Author Topic: New vLSO (Christmas edition) - EDIT  (Read 29509 times)

GOONIE

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
Re: New vLSO (Christmas edition) - EDIT
« Reply #45 on: July 12, 2017, 09:50:00 pm »
Picked up this book today on LSOs, thought others might be interested.
"You've got to land here, son. This is where the food is."

Kappachino1911

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
Re: New vLSO (Christmas edition) - EDIT
« Reply #46 on: July 12, 2017, 11:48:39 pm »
This is me right now LOL!!

Looks interesting though, I love reading about the origins of stuff like that.  Let us know how it is.

SpazSinbad

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1198
  • RAN FAA: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/
    • A4G Skyhawk & Fixed Wing history scrapbook PDFs & videos RAN FAA + How to Deck Land Various Aircraft
https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/
RAN FAA A4G NAS Nowra ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀ :-)

syn

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 24
Re: New vLSO (Christmas edition) - EDIT
« Reply #48 on: August 12, 2017, 09:54:33 am »
Hello Paddles,

I tried the latest vLSO and I am still getting cases where I rollout on centerline but still get marked as _LUL_X. I attach a picture. I think that vLSO is taking the start just as a distance and is marking me as LUL in the middle of the turn and with the T-45C this seems not to work so well (this pass is even LIG)


what is image hosting

Paddles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 721
  • Lurking around
    • vLSO blog
Re: New vLSO (Christmas edition) - EDIT
« Reply #49 on: August 13, 2017, 10:30:50 am »
syn,
Thank you for reporting this glitch. I'll try to fix it in the upcoming version.

Groove time. Currently the correct groove time is hardcoded as 16..19 sec, with up to 22 sec as little long in the groove or (LIG). I think that with the T45 and WOD > 30 kts it's impossible to land within 19 sec. And don't forget about that 4.12 glideslope, which adds more time to get to the ship... Perhaps we need to review the criteria of what is considered to be the correct groove time? In regard to this simulation, of course.

BTW, according to the chart attached, this pass was in manual ball mode, right?
Want it done right? Do it yourself!


syn

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 24
Re: New vLSO (Christmas edition) - EDIT
« Reply #50 on: August 14, 2017, 12:53:14 am »
Yes, manual ball call.

Regarding TIG with the T-45C I have no problem generally making it around 16-17 seg and get some NESA and LIG from time of course. The pass I chose to attach was because it depicted perfectly this bug of getting _LUL_X before the ball call/rollout.

syn

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 24
Re: New vLSO (Christmas edition) - EDIT
« Reply #51 on: August 14, 2017, 11:17:10 am »
And another one. Just wondering why is this pass given a pass even though there are no remarks listed. I noticed that with the T-45C es much more difficult to get an OK from vLSO than for example the F18. I have a few pases like this one, also case III and never manage to get an OK. Does it have to do with catching the 4th wire? The problem is that the FSX FLOLS does not take into account aircraft type and most T45 passes end up in a 4 wire.

« Last Edit: August 14, 2017, 11:22:08 am by syn »

PhantomTweak

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 600
Re: New vLSO (Christmas edition) - EDIT
« Reply #52 on: August 14, 2017, 08:41:58 pm »
I've noticed that in FSX, you can either fly a hair below the glideslope indication on the HUD, to get a 3-wire, or fly right on it, and get a 4-wire every time. If you fly the Ball, you will get a 3-wire, but the LSO's will call you a little low in the groove. You can do one or the other, depends on what you're trying to do. Hit the 3-wire with a slightly less than perfect grade by the vLSO's, or get a 4-wire with no vLSO comments. Assuming all other factors are correct, of course.
It may be that since the T-45C is a trainer, the LSO's are a little harder on you than for an F-18? That may be why it's harder to get an OK pass. Just a possibility. Or maybe the LSO program is optimized for the faster F-18, and the T-45C has to be flown slightly differently than it should be to get an OK.

Just a couple of my thoughts. I may be totally out in left field on all this, though...
Pat☺

syn

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 24
Re: New vLSO (Christmas edition) - EDIT
« Reply #53 on: August 15, 2017, 12:23:45 am »
The problem is that the hook-to-eye distance is different for the T45C and F-18 and FSX FLOLS seems to be optimized for the F-18, as shipped with the sim. That is why flying the ball on the T45 while normally end up in a 4 wire or bolter. There is not much we can do about it (unless somebody has the modelling skills (and time) to create a new carrier model with a new (I)FLOLS...) other than accepting it.

What I find a little bit odd is that I think I've never received an OK grade with the T45 in vLSO even on a clean pass, while I can get them with the F18. I am wondering if catching the 4 wire is "discounting" from the grading system.

PhantomTweak

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 600
Re: New vLSO (Christmas edition) - EDIT
« Reply #54 on: August 15, 2017, 08:28:40 am »
Paddles will have to answer that, of course. Having said that, I think that a 4-wire trap does cause a slight down-grade by the vLSO's. They're looking for a 3-wire trap. But if you fly for a 3-wire, you'll get down-graded for flying below the glideslope. I think your two choices are to fly an incorrect pass in the T-45, or fly the F-18.
If you opt for the Hornet, may I suggest the v16.1 ? Great palne, flies like a dream, really does. And the team is making it even better as we speak, with a v17.XXX due for release here pretty soon, I hear. Well worth taking a look at.

Either that, or you annoyed the vLSO's. They're very easy to annoy, and will take it out on you from then on.   They hold a grudge ::)
Have fun!
Pat☺

Paddles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 721
  • Lurking around
    • vLSO blog
Re: New vLSO (Christmas edition) - EDIT
« Reply #55 on: August 15, 2017, 06:27:00 pm »
Guys,
Yes, a 4-wire trap does cause a slight down-grade by the vLSO. Only a 3-wire is a pass for an Ok  ;)
You're definitely right when talking about different hook-to-eye distances. Both planes discussed here, the Goshawk and the Hornet, have different sizes and different geometry, thus different distances from the pilot's point of view to the tailhook's point, which 'grabs' virtual arresting wires. I agree with syn that FSX FLOLS is optimized for the Hornet. And we can do nothing about that.

But there IS a solution. The only [known to me] FLOLS, which takes into account aircraft's geometry, is the RFN gauge. And once mastered it, you can get consistent 3-wires with any airplane. The gauge also allows to adjust the glideslope angle... Of course, the upcomng vLSO will fully support the RFN gauge  8)
« Last Edit: August 15, 2017, 07:22:32 pm by Paddles »
Want it done right? Do it yourself!