Sim 'gouge'

[Sludge]

CAPT...

Now I hate saying this, but I tried flying my FSX sim last night and used both the Sludge and the VRS to see if I could correlate my experience in the real sim, and was surprised by how close the VRS comes to the sim I flew the other day, not perfectly, but I definitely noticed similar behavior and response to my inputs.

No problem, the Bug is definately a good systems bird and some of its FM is really good, especially in the stick responses. Since it was made from the ground up and has FSUIPC "intercept" the joystick inputs before they are ever put on the jet. However, one of the things I've had a problem with the Bug (when I owned it) was that it "floated in" on approach (~75% N2). I dont think that is correct. Do you rem if you had more power on the real Bug in the sim? As I thought it should at least be 83% or more N2. It also ties into the biggest reason I made the Sludge feel a bit heavy in the approach. I've always felt the Hornet was designed to be around 140 kts +/- 5 kts on approach with power ALWAYS ON the jet. No floating in near FLIGHT IDLE power settings.

With this new iteration (I'll try to have it out for FSDT testing in a lean ZIP folder before I leave this weekend), modding the .AIR file will extremely inhibit the over-responsiveness in low-speed/dirty flight regimes. Meaning, when in PA (flaps down/gear down/below 150 for the Sludge), you will NOT be able to do a HALF barrel roll, much less the two-three FULL ONES you can do right now.

That "squirrely" comment is interesting. Might have to talk with you on Skype and go out for some test flights when I get back. I've been going back and forth between stability and "squirrely" as you call it (over-correcting?) because I've heard both ways. Maybe it is a bit of both, as I'm sure Hornet (legacy and Super) pilots seem to have a rock steady hand whereas us "civs" would be all over the place?

Later
Sludge

[SUBS17]

Sludge regarding Flight models etc you need accurate data from wind tunnel testing etc to get it just right. We had with Falcons FMs for a while people modding it in various levels of detail for a while eventually it evolved to what we have now which is actually closer to a real F-16 than most mil level sims. The guy who modded BMS 4.32 FM for Falcon used wind tunnel data from NASA, I'm sure similar data must be available since NASA also tested Hornets. Why would you get rid of VRS SH as that addon is a constantly evolving sim like Falcon/DCS? So its going to continue to improve over time and probably wind up like DCS/BMS eventually.(they probably have actual SH pilots testing it as well as actual Topgun pilot/VET/ACE  )

[Orion]

Oh, I've got a couple questions as well:

1. Was it a full motion simulator?
2. Where was it and how did you get such an opportunity to fly it?

[GOONIE]

Sludge,

I didn't really pay attention to the N2 values, sorry, but I know my hand kept the throttles around 3/4 or more up, so definitely had power on the jet during the approach. Actually my friend yelled for "power" when I went to idle power briefly during one of my earlier attempts at landing. He said you should never go idle power behind the boat, the LSOs would chew you out, and he said if you are on speed and on g/s you should land under power, which helps with maneuverability, and the response time or lag of a jet engine.

The squirrely feel probably had more to me getting used to the input forces and fly by wire responses. By the end of the sim session I had already managed to lessen my oscillations, and when my buddy flew his pass it looked very controlled and stable. So the jet in experienced hands is not squirrely.

Orion,

1. Fixed based sim. They didn't have any full motion at Oceana, my buddy said he has never heard of a full motion sim for the super hornet that the navy uses, said it doesn't really add much based on what you are trying to get from the sim, again it is more for learning procedures, how to use weapons, how to deal with emergencies, or just normal cockpit duties. It is not really there for stick and rudder, or seat of the pants learning. i also thought the hydraulics of a full motion sim wouldn't be able to keep up with the fast movements of a fighter jet, or wouldnt feel right (timing would be off). Full motion is better for commercial or more stable flying aircraft I think.

2. My friend from high school and who i also played soccer with is a hornet pilot qual'd on A through F models, he setup the sim session at Oceana for me and gave me a tour of the base. He recently was stationed in oceana after a tour with vfa-27 in Japan, and then completing  top gun. He is now in Oceana teaching air to air and air to ground to all the east coast squadrons, for the strike fighter weapons school Atlantic, not a bad gig.

Subs,

I have tried the walking of the throttles, but need to try more approaches. actually the hog hotas throttle friction can be adjusted to the same level as the hornet sim i found, which is cool. The one thing I immediately noticed on the hog hotas stick after flying the hornet sim was the lack of stiffness. I always felt the hog stick was pretty solid, but compared to the sim it feels very loose, but maybe that is how the A-10 actually feels, don't know.

CAPT