Sludge/Combat Hornet Integrator - Released

[wilycoyote4]

Wily...

Thanks.  Also, what was your perception of the handing in G turns?  Were the gear contact points better?  How was ground handling?

Did you like the newer HUD setup?

Sludge

My coupla flights were simple enough.  Airport runway north-south taking off into slight headwind (5 kts) with low fuel weight of 20% to 30%, payload (1680 pounds) not reduced, landing on east-west runway with the slight crosswind of 5 kts.  Main test was joystick elevator trim which by my stick and default stick settings, seemed better.

Not doing AP at this time nor flight plan, nor carrier but will do so.

I've not gotten to other matters of your questions properly yet but shall ASAP.

[wilycoyote4]

.....what was your perception of the handing in G turns?  Were the gear contact points better? Sludge

Screenies of vapor in sunlight and shadow, data in screeny label.  Smooth control,
Doing a bit of basic "aerobatics", smooth, wingroll very nice, seems that trim is important for a wingroll, at least that's what I try to do first, then roll.

Contact points look good, function well, haven't made carrier trap flights yet, but have dropped the nose quickly to the runway on landing.  The nose gear compression seems good at this point.

[wilycoyote4]

Carrier traps are much smoother when stopping after catching a wire, that is, not tumbling.  Approaching the carrier is smoother, that is, control of speed and rate of descent is better.
AoA is easier using stick trim.  The proper AoA seems to be 7.2 at the weight shown.

The trap stopping distance seems a little longer(?) noticed on another trap catching 4 wire and stopping near the end of the slant deck, interesting from the VC, eh?  This is better.

I need to do more than 2 carrier traps to evaluate but this version of the Hornet seems better at once.

One screeny shows the nose dip.  Speed at this point of the trap is quite slow, about 60 KIAS. This dip is better in my opinion.
Correction---60 knots at that moment but that includes the 25 knots of the moving carrier.  The dip of the nose started a second or so before at a higher speed and just after catching a wire but a trap last only seconds.

[Sludge]

Wily...

Good testing and screenshots.  Thats definately the feedback Im looking for.  Happy to hear that the contact points are working better.  Thats the goal I was shooting for, now we will see what others say as well.

The proper AoA seems to be 7.2 at the weight shown.

The NATOPS AoA is 8.1, and it does hold true.  One thing that might help is making BOTH FLAPS (LeadingEdgeFlaps/TrailingEdgeFlaps) manual control; in the AIRCRAFT.CFG/[FLAPS] section, make sure both maneuvering flaps= is set to 0 (manual).  In the latest Sludge, only the TEFs are manual, the LEFs are AUTO and hence follow the FSX default flaps schedule.  Im definately gonna change both to MANUAL in my next output of the Sludge/Combat, as the minor gain LEF AUTO gave in low speed dogfighting doesnt offset the consistency of lift/AoA during carrier approaches, that the MANUAL setting gives.

I found this out last night as I was flying a carrier approach, and after hearing the flap motor sound, I did an external view and sure enough the LEFs were cycling.  This was in the 135-140 kts speed regime.  So I PAUSED, changed the setting in the aircraft.cfg, did a re-load aircraft, setup again... and sure enough, there was a noticeable difference using MANUAL at 138 kts approach speed.  3 wire, 138 KIAS, 8.0 Alpha, -720 RoD.  Works like a champ, so Im not messing with it.

A request when you test.  Start at 60 percent fuel state or more, so the jet is in its normal condition (RW Hornet's RARELY are AT/BELOW 3k fuel) for manuevering/dogfighting/carrier ops.  At 3k in the carrier pattern, CATCC would work on getting them tanked.  And when doing carrier ops, set the wind to 12 kts down the angle (BaseRecoveryCourse - 9deg), you'll get more realistic carrier landing conditions.

Thanks for your inputs and screenies.

Later
Sludge

[wilycoyote4]

I've set LEF to "0".  Fuel over 60%.  I set 12 knots wind over slant deck heading. 

The carrier moves at 25 knots so the total is 37 knots.  In the cat screeny the air speed at that moment is 181 KIAS with very little throttle so as soon as possible I must throttle up but this is closer to reality.

Thanks for instructions.

[Sludge]

Wily...

Yup, thats about right.  Was doing carrier ops with Raz one time and came across the same discovery regarding carrier cat shots.  If you stay at flight idle til the end of the cat shot, then throttle up to 90% N2, it gets closer to a realistic cat shot.

Keep on testing.

Later
Sludge

[wilycoyote4]

Wily...

Yup, thats about right.  Was doing carrier ops with Raz one time and came across the same discovery regarding carrier cat shots.  If you stay at flight idle til the end of the cat shot, then throttle up to 90% N2, it gets closer to a realistic cat shot.

Keep on testing.

Later
Sludge

I think Raz posted that info to me somewhere on this forum. 

[Sludge]

Wily...

Here's a good screenie for ya.  It shows all the conditions I test with IN RED and the wire trap results.

Fellas...

My next "big fix" for the Sludge/Combat will be working on getting "at altitude" thrust corrections for FSX.  This is another thing that has been bothering me since day one, but I see others have come across some possible fixes/solutions.

Check this out:
http://fsdeveloper.com/forum/showthread.php?t=34404

Til I can get my pea-brain wrapped around this and what exactly to mod/test this, I will setup the S/C Hornet to behave as the real world flight test numbers that Ave Joe gave to me for 5k feet.  That way, once Im setup with those correct thrust/mach numbers, once I get a grasp on this... I can simply work from the ground up, getting the proper thrust change as altitude increases.

Later
Sludge

[wilycoyote4]

Very good screeny, precise, thanks, we can learn from it

[Sludge]

Johan...

Thanks for the clarifications Sludge, I didn't mean to be critical

Johan

No worries.  You dont have to apologize for being critical, its what I want.  I'd only get "touchy" if you're contradicting something I've seen in real life, but thats not the case.  ALL of you guys have been providing great feedback and thats what Im looking for...  appreciate it ALOT.  The landing gear contact points problem and fix is a great example of what you guys bring to the table.

Later
Sludge

[wilycoyote4]

3 screenys in sequence --- all have 12 knot headwind and 25 knot carrier speed for a total of 37 knots.

1st at 92 KIAS, 57% fuel, nose coming down just touching deck to compress struct, Alpha -2.8

2nd at 66 KIAS, Alpha -7.8

3rd at 45 KIAS, Alpha -7.2

Approach speed before trap 137 KIAS, Alpha 7.9, so Hornet loses about 40-45 KIAS before nose hits deck (?).

EDIT: 40-45 seems too high after further traps the nose wheels have touched the deck sooner such as 16 KIAS difference.

[Johan]

Did you like the newer HUD setup?

Later
Sludge

Sludge,

Thanks, it's fun to test all the mods.
Could you please let me know what are the mods in the HUD and their effects?
Thanks,

Johan

[Sludge]

Johan...

The HUD changes are from the aircraft.cfg (moves default eyepoint closer), making the HUD smaller (.65 size vs. standard .70 size), and moving some of the symbology around to make it the smaller size.  Other than the NAV Page that was added, there is no NEW functionality.  These new HUD mods are visual changes ONLY and were done so I can see the numbers better.  Does this work OK for you guys?  Are you able to read the numbers easier at farther zooms?  Do you like how it looks?

Here's three pics for comparison.  Tell me what you think.
Pic 1: Combat HUD original settings.
Pic 2: Combat HUD w/my modified size and symbology.
Pic 3: Real World HUD projecting onto a hangar door.  Pic was included in Scott Printz' original HUD upgrade package.

[EDIT]:  I had to reposition the HUD Clock higher than it is in real life because if you land with the 2D HUD, the HUD Clock will get in the way of the Meatball.  And, hopefully you can see by the illustrations that the HUD is lower and allows more projection room above the heading tape.

Later
Sludge

[Johan]

Sludge,

Now I get it, thanks to the pictures to compare. Thank you. I agree on the improvement of clarity, I personally like it better. I will test both HUDS in flight and play with the zooms.
Thanks Sludge,

Johan

[GOONIE]

Sludge,

Couple things, first I really like the new 2D and VC HUD size and layout.

I am still getting the nose down pitching, which looks just like the pics Wiley posted. Two things I've done to overcome this, is first I reduced the cable_force_adjust =   0.55, and then when landing I don't apply mil power and apply more back elevator once down, seems to keep the nose gear up or from going through the deck. Now this is just cosmetic, to be used when landing and taking video, when I land normally using the 2D HUD I don't really care about the nose wheel dip and apply mil/burner (as req) as per NATOPS until I know I’ve trapped. Does anyone else have the problem after trapping and applying mil/burner then reducing to idle, that you still roll forward pretty significantly? I always have to stay sharp on the breaks to not go off the end of the ship, even though I feel I reduce to idle as soon as I know I am trapped/caught a wire. Not sure there is a way to fix that.

Also, one thing I like, personal preference, is to keep the aileron_effectiveness  = 1.4 (old sludgefx value), instead of the updated value to 1.1 . It seems to give me the aileron authority and response I desire behind the boat.

Finally any thoughts on the engine smoke not showing up even with correct N1 and altitudes? I think it might be a FSX.cfg setting I have turned off, or a display setting, but not sure. I get the lexvapor to work fine.

Keep the great updates coming!

-CAPT