback for several reasons. Firstly I do not have nor intend to use the VRS Super Hornet. This forum is about the FSX Accel Hornet with emphasis on the SLUDGE variation because it is so good IMHO. The difference between standard Accel Hornet and 'Sludge' is the difference between usable and unusable. I'll not attempt to explain what has been explained in a lot of threads on this forum about the difference.
However in generalities I can comment [as/if required :-) ] on Trent's request for comment etc. Here goes: Carrier landings are about attempting to achieve perfection and if off the parameters required to get back to them ASAP. Staying close to the required parameters (meatball lineup and airspeed) requires anticipation and not accepting anything other than the parameters are as close as one is able to achieve. I see Trent (with all the caveats from above para about I don't have the VRS etc.) perhaps - and I stress perhaps - remember we are looking at a low quality video at numbers we cannot really see except some big things like? yep meatball lineup and airspeed (Optimum AoA) and we are not in Trent's head. Perhaps Trent can describe if he wishes what he was attempting (or accepting). And I know for a fact it it easy to criticise but that is the request.
Back to the video.... Downwind we see an acceptance of the fast (red chevron). The aircraft needs to be at Optimum Angle of Attack - trimmed - downwind ASAP. Aircraft too long fast and in turn which was good getting on centreline by crossing the wake well. I'll have to count the seconds in the groove because time in the groove may have been not ideal. [Have looked again at video to count from 'wings level' at the start that groove length was a little long at 22 seconds.] Anyway what looks like a good start nevertheless (I'll have to watch again after some hours later trying to remember) seems to stay at about half a ball high for most of the way. Perhaps Trent was trying to get the ball in the middle but he was not making enough control inputs to get there quickly enough and started to go higher in close to get back down for a landing that seems acceptable. Trent did have Opt AoA mostly during the straightaway which was good. Overall a good attempt IMHO with the comment that I think Trent was trying to be 'too smooth' and not flying with enough accuracy perhaps because of trying to be 'too smooth'?
Carrier landings are not civilian / airforce style approaches. When viewed from inside/outside they can look/sound a little rough but what is needed are the three parameters as close to ideal as humanly possible. Nothing else matters. I have seen from the outside A4Gs approaching where the engine smoke is dramatically back and forth but the LSO is OK with that to give a good grade with the nose moving a little but glidepath excellent. That is what it is about - getting the parameters correct and keeping them there despite slight deviations - not accepting any deviation for any time and anticipating when the aircraft might be deviating, to get back to required parameters ASAP. [An old expression is for the pilot 'to be working like a one armed wall paper hanger'.] ;D
How can we know any of this from a low quality video? Not really; but we can get the drift of some of it perhaps. A video alone - without pilot text explanation - leaves too much conjecture on part of the viewer. Anyway take the criticism as not directed at Trent individually but as an example of what is required for carrier landings: precision with the pilot's best attempt at getting there and staying there.
Did I say it ain't easy? Personally I would not claim such precision but by golly I'm trying to get there and to stay there as best I can. Probably my worst A4G carrier landing flaw (amongst everything imaginable) in retrospect would be my 'attempt' to be smooth, at the expense of better accuracy. On reflection (and after seeing others in the real world from the outside) I should have been willing to be more accurate and less smooth - if that makes any sense.
In FSX we are lucky that we can do endless carrier landings that we can walk away from. Soon more FSX FCLP missions will be available, which is where one is more likely to perfect techniques that will work during carrier landings. Carrier landings require precision and regular practice for sure.
Just to encourage people to use the SLUDGE Hornet (rather than default) will help them a lot to do better carrier landings. I have read comments suggesting that the VRS SuperBug is a framerate killer and if this impacts on aircraft handling 'reality' (unknown to me) then this is never a good thing.
-
Spaz...
Damn, you really cut loose. Guess its been a while since you've had something legit to "grade", eh? Anyway, in your comments, you wrote about the red chevron "getting on AoA"... what is the rationale behind it? Ive heard the other way to stay at 150 kts to maintain separation in the pattern but have also heard in Case I patterns, your intervals will keep you separated, so your job is maintain optimum AoA throughout the pattern into the approach. In other words, Ive heard rationale for both, and hoping you can clarify 'cause I fly an amber donut from establishing the downwind all the way into the wires.
Also, thanks for commenting on Trent even tho its not the Sludge. The biggest difference with the VRS Bug is its "lighter" on approach. It can fly a 4.0 glideslope at 73 pct N2, which is about 12-15 pct less than the NATOPS listed 85-88 percent. Meaning you're noticeably lower on the throttle position, and might've contributed to Trent being high throughout the pass? Food for thought.
And you talked about the quality of the video. Did you watch the 720p version of the video? Im at work now, but unless Im mistaken, he also recorded it in 720p? And I know the video window was a bit smaller, but I didnt have trouble reading it. Just curious if it was that bad for you?
Later
Sludge
-
Sludge, I take it that you take it that criticism for Trent was not personal. I tried to generalise using his video as an example. The video was saved in .MP4 format which is usually the highest quality, being small made details more difficult to see. I guess in a backhanded way I was hankering after a NEW HUD seethrough that would show better detail probably. Anyway that was not the point as I concentrated on the basics only - meatball, lineup and airspeed.
Possibly the different downwind methods may be due to different NATOPS advice either in text or in the carrier pattern or FCLP graphics for Hornet / Super Hornet (I have not checked this yet). This is why it is nice to have one aircraft type on forum but I can live with any minor differences. My thinking is that it makes sense to be trimmed at Opt AoA downwind - ready to land - because that is one less thing to worry about turning base & flying the ball, although minor retrimming is needed due to power down for slight descent. Some pilots fly with slight out of vertical trim condition claiming that it is better to be fighting either a nose up or nose down trim condition which in an A-4 means something perhaps. Don't know about other aircraft though nowadays with flybywire probably OK to be completely trimmed.
Flying at a set speed downwind (150?) may be dangerous if the aircraft is heavy. Early A-4s did not have an AoA indexer using a set speed (probably plus/minus a few knots) which got their delta wing during base turn into trouble losing some stalling into the ocean, especially when heavy. There was a 'DUH moment' when this was realised with the AoA indexer and Optimum AoA being used instead, not being sure at moment if this was entirely due to Early A-4 &/or the other USN aircraft at that time. Anyway Opt AoA proved to be the winner it is today.
The other day the 4.4GB PDF about A4Gs was uploaded in smaller segments with the front part at 1GB having all the info about 'how to deck land' (plus bits about NAS Nowra and stuff). I was thinking to make a 'how to carrier land' PDF out of the material but it is not / will not be specifically for that purpose here as such because it is only background info for those not familiar with NavAv, to help explain what they see the A4G doing in the PDF embedded videos. Probably too much info but it interests me anyway. Below is the FCLP advice for the Hornet from NATOPS with text describing 'how to' with more NATOPS to follow. Now with Hornet NATOPS carrier landing circuit diagram included below.
-
Interestingly here is the advice from the VRS SuperBug Manual (freely available via download): (13.7Mb)
http://www.vrsimulations.com/documentation/VRS_SuperbugXV2.zip
"...Pattern Entry
"A normal break is performed by executing a level turn to downwind with the throttles reduced to IDLE and the speedbrake function enabled (if required to reduce airspeed).
[ ] Speedbrake EXTEND (if required)
[ ] Airspeed 250 KCAS
[ ] FLAP switch FULL
[ ] LANDING GEAR lever DOWN
Downwind leg -
The desired abeam distance is 1.1 to 1.4 nm. The g-level required to achieve the desired abeam distance will be a fallout of break airspeed.
Trim the aircraft hands-off and on-speed. Compare airspeed and AOA.
Onspeed AOA is approximately 136 KCAS at 44,000 lb gross weight (max trap). Subtract (add) 1½ KCAS for each 1,000 lb decrease (increase) in gross weight. Complete the landing checklist. When wings level on downwind, descend to pattern altitude (600 ft AGL for the low pattern). Ensure the ground track pointer is on the exact reciprocal of runway heading.
To assist in achieving the desired abeam distance of 1.1 to 1.4 nm, select the 10 nm scale on the HSI display. Select ship’s TCN and adjust the course line to the BRC. On downwind fly to place the wingtip of the HSI airplane symbol on the course line. Ensure the ground track pointer
is on the exact reciprocal of the BRC. Select ILS if desired and available.
[ ] Altitude 600 FT (RALT)
[ ] LDG checklist (CHK page) COMPLETE
[ ] Airspeed ON SPEED
[ ] ILS TUNED/ON (if desired)
[ ] TCN steering TUNED/ON (if desired)
[ ] ATC ENGAGE (if desired)
Approach auto throttle (ATC) may be engaged if desired. Approach autothrottle, available in PA mode, will attempt to capture and maintain proper landing AoA (8.1°) regardless of GW or attitude.
WARNING
Approach auto throttle is not designed to operate in aggressive maneuvering flight. Aggressive attitude changes cannot be countered quickly enough for predictable and consistent speed adjustments."
The manual then goes on to describe a 'velocity vector' approach without reference to the basic 'meatball, line up and airspeed' method. One may not agree with basic approach method but it does get you there better IMHO. However I cannot comment because I don't have/use the Bug of Much Superness. ;D
Even though is babble about using the VelocityVector there is good info about AoA in same PDF as shown here below.
-
Spaz...
Oh yeah, definately not personal. I just meant you jumped right into it with some gusto, which is what I was hoping. No worries about the video though, I was asking if it was that bad for you. I agree I dont care for that HUD (too overdone, thick lines) either and the cockpit is setup for the wrong default eyepoint, as if its done from a child sitting in the seat looking up. The HUD glass damn near touches the top bow of the canopy frame. Thats a common problem, as even the default and Sludge Hornets are too low in their eyepoints. If we can ever get a collimated HUD, this error will get fixed. And I'm still trying to get that accomplished.
And basically, I just wanted your take on flying most of the pattern on-AoA, since Ive heard both sides of the argument. I know it can be done both ways in FSX using the Sludge Hornet, but I fly the on-AoA method from establishing on the downwind to the wires. I think Ill keep doing that. Also, another good pull from VRS site, that basically confirms what you were saying about flying the pattern on-AoA. I think the VRS manual takes alot of it from a mid 2000s SuperBug NATOPS, so we can go with that. Also, good legacy NATOPS pulls.
Good debrief on the pattern and pass tho...
Later
Sludge
-
Sludge, the graphic in my last was posted at same time you posted. It is probably easier on forum members if only one aircraft (Legacy Hornet as seen in either Default or Sludge guise) is referenced IMHO. I was looking for Super Hornet NATOPS info to refind the excellent SuperBuggie AoA info instead. More later.... Super Hornet FenA18Eef NATOPS carrier landing diagram below. 'On Speed' = Optimum Angle of Attack.
Next graphic with text with carrier landing advice is from Super Hornet NATOPS also. As always it refers to FCLP advice which will follow... Hmmm both Legacy & Super Hornet NATOPS have scant advice about FCLP (although it is always referenced for carrier landings) but have Field Landing advice (without landing aids such as FLOLS etc.) with the Field Landing graphic saying 'use FLOLS' if available. Anyway the Super Carrier Landing advice earlier is current more or less for both.
-
Spaz...
Yeah, maybe FCLPs are one of those subjects thats briefed in real world more than discussed in NATOPS? Who knows? Again, good pulls, and it seems the Bug and the Legacy have more similarity than not, with the exception of slower landing speeds in general for the Bug.
Later
Sludge
-
Yeah NATOPS can be a 'hit & miss' publication for a lot of things one would think would be there - with a lot of tech stuff that puts one to sleep (otherwise known as 'the little [or big] blue sleeping pill' in the USN). The good stuff are emergencies and what to do etc.
-
While we're on the topic of the G-Vapor, I found something intresting. There was an extremely weak vapor at the high alpha, so maybe our logic for activating still isn't spot on?
[ Invalid YouTube link ]
Watch at 5:00
-
Raz...
Thanks bud!! Really good video that just gave me an idea, about multiple vapors. Right now, I'm gonna use 4.5/8.5 for a baseline. Watch from :57 on, when he get about 4.5, the vapor look similar to what I have now. Then go to 7:10, and watch how big the vapor is during higher G pulls. I got the "lo" part of the Hi-G/alpha along with a good logic for the same effect you saw, but with less transparency... and I'm using the numbers 4.5 G/8.5 alpha for its starting point.
Here's the kicker. As a test, I'm making a 2nd separate/co-functioning gauge that will now enable at 6.5 G/10 alpha, that looks more puffy and thicker. As Ive noticed the harder the G pull, the bigger the vapor gets behind the LEX and onto the blended area. Im gonna start with using the old gauge to over lap and plug in the new numbers just to test the theory.
When its done, in theory, it should work like this... 1. At 4.5 G/8.5, the first gauge starts and I get "lesser" vapor I have now. 2. Keep pulling past 6.5/10 alpha and the 2nd gauge kicks in and makes a thicker, longer, puffier vapor.
Will let you know the results.
Later
Sludge
-
That is what I was thinking, but my idea is more complex. At different Alpha/G combinations (pre-set in the XML), a different vapor shows. It has about 5-10 stages and they blend together seamlessly in the air.
-
You can always convert VB.NET to C++, but that is bound to cause problems.
Hurrah, a subject I know more about than the local gurus for once. C++ is nothing like Visual Basic, for what it's worth. It's probably the hardest mainstream language to become reasonably competent in, and unequivocably the hardest language to become a guru in. C++ meta-template programming can cause brain damage.
Or, for an aviation-themed metaphor... C++ is to programming as a carrier landing is to general aviation ;-)
Forgot my point. Oh, yeah, I'm a software engineer by trade... This thread has inspired me to put FSX on my dev laptop so I can get acquainted with the SDK whilst I'm on holiday next week.
And how about this for a random offer... I'll donate an hour of C++-FSX-SDK-fu for every critique I get on my recently uploaded FSX/Superbug carrier pattern (it's the best pattern I've flown against my current standards so I'm looking for more experienced folk to rip it to pieces so I can re-set my standards a little higher):
Trent,
Is your video based on a mission? I noticed after your carrier landing you got a verbal LSO grade. How did you get that?
-
Top gun sim missions.
-
Raz...
Well, I stayed up and worked on the vapor effect again. Check out these pics. Also, using the lesser smoke...
Now if I can use that old vapor file for the hi-AOA/hi-humidity vapor that shows up during hi-alpha stuff when its humid out, I think that would be a good start. And then toning down the original BIG, POOFY vapor for the really HI-G pulls, that would work great.
Later
Sludge
Enjoy.
-
This LEX vapor looks much better.
-
Raz...
Now that this looks good, Im gonna try to put it in the [Smoke] section where it belongs, using the techniques I found from FSDeveloper site. I think VooDoo was involved in that too and put out a "made for dummies" (like me) gauge that lets people plug in their own effects. All I have to do is make a hybrid gauge that has the G vapor activation/shutdown numbers along with the engine smoke stuff as well and see if I can get it running.
Later
Sludge
-
Orion...
Thanks for the "nudging" to get me to see the light, in regards to moving the G vapor effect to the [smoke] section. I know I can be slow to see an idea, but you gave it enough time so that I could finally get it thru my skull that we need to put all the effects in the smoke section and have it controlled by ONE.xml gauge.
Thanks.
Sludge
-
Fellas...
Here's an update on the G vapor with good and bad news. First the good. The one gauge controlling effects from the [smoke] section is a great success. It worked just fine, and is very easy to code.
Now the bad. Even tho the smoke works fine, for some reason, the G vapor "clips off" when moving the viewpoint to behind the aircraft center mass. The clips should show the difference.
If anybody has any ideas, please fire them my way.
Later
Sludge
-
This happened in FS9 a lot. No clue what causes it. Maybe a post over at FS Developer may help?
-
Great news Fellas...
Problem SOLVED!! Got the G Vapor working from all angles and even shows up a little bit at night.
OK, all I did was unknowingly take a page outta VooDoo's book of magic. I made a dummy emitter/particle (emitter.0 - LIGHT=1;particle.0 xyz scale=0.05,0.05,0.20;color start/end=75,75,75,0) as the final emitter/particle and placed it in aircraft center so it doesnt affect anything else while emitting. Since it has the LIGHT=1, it gives the whole effect predence in viewing at all angles and that makes it show up ALL THE TIME.
Gotta get back to work.
Later
Sludge
-
Cool, glad it's finally in the smoke system section (where it always should have been :P), and also glad that it's starting to look better ;D.
-
Orion...
Yeah, I know. Took me a while to get it thru my skull and start experimenting with .XMLs but now that I've taken the plunge its really not that hard. I think its done a different way than what you originally thought... as I had to read up on FSDeveloper.com site to get the skinny on how to make the individual smokes come on. Also, the parameters arent as configureable as before, at least to my limited knowledge... the parameters I had installed in the old gauge didn't follow the light activation parameters of: "more than AoA" AND "higher than G" AND "less than 30k". I only took one parameter, so I used the baseline G force. Either way, I'll still take it tho, as it simplifies alot of the effects. Plus, I can do multiple effects with one gauge and all under the smoke system. Serge should probly re-write the ALA lights for the smoke system... it can be done.
Skimmer...
BTW, I figured out, if you do the "wing clipping" fix from FSX Blue Angels, you can see the vapor from inside the cockpit. Its real easy, if youre comfy modding your Cameras.CFG (back it up first), open it, and in the "cockpit" and "virtual cockpit" sections there is a setting called CLIPMODE=, change it to "Minimum". Now youll be able to see the vapor from inside the cockpit.
Although I wouldnt recommend it as the effect looks like a buncha smokey cloud puffs that close... just loses its beauty up close.
Later
Sludge
-
You all do realize that with this we can add guns/flares and have even more steps towards combat? Just visual effects, but all add coolness.
-
You all do realize that with this we can add guns/flares and have even more steps towards combat? Just visual effects, but all add coolness.
Sludge/Razgriz,
Dunno, if this is the correct thread to post this, but, I have already tried the Gun/Rocket effects on the default F/A-18 and they work quite cool. I had taken the effects from another aircraft (Cobra heptr, I think, but am not sure now) and then added them to the effect folder in FSX.
Then I had linked the Gun firing to landing light, and rocket firing to smoke in the aircraft.cfg. A little bit of tweaking to find the correct attach points, and voila I had them working.
The guns effects would show up as tracer fire balls which would fire from both sides of aircraft nose and would be visible up to 1.5 nm or so. If you shot them on ground, the fire balls would be visible on ground too. Ditto with the rockets.
I still have the modded cfg file with me, if you guys need it.
The beauty of the setup was, if you were in multiplayer session, and your partner had the same cfg as you, both of you would see the effects.
This mod was a great help, while we trained for dog fights and stuff.
The only draw back we faced was when someone else came into the session, and his cfg file wasn't modded. In such cases, sometime the effects would reverse. I mean, while your guns (landing light) would be off, but the other person would see them as 'guns firing', and this would get distracting sometimes (when we were not doing ACM training, for example).
Just thought, I must share this with you guys.
-
Raz...
"You all"?! Since when did you start talking like an Okie? Hehe.
Seriously, yeah, thats coming. The first I would like to do is the beauty "chaff/flare" combos. With a higher rate (5 quick p/button push), better ejection profile (left/right low and out) and a launch sound (micro "thumps") than the VRS version. Not so much worried about the "combat" but still cant wait to work on these effects.
This success also means the "hybrid" smoke/shimmer is coming. Ill probly make the "shimmer" more clear alpha channeled and less emitted particle rate than it currently is written. Is that cool Voodoo? Always gotta keep the frame rates low.
Here's what I want the flares to look and SOUND like, watch from 5:45, you'll see what I mean.
Mickey...
Yes, this is the correct thread to post as all the modifications I do will go into the next Sludge Hornet (v1.2) that I put out there.
Dont worry, once I get the "chaff/flare" combo effect done, Ill get to work on guns. Here's the kicker tho, as Orion correctly showed me. Once they are controlled by the [smoke] section, the problems you talked about with other users not having the effect will stop. You can still do what you want but they just wont have it... or it will show up to THEM as something else (maybe default smoke?).
Also, I'm pretty sure you can do lights or ANY EFFECT YOU WANT in the [smoke] section. You just have to call on it slightly different than the [lights] section, and since it's now in the [smoke] section, as the .fx effects file might have to include the LIGHT=1 in one of the particles to get display preference. Once you get the hang of it, its very straightforward and, God forbid ME saying this, easy. It can be controlled with ONE .XML gauge (if one desires) and simply start the numbering on the [smoke] section as .1, then youll have a total of 99 possible effects.
Later
Sludge
-
To all...
Does anyone know the how to pull humidity or relative humidity in an .XML call? I tried (A:RELATIVE HUMIDITY,percent) and it didn't work. Anybody else run across what humidity is called?
Serge...
Do you care if I put your ALA effects into the [smoke] section, or are you already doing that now?
Thanks
Sludge
-
Sludge,
Does anyone know the how to pull humidity or relative humidity in an .XML call? I tried (A:RELATIVE HUMIDITY,percent) and it didn't work. Anybody else run across what humidity is called?
In SDK under Simulation Variables/Aircraft Environment Data there are following variables:
AMBIENT DENSITY Slugs per cubic feet
AMBIENT TEMPERATURE Celsius
AMBIENT PRESSURE Inches of mercury, inHg
Do you care if I put your ALA effects into the [smoke] section?
Yes, you're welcome. ;D
-
Serge...
Now can/does FSX simulate humidity/relative humidity? I know it does temp and dew point, so I'm guessing Maybe I'm just reaching on this one? The reason Im asking is that one of the effects will be humidity vapor while in landing config. (</- 6K' AGL, high humidity?,landing alpha,flaps); it'll be thin micro-vapor that occurs when the air is saturated and not having to pull Gs or high alpha. You often see this on airlines, over the wing, when landing in humid "muggy" conditions, and can see it in that video Raz posted about our "vapor logic".
And thanks, Ill get to work on putting the ALA in the [smoke] section. I was thinking about using common effects for the lights, but on second thought the only ones that will have it will be Sludge Hornet users anyway, so Ill stick to using your lights. Also, a possible side-effect fix might getting rid of the lights sometimes activating when the gear is retracted? As it does now if used in the lights section.
Later
Sludge
-
Orion...
I got all the modifiers to work, just forgot add the ";& ;&" on the subsequent exceptions and they work like a champ. So its pretty much just like before and I can give the G Vapor or any other effect a baseline activation (ie, G force = 4.5) with the exceptions (only 180 KIAS/higher or 25k' baro/lower) and those exceptions stick just like before.
Later
Sludge
-
Now can/does FSX simulate humidity/relative humidity? I know it does temp and dew point, so I'm guessing Maybe I'm just reaching on this one?
Will this http://www.ehow.com/how_5619620_calculate-humidity-temperature-dew-point.html (http://www.ehow.com/how_5619620_calculate-humidity-temperature-dew-point.html) help?
-
Serge...
Thanks, will see what I can do. I guess what I was asking is "will it matter"? Does FSX even account for humidity? Or does it's weather system just have temp and dew point and not do anything with them?
Also, I moved the ALA to the [smoke] section. Works great, and so far, no extraneous lighting when the gear is raised.
Later
Sludge
-
Sludge,
here are some comments, found on forums, regarding dew/humidity issue:
If we could only teach FSX about humidity, the water vapor (vapour) clouds would take care of themselves.
Alas, MSFS doesn't incorporate relative humidity.
...the MSFS engine doesn't model humidity..
etc.
However you can use SimConnect to set/get weather conditions, based on Metar format, which includes temperature/dewpoint section.
-
Sludge,
Regarding the heat shimmer/dirty exhaust effect for the engines, I was flying around the other day with the fuel dumps on with the sludge hornet, check out the pictures below where the fuel looks like very faint exhaust effect. I think this effect looks pretty decent, just needs to be moved from the rudder fuel dump ports to the engine outlets. What do you guys think of the look of the fuel dump effect? Can this effect be made to be on at all times (no fuel dumping) and in the correct location (engines)?
-Capt
(http://i914.photobucket.com/albums/ac350/bhaltli/2010-9-24_10-19-30-62Large.jpg)
(http://i914.photobucket.com/albums/ac350/bhaltli/2010-9-24_10-24-2-656Large.jpg)
(http://i914.photobucket.com/albums/ac350/bhaltli/2010-9-24_10-20-33-515Large.jpg)
(http://i914.photobucket.com/albums/ac350/bhaltli/2010-9-24_10-20-48-281Large.jpg)
(http://i914.photobucket.com/albums/ac350/bhaltli/2010-9-24_10-21-16-46Large.jpg)
-
I think its way too fine and small to be engine exhaust.
-
Heh if you want to play that game, I noticed two on the first 15 seconds. I'll watch the full video clip later, I have to get going.
- 30 degree rotation after catapult launch
Yup, that's definitely an area for improvement ;-) Reason behind the wildly aggressive climbout is that I simply had that as my game plan post cat launch (arbitrarily try to level exactly at 150knts and 600ft). Or, put differently, no-one had schooled me in post-cat launch etiquette prior to recording that trap ;-)
- off speed for the turn and climb
Now *that* I'm a little surprised with. Where's it say you need to be on-speed *that* early in the pattern? (Serious question, not trying to be argumentative for the sake of it. Is it in NATOPS and I just missed it or something?)
Assuming you're the same Razgriz as in the VRS forum... heh... the 150knts @ 600ft came from Deacon. He mentioned on numerous occasions that maintaining 150knts in the pattern (i.e. mainly downwind) was far more important that trying to stay on-speed in order to maintain spacing (otherwise there would be lots of different closure rates between each aircraft if everyone flew on-speed).
Now, that being said, just about everything else I've read, including NATOPS bits that come with the VRS documentation... all alludes to getting on-speed much earlier, basically as soon as you level wings after turn to downwind you should be trimming and adjusting power for hands off on-speed flight.
I'm sticking to 150knts @ 600 now 'cause it's a bit easier ;-)
-
Perhaps Trent was trying to get the ball in the middle but he was not making enough control inputs to get there quickly enough and started to go higher in close to get back down for a landing that seems acceptable. Trent did have Opt AoA mostly during the straightaway which was good. Overall a good attempt IMHO with the comment that I think Trent was trying to be 'too smooth' and not flying with enough accuracy perhaps because of trying to be 'too smooth'?
Man, you know what, that's some awesome feedback. You absolutely nailed it -- I was completely consumed with trying to be smooth from right about the time I got on-speed around the 90 'til I trapped. It was subconscious, too -- I didn't even know I was doing it until reading your comment. Because trying to be smooth took over everything else, accuracy suffered. Granted, not by a huge degree, it was still a 3 wire with pretty decent AoA, lineup and GS, but I definitely understand how I let the subconscious drive for smoothness prevent me from making small corrections along the way (which would have resulted in a less aesthetically pleasing approach, and hey, I was recording it (and the 50+ traps before it), which was probably the biggest catalyst in trying to make it smooth).
Amusingly, had you just left this comment regarding smoothness, I would have come back and questioned whether that meant an untidy (relative) yet accurate pattern would be preferable to a silky-smooth looking yet not-so-accurate one?
....which just happens to be the perfect segue into this enlightening next comment ;-)
Carrier landings are not civilian / airforce style approaches. When viewed from inside/outside they can look/sound a little rough but what is needed are the three parameters as close to ideal as humanly possible. Nothing else matters. I have seen from the outside A4Gs approaching where the engine smoke is dramatically back and forth but the LSO is OK with that to give a good grade with the nose moving a little but glidepath excellent. That is what it is about - getting the parameters correct and keeping them there despite slight deviations - not accepting any deviation for any time and anticipating when the aircraft might be deviating, to get back to required parameters ASAP.
Haha, I can see why Sludge was anticipating your feedback. That is a frickin' big dose of mind-altering enlightenment. Prior to now, I've always assumed the almighty 'OK, 3' would be reserved for only the smoothest, silkiest approaches. I've also watched about a billion real-life carrier traps on youtube and whatnot and, recently, have been quite surprised with how... uhhhh... aesthetically-displeasing some (most?) of the approaches (wings level on final to trap) have been. Huge (immediate) corrections, massive (transient) stabilator/aileron deflections, basically... anything but pretty. Here's a perfect example of what I'm refering to at 5:41:
Prior to reading your feedback, I wouldn't have classed that as pretty or silky-smooth. I was surprised to see how big some of the corrections were... especially right before trapping (huge control surface deflections). But, after reading your feedback, it sounds like in real life, traps like that are the norm. That pilot was prioritising accuracy over all else, and as soon the approach parameters deviated from an acceptable level, corrections were immediately made. I think he ended up with a 3 wire trap, too.
Now, as to all this focus on aesthetically-pleasing, silky-smooth-over-all-else patterns. I think I know what's to blame ;-)
http://vimeo.com/2950519 (http://vimeo.com/2950519) (wish there was a youtube posting of this video so I could embed it)
I came across that video ages ago, and it was my first introduction into what a carrier pattern, approach and trap should look like. It's a pretty frickin' good movie. The information in it is invaluable, and it's presented by someone who clearly knows what he's talking about. However, all the patterns flown in that video are absolutely impeccable. The pattern and trap shown between 0:30-1:00 is pure sex -- I can't imagine how you'd get a smoother approach and trap than that. Unfortunately, that video makes it look too easy for it's own good -- flying an approach *that* smooth is frickin' hard, if not completely and utterly impossible for someone just starting out.
So, factoring in your comments, I have an even greater appreciation for that first pattern (which is so smooth because next to no corrections need to be made, not because the pilot opts for smoothness over accuracy). I kinda' get the feeling that maybe 1 in every 50 (100?) real-life patterns/traps would come together that perfectly, where every parameter is so on-the-ball for the entire duration that next to no corrections need to be made. OK 3, UNDERLINED?
How can we know any of this from a low quality video? Not really; but we can get the drift of some of it perhaps. A video alone - without pilot text explanation - leaves too much conjecture on part of the viewer. Anyway take the criticism as not directed at Trent individually but as an example of what is required for carrier landings: precision with the pilot's best attempt at getting there and staying there.
Did I say it ain't easy? Personally I would not claim such precision but by golly I'm trying to get there and to stay there as best I can. Probably my worst A4G carrier landing flaw (amongst everything imaginable) in retrospect would be my 'attempt' to be smooth, at the expense of better accuracy. On reflection (and after seeing others in the real world from the outside) I should have been willing to be more accurate and less smooth - if that makes any sense.
In FSX we are lucky that we can do endless carrier landings that we can walk away from. Soon more FSX FCLP missions will be available, which is where one is more likely to perfect techniques that will work during carrier landings. Carrier landings require precision and regular practice for sure.
Fantastic feedback, really. It's amazing how enlightening the advice is from people who have actually been there, done that in real life ;-) Greatly appreciate it! I look forward to putting it into practice ASAP.
Just to encourage people to use the SLUDGE Hornet (rather than default) will help them a lot to do better carrier landings. I have read comments suggesting that the VRS SuperBug is a framerate killer and if this impacts on aircraft handling 'reality' (unknown to me) then this is never a good thing.
Yeah, I'll give you that, the Superbug is pretty CPU intensive, and thus, it can be a framerate killer in certain circumstances. There are lots of little things you can do (settings wise) to improve things though. When I'm practicing carrier traps over and over in the Superbug, I've found some settings that get me a consistent ~30-35fps @ 1920x1080 with no major reduction in virtual cockpit quality. (Fraps will rip that to pieces though... best I can get is half-sized 24 fps.)
And just as a final note, I have nothing against the Sludge Hornet -- I even spent a few hours trying it out for the first time this evening (many more to come) and really enjoyed it over the stock Hornet. The fly-by-wire system the VRS guys have implemented for the Superbug is fantastic though -- it's amazing how much enjoyable carrier patterns are without the need to constantly trim for level flight (Superbug will maintain level 1g flight when hands are off controls). I couldn't believe how much of my attention span had to be devoted to trimming when I took the Sludge & stock Hornet out for a few laps.
Actually, I'll go as far as saying that the Superbug has ruined flying for me in non-FBW aircraft that require trimming, both in real-life and in FSX ;-)
-
trent, 'OK 3 wire' is the best all round explanation of carrier landing & FCLP that I have seen - sadly it is not done with the SLUDGE Hornet. Sludge hisself has made an excellent series of 'how to carrier land' clips in FSX, they may well be in this thread, or a recent one. However it is always difficult to see detail in enough detail just from a video clip. One has to be there - if all we have are videos then that is what we have.
Practice Practice Practice. Meatball, Lineup & Airspeed. Soon more FCLP missions will become available with a total darkness session that will prove to be more than difficult for most. However the FCLP can start during daytime and successive missions will be in darker times around sunset to ease into the total dark FCLP session. More can be said about FCLP when these missions become available.
Probably the most difficult scenario is carrier landing in FSX; while people attempt it before knowing much about how to go about it, or doing any FCLP beforehand. If that means some will not attempt further carrier landings then that is a pity. Having the SLUDGE Hornet to carrier land/FCLP makes a huge difference (all the extras such as the new clear HUD are included in latest SLUDGE). I cannot stress how much easier it is to do NavAv with this aircraft. All this has been explained in numerous threads. All involved with making the SLUDGE work 'oughta be congratulated'. ;D
If one keeps in mind that if you are not making corrections or anticipating making a correction in the next millisecond then something is wrong. However depending on the setup [Large Screen, Fast Computer/Video Card etc.] one has for FSX it can be very difficult to see enough detail during an approach. So be it - do your best - always strive for the best you can achieve on any approach. And Practice Practice Practice. Carrier Landings and FCLP should never be boring.
New carrier pilots do something in the order of 80-100 'bounces' (FCLP landings) mostly at night before going near a carrier for the first time. The 1,000 trap deck lander seen in the video above has probably done as many (a wild guess) 'bounces' (graded also by an LSO) over that time. Bear in mind if a pilot is not current for deck landing he needs to be requalified (with many bounces beforehand). Night FCLP will get your heart rate up. ;D And it will be obvious why night carrier landings are not done via a circuit but by some kind of gentle instrument approach. These are only my opinions, and I don't fly other aircraft in FSX except the T-45C Goshawk by Dino (sometimes) and other reasonable NavAv aircraft (where realism often is not very good).
One comment about control movements is that like formation flying (one never hits the the leader) the pilot does what it takes (within reason) to stay on meatball lineup and airspeed. NavAv aircraft are especially controllable in the approach configuration (with the F-14 probably being the least of recent USN aircraft). It is instructive to realise how the F-35C was modified especially to be a better carrier landing aircraft - to not only fly slow enough but be very responsive at that slow speed. LSOs can comment on 'over controlling' so there are limits. Probably anticipating the next change and then anticipating the correction etc. is the key once your eye is used to seeing the ball accurately. Whatever. :D
-
trent, 'OK 3 wire' is the best all round explanation of carrier landing & FCLP that I have seen - sadly it is not done with the SLUDGE Hornet. Sludge hisself has made an excellent series of 'how to carrier land' clips in FSX, they may well be in this thread, or a recent one. However it is always difficult to see detail in enough detail just from a video clip. One has to be there - if all we have are videos then that is what we have.
Yeah the infamous Mr. fgrimley32 pointed me towards his videos on youtube (before I'd worked out that he was Sludge). They're very good. The most recent carrier pattern he uploaded is significantly better than mine in numerous places.
Probably the most difficult scenario is carrier landing in FSX; while people attempt it before knowing much about how to go about it, or doing any FCLP beforehand. If that means some will not attempt further carrier landings then that is a pity. Having the SLUDGE Hornet to carrier land/FCLP makes a huge difference (all the extras such as the new clear HUD are included in latest SLUDGE). I cannot stress how much easier it is to do NavAv with this aircraft. All this has been explained in numerous threads. All involved with making the SLUDGE work 'oughta be congratulated'. ;D
Heh, you should try the Superbug. It's just as dreamy to fly, without the need to trim ;-) You'd be surprised how liberating it is to not have to devote essential brain cycles to trimming (and wrestling with incorrect trim choices when your bucket's too full to re-trim (final roll-out to trap)), which of course is especially evident in carrier patterns.
If one keeps in mind that if you are not making corrections or anticipating making a correction in the next millisecond then something is wrong.
Ahh! Yet more golden nuggets of reaffirmation. I haven't heard anyone state it like that before, but thinking back on the past 200+ traps I've flown, you're spot on (again). Kinda' makes me think of the ol' "step-on-the-rudders" wiggle move you do with your feet when you're on finals in a taildragger, just to make sure your brain and feet are ready to work together as quickly as possible in order to counter any out-of-parameter situations. With a carrier landing, you just get fed a whole lot more out-of-parameter situations a whole lot quicker ;-)
However depending on the setup [Large Screen, Fast Computer/Video Card etc.] one has for FSX it can be very difficult to see enough detail during an approach. So be it - do your best - always strive for the best you can achieve on any approach. And Practice Practice Practice. Carrier Landings and FCLP should never be boring.
I quite like my setup ;-)
(http://wind.teleri.net/~trent/cockpit.jpg)
Track IR 5 + 48" 1080p + a ghetto-rigged HOTAS-PlaySeat (plus a pretty decent machine) makes for some fun carrier patterns.
New carrier pilots do something in the order of 80-100 'bounces' (FCLP landings) mostly at night before going near a carrier for the first time. The 1,000 trap deck lander seen in the video above has probably done as many (a wild guess) 'bounces' (graded also by an LSO) over that time. Bear in mind if a pilot is not current for deck landing he needs to be requalified (with many bounces beforehand). Night FCLP will get your heart rate up. ;D And it will be obvious why night carrier landings are not done via a circuit but by some kind of gentle instrument approach.
Have you seen Speed and Angels? It's freely available on hulu.com if you're in the States ;-) There's a section in it that covers night CQ'ing done by two Tomcat nuggets -- very interesting. And yeah, I was wondering why they had such a cruisey night approach ;-) (800 ft at 5 mile, gentle glide all the way in.)
These are only my opinions, and I don't fly other aircraft in FSX except the T-45C Goshawk by Dino (sometimes) and other reasonable NavAv aircraft (where realism often is not very good).
I can think of one other NavAv aircraft you'd like ;-)
One comment about control movements is that like formation flying (one never hits the the leader) the pilot does what it takes (within reason) to stay on meatball lineup and airspeed. NavAv aircraft are especially controllable in the approach configuration (with the F-14 probably being the least of recent USN aircraft). It is instructive to realise how the F-35C was modified especially to be a better carrier landing aircraft - to not only fly slow enough but be very responsive at that slow speed. LSOs can comment on 'over controlling' so there are limits. Probably anticipating the next change and then anticipating the correction etc. is the key once your eye is used to seeing the ball accurately. Whatever. :D
Nod, I was aware that Hornet's are well-renowned for their excellent handling at high alpha. (I think it was Sludge who posted some awesome links earlier in this thread that had some History/Military channel covering DACT between Navy Hornets and German Mig-29s. In debrief the Germans were well impressed with the Hornet's slow speed, high alpha maneuverability (and the Yanks with the Mig's crazy ballistic thrust-to-weight).)
Thanks again for the feedback and insight, you've unleashed a couple more gems for me to mull over...
(Anyone else think we're overdue for some regularly scheduled SFCarrier2 MP sessions? I vaguely recall Razgriz mentioning that it was pretty common Saturday occurrence in the past...)
-
Back to the video.... Downwind we see an acceptance of the fast (red chevron). The aircraft needs to be at Optimum Angle of Attack - trimmed - downwind ASAP. Aircraft too long fast and in turn which was good getting on centreline by crossing the wake well. I'll have to count the seconds in the groove because time in the groove may have been not ideal. [Have looked again at video to count from 'wings level' at the start that groove length was a little long at 22 seconds.]
Yeah this is definitely an area I'm not happy with... I'm yet to find the holy grail of abeam distance, turn rate/AOB, speed, descent rate, TCN distance to be able to consistently roll out wings level at 3/4 mile, tracking centerline, and on glidescope. I find it easier to delay the turn to final a bit (as in that video... I think I was abeam at 1.1 and waited 'til 1.2-1.3 miles TCN before turning in)... or rather, when I delay the turn a bit, I find it a lot easier to roll wings level on centerline. Unfortunately, when I do that, I end up way, way too long in the groove.
If I try tighten things up a bit in order to get my time in groove down to a more acceptable level, everything else goes to shite. I'll either roll out and be on glidescope, but not even remotely close to centerline, or will be tracking centerline but be wildly off-speed and/or off glidescope.
I kinda' feel like (at least partially) blaming the 4.0 FSX glidescope versus the 3.5 RL issue here. All the NATOPS docs and whatnot have precise guidelines on ideal abeam distance, AOB, descent rate and VV placement throughout the entire turn from downwind to final, altitude checkpoints at 90 (450ft), etc. I'm sure there's a magic set of CV BRC + wind strength + wind orientation settings in FSX that would allow for the NATOPS guidance to work, but I have nfi what they are. If I knew that, though, I'd be able to set myself consistent abeam distance + AOB + 90 checkpoint altitude + roll-out altitude + ideal time-in-grove figures, and then (try and) follow them religiously.
Would be nice to know what that 'OK, 3' video was shot with (wind and carrier orientation wise). That final turn was beautiful. Held exactly 750ft/m descent, on speed, centered ball and lineup all the way from wings level to trap.
-
trent, looks like you have a useful setup for FSX. Mine is very ordinary with a very old wobbly Sidewinder Pro stick and a 21 inch cathode tube monitor. The thing is though - I'm used to it, I have tried other sticks and they don't fly well compared to the Sidewinder - even though it is wobbly (through over use in other non flight sim games). The thing I think would be good is the TrackIR or equivalent setup to be able to 'look and see' without having to be hobbled by other methods of looking into a turn for example.
Too much emphasis can be put 'on the numbers'. Yes it is important to be accurate as possible but in real life (during a return from a carrier mission by day) those numbers are very flexible except perhaps the altitude and getting on speed quickly. This is where experience (through practice) counts. IF the weather conditions are the same then quickly one can adjust to required base turn point. IF that is incorrect one can adjust during the turn by making a sharper turn initially then widening the turn at the end to get to the ideal 'start' point. But then you have to be looking into the turn at the carrier to judge this by eyeball. Doing things always by numbers is OK at the start - then you have to start eyeballing for fine adjustments because your return to the carrier for that single approach is never going to be 'on the numbers' for a lot of reasons. However I acknowledge this is a simulator and there are lots of limitations so flying on instruments can be one way to overcome the limitations - yet I'm asking that you develop your 'eye' about these issues also so that you can fly the pattern visually and then adjust accordingly in real time as best you can.
Here it is important to say that if you are not where you should be then 'go there'. Don't aim to smoothly fly to the right position. Go there now. Don't wait. Make corrections now - don't wait. Don't accept anything less. Yes you will have errors but you will be correcting them ASAP. Remember airforces fly smoothly - NavAvers fly the ball. Naval Aviators fly the aircraft, Air Force types let the aircraft fly them (because they aim to be smooth on a 10,000 foot concrete runway embedded in the ground). ;D
When doing FCLP it is easy to fly by landmarks, however remember that mostly FCLP is done at night when landmarks are less apparent. The ocean has no landmarks. So adjusting the carrier pattern to what you see relative to the carrier is important. Yes TACAN is more accurate today but it is a guide only IMHO - a guide to how I'm going to adjust to get back to the ideal. You are landing on a carrier. Fly the carrier - fly that meatball. Fly the meatball as soon as you see it.
-
‘Speed & Angels’ would be one of the great NavAv documentaries. An excellent storyline, well told about how it all comes together with many hiccups along the way - real life. "FOX 2" in that high voice must be chilling when heard - what a great character she is - "Just watch me". :-) Another good doco is the recent ‘CARRIER’ series from your US PBS network. How it all works on a Hornet squadron is well told especially when the CO takes over the tanker mission from the nugget on a bad night. No one expects that a newbie can handle everything on their first cruise.
‘OK 3 wire’ has excellent graphics and in game video clips. What makes the instruction outstanding is very professional editing and script to go with it. Don't believe that any one scene has not been edited to give the impression you see. Nothing wrong with that - that editing is what makes the instruction so worthwhile. It is rivetting stuff. And why not? It is NavAv after all. ::)
Back to FSX and the SLUDGE (Hornet). Using the Sludge or default Hornet is what this forum is about. Talking about other aircraft is useful but not really in the realm of this forum. I'll refuse to use any other Hornet in FSX except the SLUDGE. ;D
It is valuable experience to fly FCLP - lots of experience with making adjustments in the same conditions to perfect your technique. That is another question: Do you think you understand the NavAv technique - and use it? Trimming should be second nature and not even in one's consciousness. Just do it. Just fly the ball. Nothing else matters.
-
Found the best quality example of the 1999 LSO Reference Manual PDF (5.5Mb) here:
http://63.192.133.13/VMF-312/LSO.pdf
Lots of insight can be gleaned about how accurate carrier flying needs to be (to satisfy an LSO anyway). Mostly the AirBoss will be glad you are back but cranky if you break stuff. ;D
-
Back to FSX and the SLUDGE (Hornet). Using the Sludge or default Hornet is what this forum is about. Talking about other aircraft is useful but not really in the realm of this forum. I'll refuse to use any other Hornet in FSX except the SLUDGE. ;D
Thats quite a narrow point of view considering that there are other addons for FSX that are as good as the accel hornet or even better and to not consider those addons you are missing out definately on some absolute works of art such as the T45 Goshawk and the VRS Superhornet. I know its OT but technically I've found its good to look at the detail on all the sims aircraft and addons to get an idea of just what is the ultimate and how to get it applied to peoples favourite sim addon. You'll definately find that the opposite happens on the forums of such addons don't be surprised if Sludges hornets name doesn't come up. On the Jet combat sim forums such as DCS and Open Falcon we often have similar discussions which often inspires devs to improve sims and the technology competitively.
-
subs17, perhaps I get tired of voicing my opinion but that is only what is - what else can it be. The moderator has made it clear what this forum is about.
If I have not tried other NavAv aircraft in FSX this has been made clear. How can I comment on something not tried except to point out that sometimes other aircraft are hogging frame rates (as reported by others <gasp> on this very forum). If you have been reading this forum for some time, and I believe you have I have, I've also made it clear that the T-45C Goshawk is a gem, especially when teamed with the new Hornet HUD. This and the SLUDGE would be my picks. Others can pick their own but I'll stress again it has been made clear to me that this forum is about the Acceleration Hornet. Perhaps this is not clear to you.
I'm not looking for argument - just voicing my opinion - and see it in that light only. I'll guess that other forums exist where aircraft of different types can be compared and in other sims but I'll wager if too much is about NOT the Acceleration Hornet this thread will disappear as other threads have been deleted in the past (with some very good uploads by me about stuff to do with either the Hornet or Super Hornet [NATOPS] or the Goshawk). I'm not in the business of repeating mistakes. I'm not making the rules here and I've seen threads deleted because rules not obeyed. The moderator may have a different view - that is my take on it though.
In the same way people can fly a carrier/FCLP pattern however they wish and with whatever aircraft. Good luck to them.
And I'm not surprised that the SLUDGE is favoured in other forums. That is for good reason. ;D
____________________________
This is what the moderator had to say recently (after some valuable posts were removed - the good went with 'the bad' - sadly):
“This board is called "Unofficial F/A-18 Acceleration Pack board”
http://www.fsdreamteam.com/forum/index.php?topic=2991.0
“Which is why, any discussion related to other products that do not have anything to do with the Acceleration F/A-18, are considered to be off topic, and will be removed.
virtuali
Administrator”
-
CAPT...
What do you guys think of the look of the fuel dump effect? Can this effect be made to be on at all times (no fuel dumping) and in the correct location (engines)?
-Capt
Good to hear from ya. Ill give your idea a try and see what happens. If its good enough, I'll post some pics and get feedback from the forum.
Spaz...
Thats quite a narrow point of view considering that there are other addons for FSX that are as good as the accel hornet or even better and to not consider those addons you are missing out definately on some absolute works of art such as the T45 Goshawk and the VRS Superhornet. I know its OT but technically I've found its good to look at the detail on all the sims aircraft and addons to get an idea of just what is the ultimate and how to get it applied to peoples favourite sim addon. You'll definately find that the opposite happens on the forums of such addons don't be surprised if Sludges hornets name doesn't come up. On the Jet combat sim forums such as DCS and Open Falcon we often have similar discussions which often inspires devs to improve sims and the technology competitively.
As I told Orion, dont waste your time. All you'll get is "blah, blah, VRS this... LockOn that... DCS this... T-45 that..." and he'll never just agree to disagree. I mean, I know that the Sludge Hornet mods are a "niche" product that are NOT talked about on most other forums, but thats OK with me and everyone here, I think. No big deal. I dont do this for money, or praise, or whatever... I do it 'cause I love modding the default Hornet to get as close to real as can possibly be done within our known limitations; and even tho is a I dont wanna pay good money for the VRS frame rate killer. Plus, contrary to what SUBS is portraying them as, VRS is not a friendly bunch that takes criticism well... all I did was CORRECTLY point out that the 'Bug is "too light" on approach (~75% N2 vs NATOPS 85%-88% N2) and suggested a quick fix to mod the gear and flaps drag to correct the problem. That led to a knock-down/drag-out forum fight between me and one the designers at "pompous-#$$ central", Alvaro/JACN, who even after PROVEN WRONG by LCDR ROLEX who verified the CORRECT N2 NUMBERS in a REAL LIFE SUPERHORNET SIM wouldn't apologize for either being incorrect or his condescending behavior. I dare you to tell me I'm lying SUBS, and be able to back it up. So no, the other forums, particularly VRS, are not as all-loving and open as SUBS INCORRECTLY portrays them... especially if you aren't sucking up to them about how great their product is.
BTW, Since I forgot to tell ya... GREAT comments on Trent's pattern and landing. That was pretty much what I was hoping for, and a little bit more (for myself), including the links with the perspective of how to be a good LSO and tell the pilot his mistakes as how HE IS SEEING THEM THRU THE COCKPIT. When I did those weekend LSOs, I was doing it from the plat cam LSO point-of-view, but with this new understanding, I think my grading will get better in the way of providing better insight for the pilot from my debrief. Also, your reinforcing comments about CORRECT ERRORS QUICKLY above all else kinda rattled my cage, as I have been "slipping" into the smooth USAF landing style category myself. Ill get that fixed. Also hoping to get the weekend sessions going again, those were alot of fun. That is still one of the most read threads on FSDT.
Trent...
Man, you have a quick learning curve and alot of passion for NavAv. I remember having many of the same questions when I started here. If you wanna see our learning curve, go and read our big weekend multiplayer mission thread: http://www.fsdreamteam.com/forum/index.php?topic=2525.0, then see how much we all learned to get to this point. I mean everything from how to fly the pattern, what the correct comms are, what is an OK 3 vs. FAIR 3 vs. No-Grade 4, whats a good carrier speed/wind speed/wind direction, all things FSX naval aviation plus some good buffoonery in the videos.
Later
Sludge
-
If you have bought the SBug and have access to their private support forum, read what Sludge is talking about (with JACN and LCDR Rolex, ex F/A-18D pilot):
http://forums.vrsimulations.com/forums/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=2924
and
http://forums.vrsimulations.com/forums/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=3070&p=22733
-
From my own observations of that post there is a few things that are clear:
A 100% Realistic Thrust vs N1/N2 RPMs curves is not included in the "SE" version list of features. If enough info about the engine is available perhaps a more accurate compressor map will be implemented for the PRO.
No, just plain ground effect. It´s based on some extrapolations from similar real aircrafts models. If you have better info that can lead into a more realistic model (based on real figures), feel free to PM me.
I see alot of this and have even made the mistake of making similar comments on other forums at the end of the day everyone is wanting a better more realistic aircraft and in the case of VRS their devs stated that if you have better info then send them a pm. we had similar problems when comparing Lockons with Falcon4s FM in the past and often this comes up from time to time on most jet combat sim forums. On the one hand I can see where Sludge is coming from on the other from the point of view of the devs they needed something more solid than an opinion eg data. The good thing is that VRS are going to do a more detailed FM in the future for the pro version. Other things to point out is that when comparing the VRS SH for FS9 and FSX to Lockon, Falcon 4/AF/OF, Janes F/A-18E and FSX stock Hornet. The VRS has the most detailed FM of any sim I've ever flow for a PC game it quite simply is far more detailed the only sims that compare are Lockon FCs SU25T and DCS BlackShark. In detail I mean not only the performance but the requirement to trim in small inputs the pirouette and UA/PA modes. Its good that there are people like Sludge modding the accel Hornet bringing the best out of the sim for the good of the community.
-
Just a hint here it might pay to talk to some of the guys who did the FM charts for Falcons HFFM(High Fidelity Flight Models) if you are into tweaking FMs the guy who did the HFFMs is also an engineer and did quite an awesome job for Falcon. I don't where you will find solid Hornet data though. You can view the HFFM charts if you look in the docs folder of Open Falcon 4.7 although its for an F-16 thats the sort of data you need to make such aircraft as close to the real deal as possible. As for other companys such as VRS from my own observations regarding this stuff don't chuck out your copy of the sim because its rare that devs make patches for their product with jet combat sims but in the case of VRS they continue to support their products with patches etc.
-
SUBS...
Game on, buddy.
My initial post, being very generous, open, and even-keeled.
Realistic RPMs on Approach
Postby Sludge » Fri Apr 16, 2010 11:43 am
First... need to thank Varmint and Adieumus for being the most responsive customer service in history. You guys probly havent slept much this last week, but the patch installed and took care of a great many issues. Again, much thanks, if I were located nearby would take you out for a brew.
OK, now my question/problem is... When flying a full flaps down/gear down profile on final, I only need 70-75 RPMs to maintain glideslope. In my discussion with others and NATOPS pulls, I thought the approach RPMs are supposed to be 85-89 percent (as its listed in the carrier ops diagram). And in general, the Bug feels light in approach and also I have to do that "anti-flare" stick down motion when crossing the runway threshold just to maintain the watermark at 5 deg. nose up. Is that a function you programmed into the Bug?
And, I dont know how much the Bug is handcuffed by FSX flight dynamics, but if you put the "by the book" amount of static dry thrust, the Bug will be overpowered. I had this problem with the Sludge Hornet. Additionally, to get the right numbers on approach, I had to increase the induced drag scalar to 1.1, which makes alot of difference in increased drag in high AoA flight profiles (ie, final approach).
Anyway, when things even off a bit, and you get time... can you look into this?
Thanks
Sludge
And then somehow a few responses later, I get a "tone"??! Mixed with quite a bit of arrogance from Alvaro "this isnt like anything you played with in FSX." REALLY?! It has a aircraft.cfg, it also has a .air file, so what's soo different to make that statement true?
Re: Realistic RPMs on Approach
Postby JACN » Tue Apr 20, 2010 3:24 pm
Christian
Sludge wrote:You know what, I was only putting this thread out here as an idea that I felt the 'Bug FEELS light in approach
Should I modify the whole engine just because one person´s "feeling"?
Sludge wrote:I dont have any actual engine figures cause I never was/never will be a Hornet or Bug pilot, nor do I care to have to find "the numbers" just to show I can research them. .
Then you´re a lucky guy. I needed to research them to make the Superbug FM for seeing how a person comes here and tell me after 4 years of work ...my work is wrong because he´s a feeling...
Sludge wrote: If you have RW pilots out there who say your model is right on, then so be it, I'll drop the issue.
Yes we had.
Sludge wrote: Again, I just brought this up because of how I felt compared to what Ive "PLAYED WITH IN FSX" in the past and how the 'Bug seemed to FLOAT on barely above idle power while maintaining glideslope.
Sorry, bad argument. Superbug is not like anything you´ve "PLAYED WITH IN FSX".
Sludge wrote:From my limited understanding, shouldn't the Hornet be spooled up on approach to be more responsive to throttle increases only using a tad of throttle movement? Thats my whole point in posting here
Transient responses of the Superbug´s engine are validated against actual F404 engine data. Response times are in the 3+ seconds range as average, so you should not consider it needs the same technique as an old F-4´s J79. An accurate Thrust vs N1 curve was not in the SE features list and will never be. If you want so you´ll have to wait until the PRO and pay for those aditional features...
Sludge wrote:In my previous posts, I didnt claim this should be the end-all/be-all knowledge base of the flight model,
Your tone said another thing
Sludge wrote: only that my previous experiences (in changing the default Hornet to something more realistic) had shown and from what I could tell of NATOPS readings and RW Hornet maintenance folks, that the Bug seems too light in approach.
Superhornet is based not only on NATOPS performance manual (NOT a true technical data source, BTW) but mainly on several performance data technical notes. Hornet maintenance folks?...don´t get me wrong, but I´m an aeronautical engineer who sees dozens of A330s, Belugas, C295s, EF2000, F-18 take-offs and landings a day and I will never pretend to do a serious statement about any of those aircrafts behaviours just based on what I think I see. And, of course, you cannot consider that as "objective technical data" source in which you could base a simulation...
Sludge wrote:Glad to see your soo open to discussing IDEAS and not shutting them down.
Not a discussion, just a refutation of a not adequately supported assessment
Sludge wrote:This is beginning to seem a waste of 40 bucks as I still dont have full throttle range control and now I have to pull out technical manuals, NATOPS, even be a former pilot to get an idea some traction? Great discussion board.
Ok, if you want so, please PM Jon and you´ll have a refund.
This topic is closed.
Álvaro
...to continue... to the best part...
-
SUBS...
Wait for it.
Thanks Raz.
Re: RPMs on approach
Postby Razgriz » Wed Apr 21, 2010 12:46 am
On a continuation from the old thread by Sludge (Don't lock it just "because you've worked on it and THINK your right.") NATOPS is what I base this on, so I'm sure this is fairly accurate.
RPMs on approach - 85-88%, 3/4 mile, on-speed.
Part III, Chapter 8, Figure 8-2. Carrier Landing Pattern. [Page 333/806]
Next. As I said, Adiemus is the best guy there... level-headed, open to new ideas.
Re: RPMs on approach
Postby adiemus » Wed Apr 21, 2010 1:58 am
I don't agree with locking the old topic either, but I'll leave that one to Jon to fix if he so desires.
The issue with that NATOPS graphic specifically is that it doesn't specify an actual configuration. In other words, there's no weight or DI specified, so the best you can guess is that it's *somewhere* inside the safe trap range. Thus, using that as a reference isn't terribly helpful other than as a rough estimate.
Now comes the evidence and support. Thanks Ryan!
Re: RPMs on approach
Postby ryanyomomma » Wed Apr 21, 2010 7:07 am
I have a confession to make.....it was me who gave Sludge the NATOPS reference (The man had his cards right for calling that so the least I could have done was give him the references.). I have it on me and I double confirmed it from the copy at work AND the -500...... 85 - 88% N2 pretty much from the break decent and onto the intercept glide slope. ref. pg III-8-11.... figure is on the page and the written procedure are on the next pages. If I was a betting man, the Flight Idle numbers will be higher than 70% N2 HOWEVER, Flight Idle parameters are not in the super hornet NATOPS. Don't ask me why but I could ask my divo on that issue...
I WILL however, acknowledge the fact that Aces has a behemoth of code for FSX and its hard to develop with...and the fact that the VRS team is working on that Pro version (in which I will put to test like it was nobody's business). That was mentioned before.
Oh, and the whole loadout thing....well...in my experience on the flightdeck....I never seen a bird comeback to the ship with a complete loadout like I see on here.....and even if it was just inert, I never seen a load plan that huge...not to mention some really pissed off ordies (cag and ship). Even looking at OIF/OEF pics of aircraft....the loadouts ain't that big...
...you ain't seen bad yet, but its comin'...
-
SUBS...
More support.
Re: RPMs on approach
Postby ryanyomomma » Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:53 pm to top it off, NATOPS is our bible. NATOPS is law. It must be followed just like any other Naval publication/IETM/TD/NAVAIR. NATOPS STATES 85 - 88 % N2 on intercept glide slope.
...now, the HAMMER...
Re: RPMs on approach
Postby LCDRRolex » Thu Apr 22, 2010 9:08 pm
Ok, I did four passes today in the Super Hornet sim, and all four yeilded the same results.
Setup: 5 Mile final to the carrier, 44,000lb jet, Gear down, flaps full, hook down, Auto Throttles engaged.
I used ACLS Mode 1 approaches on 2 of the 4 to cross check manual with auto.
All four passes RPM's were in the 82-85% range throughout the entire pass, mostly staying at 85% on glideslopse and dropping to 82% when I was working off the high. Hope this helps.
Rolex
Any questions?
And this all came from my original question that I had about the RPMs being outside of NATOPS on approach and I didnt say anything hostile in my opening or subsequent posts 'til the discussion turned snippy and was locked. My biggest mistake was saying something about the engine modelling because my work with the Sludge. Whereas I should've talked more about the flaps/gear drag values. I did but not to the extent I should've emphasized that over an "overpowered" engine. And somehow, according to Alvaro, I had a "tone"? I mean, am I supposed to write "humbly bowing" when I comment or I have a tone? Care to comment on that, SUBS?
Later
Sludge
-
and the hammer falls.
-
From my own experience in such discussions in the past when dealing with devs its best to use pms when you're giving advice on such things which is what they mentioned but you have to have the data to back it up. Just remember though they are doing a pro version later so if there are issues now then wait and see if those issues exist in the pro version. From my impressions it looks as though FSX is virtually pushed to the limits with the VRS Superhornet and they are limited to what you can do with FSX. BTW they also probably have some real life Superhornet pilots helping them out so stuff like that would be checked prior to release anyway.
-
SUBS...
I dont know what planet you live on but here on Earth, since we dont have money falling from trees, when I pay 40+ bucks to a company for a product, I expect them to answer me with a little respect. If I point out an error to them, before disagreeing, I expect them to ask around and LOOK INTO IT?! However, when the answer is: we will get defensive, attack you, lock the thread, and then when you prove us wrong, still not admit it and not apologize for our behavior... thats when I dont do business with that company. On top of that, part of their (paraphrased) answer is "that'll be fixed in the PRO version"? Oh really?! So, I have to shell out HOW MUCH MORE MONEY just to get it right? And this is YOUR SO-CALLED "work of art"? They cant even get the cockpit spacing and eyepoint right for cryin' out loud.
Since you are adamant in your refusal to admit you were wrong, you have implied I would cheat by bringing in modded aircraft just to best you in a dogfight, and you have tried to weasel your way into saying I was lying, it's time to end any "discussions" with you. And, most importantly, you have CONTRIBUTED NOTHING to the discussion of upgrading the default FSX Hornet or Sludge Hornet modifications (AS THIS THREAD IS APTLY NAMED)... so from here on out, I will adhere to the advice I have been telling others, and ignore you.
Im out.
Sludge
-
Seriously Sludge chill out dude as it is I'm always in support of any and all improvements on any combat aircraft in FSX including the Sludge Hornet as I told you in the other thread my PC is very slow in FSX regardless of what I'm flying. And I did state that I would dogfight you in another sim such as F4AF or Lockon 1.02. As for VRS SH thats VRS bird how the devs respond to advice or critisism is up to them I merely pointed out my observations of what they were trying to put accross. The good thing is at least VRS support the product enough to provide patches and addons when I compare this to DiDs Superhornet sim where we had the best Superhornet sim ever modeled with the most potential and yet not one patch to fix show stopping bugs. Compared to Janes F/A-18E DiDs Hornet sim actually had animated ground crew on the deck of the carrier guiding you up to the CAT so much potential and disappointment compared to the meazlly annoyance of a few rpm it pales in significance.
-
Seriously Sludge chill out dude as it is I'm always in support of any and all improvements on any combat aircraft in FSX including the Sludge Hornet as I told you in the other thread my PC is very slow in FSX regardless of what I'm flying. And I did state that I would dogfight you in another sim such as F4AF or Lockon 1.02. As for VRS SH thats VRS bird how the devs respond to advice or critisism is up to them I merely pointed out my observations of what they were trying to put accross. The good thing is at least VRS support the product enough to provide patches and addons when I compare this to DiDs Superhornet sim where we had the best Superhornet sim ever modeled with the most potential and yet not one patch to fix show stopping bugs. Compared to Janes F/A-18E DiDs Hornet sim actually had animated ground crew on the deck of the carrier guiding you up to the CAT so much potential and disappointment compared to the meazlly annoyance of a few rpm it pales in significance.
The measly RPMs they chose to ignore and insult Sludge about.
-
Hey bros! Is it possible to apply the sludge flight model to the captsim delta model?
Dan
-
Theres a file in SimObjects/Airplanes/CS-FA18D called FA-18.AIR, rename that it FA-18.old.AIR or something of the sort, and copy the one from the Sludge Hornet's folder to the CS-FA18D folder.
-
Oh also there are some aircraft.cfg tweaks we've done to the Sludge. It should be an easy conversion of Sludge is willing to do it.
-
Raz...
Thanks for the backing. But now on to other things, as I promised. When I get home from work, I'll try to get some pictures out of the newest G-vapor effects. I used those pics from BZ's San Fran Blues' Fleet Week to base them on and I split the effects at the LEX Fence, so you'll have to let me know what you think.
Iron...
Yes, Raz is right, you can do it and it's not that hard. I have the CS FA-18 and have done all the "Sludge Hornet modifications" to it. Actually, Paco mentioned that if the Sludge had weapons and drop tanks, it would be really cool... and I had already done it with success. One thing I would suggest keep your DEFAULT FSX Hornet installed as-is 'til after the CS delta-Hornet is installed, then you can choose which Sludge mods you want to install. I dont have an "install guide" per se for the CAPT SIM delta-Hornet, but once I get the time, Ill try to make one up from scratch sometime this week, if you want? Also, since this effects work is yielding ALOT more than what I though possible but creating more work than I expected, the newest Sludge will be delayed. If you want the current work in progress that is checked good, PM me your email and when its ready, Ill send you a link to the latest Sludge updates MINUS EXTRA FX (hi-G vapor, chaff/flares, high humidity landing vapor); but with current working effects (better single G-vapor, better EG Smoke, ALA lights). Sludge v1.2 will not be finished anytime soon, definately not for a month, since Ill be working to integrate chaff/flares, combining/integrating/maximizing gauges, and cleaning up the Sludge Hornet mods as a whole.
CAPT...
I tried the "fuel dump" FX with limited success. I like the longer duration of the effect, as it will leave a good trail, but the effect itself is too limited to be effective. Also, its based on "fx_smoke.bmp" which doesn't lend itself to good modding as a thin, blocky texture. It did get me a few more tips tho, as I learned how to make the current effect trail longer with with a transparent start, thicker at the end and tapered fading, so thanks for the idea. Will get some pics of that as well, so you can tell me what you like and dont like.
ALL...
As I told Iron, the latest Sludge will not be done anytime soon. So by the end of this week, I will TRY to have a new Sludge download location where everyone that wants can fly the integrated and tested newest Sludge Hornet mods. Please be understanding that I may not get to that point, as it's a full work week and I only have two days where Im not double-banged (2 or more sims a day) and working late. But I will do my best to get this out, as I'd like feedback on some of the things Ive done.
Later
Sludge
-
Have you just said that you were able to put external load on the default acceleration hornet ?
-
Have you just said that you were able to put external load on the default acceleration hornet ?
No.
-
Iron...
No, more like the other way around. If you get the CS FA-18D, you can put the Sludge mods on it.
Later
Sludge
-
No, more like the other way around.
So we can put the default Acceleration Hornet on an external load ;D!
Okay, okay, really lame, I know :P. And it doesn't make sense either :P.
...
*crickets chirping*
-
OK, fellas...
As I said, I would get you some G-vapor and EG Smoke pics, so I'll post those in a second. Also, just to keep you updated, I was able to get everything crossed over to the Sludge Basic from the Sludge FX (my test platform), like the ALA lights in the [smoke] section and reordering the gauges... so unless something unforeseen comes up, I should be able to get it out to everyone for testing feedback by Friday. Stay tuned.
Thanks
Sludge
-
Looks good but IMO the vapor is longer on the real blue jets.
-
Thanks Sludge, the effects are looking real good.
Capt
-
Hey Sludge,
I had done a few repaints for the default F/A-18C model. I tried porting those repaints on to the Sludge basic but the cockpit looks all black after that. All gauges and everything works, but everything else in the cockpit (and also the undercarriage) is completely black.
Am I doing something wrong, or is it that 'repaints' are not possible on the Sludge (if at all it is possible to remove this functionality).
I added the textures just like I have always done. Added the Texture folders to Sludge Basic root folder, and then added suitable [fltsim.xx] entries in the aircraft.cfg file. But it doesn't seem to work at all.
Sooner (lol),
Mickey
-
Someone knowledgeable helped me with this one before...The solution is to copy any texture.cfg from any texture located in the Sludge hornet and overwrite the texture.cfg file in your repaints texture folders.
Your repaints probably only cover certain elements on the F-18 and rely on the texture.cfg to fall back to the default textures you didn't edit. If you use your textures on the Sludge, your texture.cfg file will point to fallback textures in the wrong location and therefore not display them. That solved my problem.
Johan
-
Its because a lack of fallbacks.
-
Mickey...
Repaints are possible in the Sludge. Yeah, I had the same problem in my pre-NUKE install of the Sludge "Grunge" paints. I would get all the problems you talked about... My solution was to make the "grunge" as the 13th aircraft in the default folder, then installed the paints on the Sludge with the texture.cfg fallback referencing the new aircraft paint folder in the default folder.
If I read your post correctly, you ALREADY have your paints installed on the default, so I would suggest inside your "ported" folder in the Sludge, making the texture.cfg aliased to your new folder inside the default Hornet.
Hope that helped. If you have any questions, PM or email me and Ill try to help.
Later
Sludge
-
Raz...
OK, so the effect is good just needs to be longer? You're probly right, so I'll work on adding two more emitters/particles per side to enlongate it. But the color, the starting edge, and the flow of the effect are looking about as right as it can get?
CAPT...
Thanks. Any criticisms? Smoke color, smoke length? Or are you gonna wait til the release on Friday for any criticisms?
Later
Sludge
-
IMO the effect is spot on and just needs to be elongated. Here's a picture-
(http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i64/westernate/Airshows/7JetVapor.jpg)
-
wow
long time no see, and I have no idea whats going on lol
-
Fael...
Good to have you back on board. Anything ever come of that 3D model you were doing? What about those "short movies" you were making?
Serge...
I remade your ALA lights, hope you dont mind. These new lights give a clearer "center point", so you can obviously tell what light is activated. And if youre not busy, Ill probly be PMing you for some help with your UFC/Blackbox gauge. Just a little integration and a few extra lines. Shouldnt be anything big.
Raz...
The included picture is the HiAoA vapor. As we talked about, I will have different vapors for different happenings.
Fellas...
The Sludge v1.2 Test Candidate 1 is on-schedule for Friday release. Dont anticipate any problems getting out to everyone for testing. Its all done, just have to get a full list of "updates", so you'll know the differences between this and the other Sludge Hornet mods.
Later
Sludge
-
Sludge,
Your ALA look cool! 8) And getting back to XML/RPN tweaking would be a good break from my FCLP missions (currently almost finished) ;)
-
Sludge,
Regarding the exhaust effect, does it dynamically change due to RPM settings? For example does the plume get thicker/thinner or more opaque/transparent based on throttle inputs? Can’t tell from the pictures. Looking forward to the test aircraft.
Capt
-
Serge...
Thanks. Yeah, I hear ya on that... when I've been going at it tweaking/modding after work, sometimes I just gotta let it go for a day or so, just to get my brain re-caged and change things up. Otherwise I get beat down and start to make more and more dumb mistakes with small items.
CAPT...
Sludge,
Regarding the exhaust effect, does it dynamically change due to RPM settings? For example does the plume get thicker/thinner or more opaque/transparent based on throttle inputs? Can’t tell from the pictures. Looking forward to the test aircraft.
Capt
Its really funny you say that... as of right now the EG Smoke not regulated in that manner. However, when I was driving into work today I had the same idea, after watching some Blues' takeoffs on Y/T last night. Guess thats the turn-around time for an idea to take root in my brain?? Right now, it activates at 65% N1 and will cut off after 20 secs to simulate the N1 fan stage "catching up" with N2 compressor stage, or it cuts when pulling the throttle back past 65% N1. Of course that can be changed very easily. But I was thinking about adding the high alpha transparency (barely opaque enough to see in FSX), "dirty smoke" activated anytime above 95% N2, as I've witnessed in the Blues' and other Hornet take off videos, they take off and the "dirty smoke" is visible from start of runway to climbout and thats well more than a full minute. I'll explore this more in detail after I get the Sludge v1.2 TC1 out Friday.
Have any specific ideas you want me to try, along the lines of the one you brought up? Darker and shorter smoke, early (~65%-90%) N1? Semi-transparent, long, "dirty" smoke, later (~95% or greater) N2? Think up some guidelines based on your observations and when I get the newest Sludge out, Ill give them a shot.
Fellas...
IF my FLARES idea works, its gonna be a DOOZY!! I already have a preliminary effect and damn, it looks REALLY GOOD!! Cant wait to attach a smoke trail effect, give it an "ejection force", and add sound.
Later
Sludge
-
Sludge, when you get the flares effect, do you think it will work with the super mod FSX FA-18? ??? I mean I still have the FSX FA-18,(not the sludge FA-18), but I have modified the FSX-FA-18 with just about all of your addons,and Voodoos, that I am begining to think that that I no longer have the FSX or your FA-18. :) Ok, I do a lot of traps and cats and follow to the letter. I follow this pack board more than any other and you guys are right on ! So if nothing else comes out of this longated entrie. THANKS for all the FUN. ;D PS . This is older pic.
-
Whaddya' wasting your time with the default Hornet for?
-
Skimmer...
Actually, I'm not sure as I'm building it to the Sludge Hornet specs, so I have no idea if it will cross-over.
Thanks, man. Glad you enjoy. And I hope you read the letter I posted, from a guy in South America, who loves the Sludge Hornet and was pretty expressive with his thanks. I sent him a return email, letting him know that his support is appreciated and it's not just me but others too, who let me incorporate their add-ons, gauges, mods, and changes into the Sludge. Plus, we have our own prior naval ops carrier guy, Spaz... who gives alot of good information!
Im out to finish the Sludge TC1 for tomorrow PM release...
Later
Sludge
-
Fellas...
BTW, here's a great HUD pic from the eyepoint, THIS IS WHAT HUD SYMBOLOGY should look like from the pilot's point of view. Also, take note of how UNOBTRUSIVE the AoA Indexer physical bracket is... comparatively in all FSX Hornets its almost 3x as large and gets in the way of the Meatball on final. IF I can ever get to mod the internal model, that is one of the FIRST THINGS that will be changed.
Later
Sludge
-
Mickey...
As far as installing textures... I found my original guide, hope it helps if you havent already done it. Go into the original Sludge 1.0 or 1.1 .ZIP folder. Then look in the Basic for a folder called Install VMFA-323 Textures. You'll have to extrapolate a little, as you already have the textures installed in the default Hornet, but once you read it all, it should become clear what you need to do to get the textures "ported" to the Sludge.
Later
Sludge
-
Sludge, an e-mail arrived today with (7.6Mb) video now at FileFront that shows a Hornet? arrest and catapult with cloud surfing to show the condensation effects. All done via the rear view mirror 'effect/view':
http://www.filefront.com/17338172/USN Hornet Arrest Cat via Rear View Condensation BlueWATER1.wmv
Forgot to NOT add spaces for FileFront files so above URL is all one string including spaces, copy paste etc.
-
Spaz...
Good video. Just downloaded and viewed it. Will give me more info. to work with as I get better at producing the G-effects.
Fellas...
The Sludge should be released this afternoon/evening. Just have to tidy a few things up when I get home from work, then Ill put it out there for everyone.
Later
Sludge
-
Rodger that Sludge. Do you think that I can have both the Sludge and the FSX honet installed at the same time? Or anyone else that knows. Thank you
-
Sludge,
Not the best video in terms of quality/resolution, but it demonstrates the hornet exhaust effect I am thinking of to help the LSO, where the dynamic exhaust effects shows power corrections while in the groove;
-Capt
-
cap, great video from good perspective showing about 15 seconds wings level in groove and good strong corrections I guess. Nice. The nose does not seem to move much (on speed) good lineup, strong power corrections to stay on that meatball.
-
Do you think that I can have both the Sludge and the FSX honet installed at the same time? Or anyone else that knows. Thank you
That's one of the points I made to Sludge when I originally pitched him the idea of making the Sludge Hornet a separate SimObject. Not only for multiplayer (mismatched aircraft in missions), but also ease of distribution. In other words, yes, you can have both the default Hornet and Sludge Hornet installed at the same time.
-
Thank you Orion. I look forword to flying with you all some day. ;D Im gonna go ahead and dwnload the sludge fA-18 and install. I have a feeling theres gonna be a lot to learn all over again :P :)
-
Fellas...
Im at home and working on getting the Sludge v1.2 TC1 download into one .zip folder for manual install. This wont be a wide-release, so I will send the link to most of the board members with one request. You provide criticisms (ie, EG_Smoke too transparent, G-vapor comes on too early at 4.5 Gs... should be 5.5 Gs, etc) when you get a chance. If you dont get the PM with the .zip folder link and would like to try, PM me with a request and Ill get you the link.
Thanks
Sludge
-
Sludge,
Saw you pop on skype. Don't know if you can stay or not. Either way, give me a call when you can.
-
Fellas...
Im working the download now, so it should be ready to go shortly. Ill put a message out here when its done and when I've posted the link to people!
Standby.
Thanks
Sludge
-
Just sent out two batch PMs with the link.
Working on more. If you dont have a link within 10 mins, let me know...
I cant send anymore for an hour. I ran into FSDTs limit of 20 PMs p/hour.
I'm up on Skype right now for any problems. My Skype ID is: fgrimley32
Later
Sludge
-
How many people did you give it to?
Well, obviously only twenty (as of your post anyways), since that's your PM limit per hour, but how many were you intending on?
-
Thx Sludge.
Will try it out as soon as I am home.
Will give you a feedback.
Thx
Sooner (lol, I am getting better at this everytime),
Mickey
-
Hello Sludge.
Shift+4 ,5 6 are different as per your Features in the Info-file in your FA18 v1.2TC1 Zip. Shift+6= GPS, Shift+5= trafic info, Shift+4= Black-box. No big deal, but some new-comer may get confused. Carrier Nimitz waiting at KSEA Bremmerton. Back to flying. Thanks again for the Nice FA/18 Sludge Hornet. Bdw: Easier to brake now on the runway. Herb
-
Herb...
Thanks and noted. Will fix that later on as I have plenty of integrations left and havent even started on the CHAFF/FLARE effect yet, but will get that fixed.
Later
Sludge
-
Fellas...
Look at this video I just found and was put out recently. Definately shows some problems we have with depicting the Hornet cockpit. The HUD physical brackets, when viewed from head-on are not nearly as thick and the indexer is very thin and canted up. It can even be read even tho the cam is mounted on top of the JHMDS. Look at 0:45 to see where the cam is located (its dark red).
Enjoy.
Later
Sludge
-
The default Hornet is the closest Hornet out there to being the real thing. We still should mod it more to be spot on.
Base image:
(http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9850355/CC/base.png)
The Sludge Hornet over the base:
(http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9850355/CC/sludge.png)
The VRS over the base (for extra comparison):
(http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9850355/CC/vrs.png)
-
Hey Sludge
thanks for the email ..nice surprise just got back from tour today and the new sludge hornet was waiting in my inbox
will try it out later tonight and let you know my thoughts.... thanks for remembering me
Sonofabeech out
-
Sonofa...
Never forget about you, my friend. Its always good to hear from ya and also will be good to get your opinions of the Sludge and its newer effects.
EVERYONE...
Here's the newest ALA lights. The Green and Amber are now as bright as the Red, 'nother oversight on my part. Simply unzip and copy/paste over the old ones in the FSX\EFFECTS folder.
Later
Sludge
-
Trent,
Is your video based on a mission? I noticed after your carrier landing you got a verbal LSO grade. How did you get that?
The missions can be an absolute bitch to find online, so I've thrown them up here for the time being:
http://wind.teleri.net/~trent/TGS-Day_Traps.zip (http://wind.teleri.net/~trent/TGS-Day_Traps.zip)
http://wind.teleri.net/~trent/TGS-PracticeTrap.zip (http://wind.teleri.net/~trent/TGS-PracticeTrap.zip)
-
‘Speed & Angels’ would be one of the great NavAv documentaries. An excellent storyline, well told about how it all comes together with many hiccups along the way - real life. "FOX 2" in that high voice must be chilling when heard - what a great character she is - "Just watch me". :-)
Yeah I loved Meagan, she's a champ. The bit at the end is amusing when they're both like "Yeah, I'm single.", followed by their e-mail addresses, heh. I would have preferred some more HUD footage from their dogfighting with the Angels. And my favourite scene had to be Jay re-capping when he got called in to provide ground support, with accompanying narrative and HUD footage -- chilling stuff!
Another good doco is the recent ‘CARRIER’ series from your US PBS network. How it all works on a Hornet squadron is well told especially when the CO takes over the tanker mission from the nugget on a bad night. No one expects that a newbie can handle everything on their first cruise.
Funnily enough I just nailed that series last week. Well, granted, I fast-forwarded through almost all the bits that weren't related to the Hornets/pilots ;-) I *loved* that scene you're referring to -- night landings on a wildly pitching deck. What was it like 8 or 9 bolters in a row by different pilots? The CO taking over from the nugget was just good dramatic television -- if all reality TV was that gripping I'd be hooked. I love the fact he had a sublime trap, first go, after the steady stream of bolters all night.
My all time favourite is Discovery's Jetstream (http://www.discoverychannel.ca/jetstream/). I've lost count how many times I've watched and re-watched those episodes. Then Speed and Angels, then Carrier.
-
USAF?: "My all time favourite is Discovery's Jetstream". Oh No! ;D Probably non-USians cannot easily see this video but I'll try. Anyway there are some 'good' USAF F-15 Videos around with the pilots grunting and groaning, slamming the throttles in dogfights. Trouble is they don't carrier land. ::)
And thanks for the missions - I'll check them out. Soon there will be 'night FCLP' missions to test the unwary. ::)
-
Spaz...
Jetstream is about Hornets. Granted they are canadian airforce CF-18s and student pilots w/IPs but still the same Hornet dogfighting and mentality. Its on Y/T, at least the "preview episodes", where you can see enough of the Hornets doing their thing. You are right though, they land the Hornet airforce style (glide down and a little flare) and dont ride the glideslope down carrier landing style.
Nothing more satisfying than seeing a Hornet doing FCLPs with the constant engine changes, the smoke poofs, hearing the engine whine change as power changes. Then that B-E-A-U-ti-ful all-important hitting the deck at a set spot and the climbout to get back in the pattern for another.
Later
Sludge
-
Fellas...
Here's an update to the Sludge FX that will be incorporated into the Sludge Basic (panel reworking) depending on your inputs.
Just copy/paste the appropriate files into their respective folders... I would recommend copy/pasting the files directly (ie. open the update \BLACKBOX folder fully, "select all", then copy/paste into your FX\BLACKBOX folder) instead of "overwrite" copy/pasting folders. Its a bit more tedious, but more reliable. For some reason, sometimes copy/pasting folders will NOT overwrite single files within those folders. Doesnt make sense, but it happens... dont ask me why.
If you have any problems with the install, let me know, and I will do my best to get you squared away. If the install goes well, let me know your opinion of the new EG Smoke (activates when "off the deck" and below 700 AGL for 3 secs max, "poofs") and EG DARK Smoke (activates above 15 kts and at 91% N1 or higher). The MedG (most common) vapor is more opaque, p/several user requests. Will work on lengthening when I get a chance. And please keep in mind, for the smoke effects, especially the EG Dark Smoke, I'm also balancing "playability" and frame rates along with realism.
Reference Videos for both smoke effects.
Patrick's Aviation Link for DARK smoke effect reference.
http://www.patricksaviation.com/videos/zimolaviation/4989/ (http://www.patricksaviation.com/videos/zimolaviation/4989/)
The panel file has been massively re-worked. The 2D HUD has a permanent Indexer and Carrier Trap Gauge. The UFC/Blackbox and Refueling gauges have been combined. Also, the UFC Refuel button has been recoded so that it deploys the physical refueling probe and turns the Refueling gauge ON (you see the fuel percentage on the HUD). Also the IFLOLS has been incorporated, eliminating the need for the Panel_VC_IFLOLS folder.
Later
Sludge
-
Sludge, Many thanks for your hard work. Was just looking at an old APPROACH cover showing two Squadron Hornets in formation landing with those 'wisps'. I'll put pic here soonish. From APPROACH (USN Safety) magazine cover sep-oct 2004 I think.
-
Hello Sludge!
In your SludgeFXPanelFolder is a Zip-file in there too. SludgeFXandPanelUpdates I open it and that has older files in it. Could you let me know what to do. Herb
-
Herb...
Good catch. Yes, you can simply just delete the extra .ZIP file, as there is nothing of importance in there.
Also, here's my x52 standard profile. It sets up the x52 in a pretty vanilla state, so along with disabling the "clutch" keys, you get a very flexible flight controller to program with FSX in-game controls menu. Make sure to correctly configure your x52 deadzones. Do a few control wipeouts, then do a few "banks/rolls", "climbs/descents" while the Game Controllers\x52 is running, so you can see where to set the deadzones, so no cross-controller contamination happens (ie, upstick/downstick inputs when you are left/right stick turning or vice versa). I would also advise turning the in-game AILERON and ELEVATOR SENSITIVITY at most to the first N and have a very low NULL ZONE. But keep throttle where it is by default. This will help with over sensitive flight controls but still give the necessary control in the throttle region.
Hope this helps.
Later
Sludge
-
Fellas...
Here's a new effect, let me know if Im heading in the right direction.
Later
Sludge
-
IF the trails were extended and less dense and bright then that would be a better look? I have no idea how difficult that may be to achieve though. Good luck.
-
Spaz...
Yes, they can be extended... made thinner, and brighter... not difficult at all. Will work on it when I get home tonite.
Later
Sludge
-
They should be what Spaz said, but for the coolest effect, have them curve into the engines. This was something I never noticed/knew until I saw an A-10 TACDEMO.
Check out this video at 0:45
-
Raz...
Yeah, I noticed that too. Was just heading to work when I typed that reply this AM, so I was unable to really elaborate. But in watching several videos (including the Red October, F-18 v. german MiGs), you can clearly see the wing vapor is longer, thinner but brighter and they turn IN towards the engines a little bit and they go up ALOT MORE. Sorta reverse of what the LEX Vapor does, just not as extreme.
Will play around with that effect more.
Later
Sludge
-
Sludge, maybe it is your screenshot and my monitor but I think the initial 'fog' is TOO BRIGHT. Probably need to see it in action and may be just an artefact of screenshot. Whatever. ;D
-
Spaz...
Initial FOG? You mean the LEX Vapor?
Later
Sludge
-
Lex Vapor - yep - that is it. ;D Could not think of what to call it at time.
-
Spaz...
OK, will keep that in mind... I think if I make it between whats there now, and what I released in the TC1, it should come out as a best middle case scenario that most everyone likes.
The reason I "upped" the alpha values, is that Raz and Ben (just to name a few) told me the Vapor was too transparent, so I sent this out and seemed to be OK.
Definately try it out on your system, do a screen shot, and post it. Also, if any OTHERS have an opinion, post it... thats the reason I did the FSDT release of TC1, so I could get people's take of what looks good and what doesnt. Ive been taking "informal" polls of what people like and have thought about changing a few things, so the more input I get, the more it will be what you (the majority) want.... within reason.
You can post, PM, email, or Skype me with any criticisms or problems, and Ill get back as soon as I can. As most people know, I do my best to respond as fast as possible, given that Im the main person doing the work on the Sludge right now and also try to have a fun life outside of FSX (..saturday blitz, anyone?!... haha, you know what Im talking about Raz...)
Thanks
Sludge
-
Went to the San Francisco Fleet Week 2010 and got some pictures - hope to have them up sometime soon, perhaps this weekend. Maybe they'll be of some use to you.
-
A large PDF (53Mb) is available here (& probably elsewhere):
http://www.scribd.com/doc/991245/NASA-70897main-PiF?autodown=pdf
Entire PDF is about NASA Langley contributions to US Military Aircraft research. Most interesting pages (only some to fit the file size forum limits) about Legacy Hornet Research are posted below. Some pics from same PDF pages are posted also.
-
Fellas...
Here's a few more pics, and I have a video uploading to Y/T so Ill post that when its done.
Still a work-in-progress, so give me inputs.
Enjoy.
Sludge
-
Just my two cents Sludge but the vapor trails are to short and thick. When you rolled they should have stayed on the wing tips. Think , maybe, kinda? And thanks for the email with the Sludge hornet I have installed it and am working on some hours in it. By the way,the AOA lights look great. ;D
-
Skimmer...
Thanks about the lights, they are Serge's but glad you like the newer and brighter ones. The main problem is that its hard to keep them pinned to where they should be because they arent part of the external model and will tend to float if you get overly-zealous with maneuvering while in the pattern.
Serge also made some newer "Betty" sounds that are really good. I've simply changed the overall volume so the Betty voice warnings are a tad lower, and the RALT tone is about half lower. Evens things out, cause the RALT is LOUD. But Ill try to get those out to everyone and see what the consensus is... So far, with the few people that have them, they really like them. Thanks again, Serge... great job on the new sounds!
OK, will keep that in mind. Im currently working them so that the last wingtip vapor emitter/particle effect for both side will NOT be static and will trail off the end, sorta the same way the smoke effect. Hopefully, I can get that without getting too "poofy" but FSX is always a tradeoff when simply modding effects to fit a purpose.
Ill try to work on this during the weekend. Youre another person that has told me this, so will see what I can do.
Later
Sludge
-
Rodger that Sludge. Just had two ? When you create new addons for the hornet, do you include them in the dwnld that you place on bottom of your posting? If so would it be wise for me to just delete the exsiting F-18 folder in sim objects and replace, or just install any effects or gauges and do the aircraft config mod? Thanks much :)
-
Nobody notice, Carrier_Landing_Gauge is not showing up in a window. Window entry missing in cfg-file. Herb
//--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I modified: add it the .cfg folder see below, Sorry Sludge Didn't use the full view, my mistake. VC view is a little hard to see anyway. I will assign a button to change the view from VC to shift1----------- I did, but the VC is Not going away changing to full view ??? Herb
Window07=Carrier Trap Gauge
[Window07]
size_mm = 1024
window_pos = 0.000, 0.000
window_size = 1.000, 1.000
background_color= 0,0,0
visible = 0
ident = 10070
gauge00=Carrier_Landing_Gauge!Carrier_Landing_Gauge.xml, 0, 0, 1024, 1024
-
Skimmer...
No, not for this time. What Im doing is getting feedback as I go. So I called the initial "big release" Sludge Hornet modifications v1.2 Test Candidate 1 (TC1), so that its known that this is a sorta "in-house" test release that can be improved on with your comments/criticisms. So when its all ready to go, I will bundle it as the Sludge Hornet modifications, v1.2, and then make that my SIG for everyone to download.
Also, you bring up a good point. This weekend, I may just not mod at all, but clean up the Sludge and release a TC2, so that you can just delete the old Sludge folder and install (copy/paste) the new ones. And install all the new effects and you'll be good to go. Ive had others have difficulty and am talking with several other people about how to make the .zip folder more user friendly and easier 'til I can get an installer done.
For right now, just install any effects or gauges as given out, and they should work if you have the TC1 installation (not the one listed in my sig) that was posted on this thread a few weeks ago.
Herb...
Yes, in the new Sludge panel folder that I passed out, the whole panel is being re-worked to save room for additional gauges and for economy/efficiency of use. The Carrier_Landing_Gauge is now a permanent part of the 2D HUD window. If you dont like it, let me know and Ill take that into consideration as others have told me they'd want it with the IFLOLS gauge (making it selectable) as they both are used specifically for carrier landing purposes only. If others feel this way, please let me know, as I take all the answers I get into account in an informal poll and if enough people want something, I will change it.
Later
Sludge
-
Finished my installer, just need to get the confirmation from Sludge and do some visual tweaking, and possibly some code tweaking.
What I have done so far:
(http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9850355/Installer/step1.png)
(http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9850355/Installer/step2.png)
(http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9850355/Installer/step3.png)
(http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9850355/Installer/step4.png)
(http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9850355/Installer/step5.png)
-
Geez razgriz, I just gotta try this. Ill move my exsiting sludge f-18 to docs and use installer. :)
-
Geez razgriz, I just gotta try this. Ill move my exsiting sludge f-18 to docs and use installer. :)
The installer is done but we haven't finalized v1.2. Once its done, I'll be posting the installer for download that installs v1.2. This thing is also faster then any pre-made installer because of the optimizations I've made to it, and the fact that its coded with scratch and not bogged down.
-
Very larger version here: http://flightaware.com/photos/view/779675-c8427238aa7fdb2d52750f2570dabe2bd28b1372%3bsize=fullsize/staffpicksweek/sort/date/page/1
of attached cropped version.
-
This youtube video shows some good examples of the vapor behavior, size, and color from inside the cockpit.
My only comment on the new vapor effect, based on your latest video Sludge, is that it looks very rigid (like it is a hard smoke object attached to the aircraft). Is there a way to make it more fluid/dynamic in behavior? Adding some dynamic movement to the vapor based on movement/momentum of the aircraft? Currently it looks like it only grows and shrinks based on G's, then stays in the exact same spot once the vapor is fully formed.
-Capt
-
Same video on this page but not on Utube (via e-mail whatever):
http://www.fsdreamteam.com/forum/index.php?topic=3093.300
http://www.filefront.com/17338172/USN Hornet Arrest Cat via Rear View Condensation BlueWATER1.wmv
Forgot to NOT add spaces for FileFront files so above URL is all one string including spaces, copy paste etc.
-
Is there a way we can change the colors of the fonts for the mfd's symbology and add a moving map just like the A+ models?
-
CAPT...
Yeah, thats just a problem with FSX. Ive tried (with bad results) to get a different acting vapor (hiAoA, hiHUM, HI-G LARGE vapor), but even tho I coded it with delays, the effect was unsynched and looked really bad. The hi G would come on before the med G vapor and theyd both intermix even tho they were coded (thru .XML gauge) to come on at different times. So I gave up and just settled for the med G vapor. As my tag line used to say, "the best of what's left". Sorry, I tried, cause I know exactly what you are wanting, just didnt work.
IRON...
That would take Virtuali making some big changes. So NO it probly wont happen.
Later
Sludge
-
Sludge,
Roger that, thanks.
-Capt