Sludge/Combat Hornet Integrator - Released

[Sludge]

Wily...

Thats the new show smoke feature using the FSXBA smoke effect, not contrails.  Did you not read the NEW FEATURES file?  On #2, it talks about how to setup "pitot heat (on/off)" to get show smoke.  I had to do that as an FSX workaround because of how the smokes are designed and the limitations of putting all the effects in the [smoke] section.

Later
Sludge

[Sludge]

Simon...

How ya been?  Good to see that you are back flying again, kickin some patterns with the Sludge, just like ole times.  Might have to join up a multiplayer session with ya.

Later
Sludge

[wilycoyote4]

hahahahaha, dummy me, one of my 2 grey cells needs repair.

reading now, sorry on that issue

[Sludge]

Wily...

No problem, keep flying and let me know what you encounter anymore problems.  Also, IF you want to tweak the variable for roll, there's two variables you can adjust. Open the AIRCRAFT.CFG file and in the [flight tuning] section, add 0.1 or 0.2 to the roll_stability OR subtract 0.1/0.2 from the aileron_effectiveness scalars, then test. Keep in mind that no matter how much you change variables, you still need to use "power-pause-turn" technique when correcting to centerline.  The Sludge follows real-world tendencies in this regard, itll "settle" (lose energy) in the turn.  Remember my carrier video... "add power, turn" in the bubble comment window before the 180 turn.  I knew the Sludge Hornet did that before I read the Approach article about this exact thing in real-world Hornets.

Fellas...

Just got permission from Skippy Bing to include "Fuel State" (in hundreds for "ball call") and "A/C Weight" (for max trap weight considerations) values in his gauge.

Also, let me know what you think of Wily's criticism.  Does anybody else have the same problem?  An ease to "over-correct" in landing config... if so, let me know how "bad" the over-correct tendency it is to you.

To install new Carrier Trap Gauge, simply download/unzip, then copy/paste the included file into your Sludge Basic/FX PANEL\Carrier_Landing_Gauge folder.  Overwrite y/n? Yes.

Later
Sludge

[wilycoyote4]

My problems could be me-----ahem-----perhaps my joystick axis settings for bank so I'll check that as well.

But your advice "power-pause-turn" seems the best solution.  Will make several flights.

Thanks again and a good 4th holiday to all.

[Johan]

Wily...


Fellas...

Just got permission from Skippy Bing to include "Fuel State" (in hundreds for "ball call") and "A/C Weight" (for max trap weight considerations) values in his gauge.

Also, let me know what you think of Wily's criticism.  Does anybody else have the same problem?  An ease to "over-correct" in landing config... if so, let me know how "bad" the over-correct tendency it is to you.

To install new Carrier Trap Gauge, simply download/unzip, then copy/paste the included file into your Sludge Basic/FX PANEL\Carrier_Landing_Gauge folder.  Overwrite y/n? Yes.

Later
Sludge

Sludge,

I don't have Willy's problem however I do encounter a small issue again that used to be corrected in the previous version, i.e., the plane nose dive after catching the wire at 135 mph and one of the back wheel lifts up...could this be adjusted with the tailhook parameters? Love this new version though, many thanks again.

Johan

[wilycoyote4]

"power-pause-turn" does make a difference for the better, thanks again.

I'll compare the two files concerning toe brakes in some flights soon.

Exhaust heat shimmer looks good.

[Sludge]

Johan...

Yeah thats such a touchy issue with FSX Carriers.  Ive tried to balance looks (on-land and carrier) along with trapping and so far, this is the best I've gotten as the plane is rock solid on-land and has some problems on-deck because the carrier deck surface seems above the actual surface. The Sludge contact points behave/interact with carrier deck wayy different. Yeah, feel free to mod the AIRCRAFT.CFG, [tailhook] cable_force_adjust = 0.70 variable to 0.65, and 0.60 and see what happens.

I get that same landing action every now and then, but just dont know how to pin it down to one thing.  First it was using the PARKING BRAKE, I would get near tip overs on close to perfect 3-wire traps.  Once I used the TOE BRAKES method, the tipping-on-traps lessened, but it would still happen now and then.

Give the cable force adjust a try and let me know how that comes out.

Wily...

No problem, glad it helped.

Later
Sludge

[Johan]

Johan...

Yeah thats such a touchy issue with FSX Carriers.  Ive tried to balance looks (on-land and carrier) along with trapping and so far, this is the best I've gotten as the plane is rock solid on-land and has some problems on-deck because the carrier deck surface seems above the actual surface. The Sludge contact points behave/interact with carrier deck wayy different. Yeah, feel free to mod the AIRCRAFT.CFG, [tailhook] cable_force_adjust = 0.70 variable to 0.65, and 0.60 and see what happens.

I get that same landing action every now and then, but just dont know how to pin it down to one thing.  First it was using the PARKING BRAKE, I would get near tip overs on close to perfect 3-wire traps.  Once I used the TOE BRAKES method, the tipping-on-traps lessened, but it would still happen now and then.

Give the cable force adjust a try and let me know how that comes out.


Later
Sludge

Thanks Sludge, I will play around with the parameters you mention. Right now, I am taking the Sludge to Miramar NAS, with MAIW, having a lot of fun. Just too bad it eats a lot of fps to have a few F-14 in the air and a AC out sea. Have a great 4th.

Johan

[Sludge]

Fellas (especially Johan)...

I figured out why the jet "bucks up" (either right/left MLG kick up just before settling at trap).  Its the CG (center of gravity) that was set forward of previous models.  This was done to make a more evenly-balanced jet "in flight" but as we have all found out, when it traps, it has that "bucking" tendency.  I'm currently testing the Sludge at 34.00 CG, and might move it back a tad more, to get it back to default... but so far, the limited testing I've done has really toned down the "bucking" tendency.  I've only got it to do a micro-"buck" (no offense, MICRO).. so this means Im moving in the right direction.  If you want to test this out, simply modify the aircraft.cfg's CG (empty_weight_cg_position) to 34.00 or 34.20, and then change the fuel tanks length-wise position to 33.00/34.00 (from 32.00). Ill try to get out a new aircraft.cfg, so everyone can test out the changes and give me feedback.

I also have several revelations...

First is, JIMI and myself have made a decent G-Limiter.XML gauge.  We have tested it and its NOT perfect but neither is the one in the real-world jet.  In F-18 NATOPS and in the F-16 TACMAN, they explicitly say words to the effect of: "even with the g-limiter, the pilot can still over-G, and over-stress the aircraft."  What that means in laymen's terms is that you can SNAP-PULL Gs (past the g-limiter) for short periods of time, til it "catches up" and limits you back to what's its designed to do.  I'll get that gauge out to everyone shortly.

Second, when watching Y/T videos of carriers landing, I noticed that ALL OF THEM (ones I watched) landed in the 140 KIAS range.  Then I looked at the Hornet landing speed charts (which I used religiously in testing) and noticed that it says KNOTS IN CALIBRATED AIRSPEED.  NSHKH.  So I did the unthinkable and re-enabled AUTO-FLAPS.  BOOM!!  The jet flies the whole pattern in the 140-150 KIAS range, and definately flies the approach in the 140 KIAS.  And, its still in the low 80s for N2 RPM to maintain approach AoA and G/S.  I think that has more to do with the Induced Drag Scalar (AoA dependent) than the flaps position.  So unless something happens that drastically changes my mind, the Sludge will go back to the AUTO-FLAPS from here on out.  Feel free to test this out.

Here's one of the many Y/T videos I looked that that made me switch.

Finally, still working on the brakes "trick" and will see if this latest set of fixes helps with that or if it still behaves erratically (at best) and dump the idea altogether.

Later
Sludge

[Sludge]

Fellas...

Does the new Carrier Trap Gauge help?  With the ball call "Fuel State" and "A/C Weight" values added?  Do you like the position or do you need it elsewhere?

Oh yeah, speaking of which, I have a request for all that test out the Sludge.  Use more than MIN FUEL when testing.  Definately dont like to see the Master Caution and LOW FUEL lights illuminated (2.0 fuel or less) when trapping.  Id recommend anywhere from 7.0 to 3.0, and once you get to 3.0, just pretend you got some gas at the tanker (fsx a/craft fuel menu), get back up to 6.0 fuel and do some more traps at the proper weights.  In real-world, you'd never go below 2.0 unless you were in an emergency state, like we saw in another post about catching the barricade.  At 3.0, CATCC would send you to tank.

Thanks for all your help and will get you updated info when I get home tonight, as Im at work now.

Later
Sludge

[Johan]

Fellas (especially Johan)...

I figured out why the jet "bucks up" (either right/left MLG kick up just before settling at trap).  Its the CG (center of gravity) that was set forward of previous models.  This was done to make a more evenly-balanced jet "in flight" but as we have all found out, when it traps, it has that "bucking" tendency.  I'm currently testing the Sludge at 34.00 CG, and might move it back a tad more, to get it back to default... but so far, the limited testing I've done has really toned down the "bucking" tendency.  I've only got it to do a micro-"buck" (no offense, MICRO).. so this means Im moving in the right direction.  If you want to test this out, simply modify the aircraft.cfg's CG (empty_weight_cg_position) to 34.00 or 34.20, and then change the fuel tanks length-wise position to 33.00/34.00 (from 32.00). Ill try to get out a new aircraft.cfg, so everyone can test out the changes and give me feedback.


Later
Sludge

Sludge,

Thanks a lot, only someone like you with an inside and out knowledge of this plane...I will try this out after work.

Johan

[Sludge]

Fellas...

OK, did some more testing and just about ready to release an update to all the FSDT flyers.  I think for now I'm definately gonna NIX the "brakes trick" on touchdown, as its definately contributing to the "bucking" problem.  I'll keep the cat-shot brakes, but if it gives me too many more problems, its going out the window as well.

I will do further testing and also release a MANUAL package that easily updates all the current changes in the v1.2 CHARLIE.  This will include more stable contact points and CG, AUTO-FLAPS enabled in aircraft.cfg, newer CARRIER TRAP gauge w/corresponding panel.cfg rewrites, a reworked PANEL\BASIC folder that includes the new G-LIMITER.XML gauge.

In the meantime, here's some screenies from my last testing session, and some good "sight pictures" to focus on when carrier landing.  Take note of where the wings level (W) is and where the velocity vector is in regards to the ship.  If you are lined up and correcting, the v/vector should be at the "crotch" (where the angled deck and forward deck intersect) til just before you touchdown, then let it work its way towards the middle of the angled deck.

Later
Sludge

[Johan]

Well Sludge, these are perfect shots. Thank you for your enthusiasm, putting out some great work and still challenging it as our comments come back. I changed the CG parameters and it works much better with your recommendation and Frenchies' lines....much smaller "buck". Everything else is working perfect.

Johan

[neutrino]

Second, when watching Y/T videos of carriers landing, I noticed that ALL OF THEM (ones I watched) landed in the 140 KIAS range.  Then I looked at the Hornet landing speed charts (which I used religiously in testing) and noticed that it says KNOTS IN CALIBRATED AIRSPEED.  NSHKH.  So I did the unthinkable and re-enabled AUTO-FLAPS.  BOOM!!  The jet flies the whole pattern in the 140-150 KIAS range, and definately flies the approach in the 140 KIAS.  And, its still in the low 80s for N2 RPM to maintain approach AoA and G/S.  I think that has more to do with the Induced Drag Scalar (AoA dependent) than the flaps position.  So unless something happens that drastically changes my mind, the Sludge will go back to the AUTO-FLAPS from here on out.  Feel free to test this out.

Here's one of the many Y/T videos I looked that that made me switch.

Finally, still working on the brakes "trick" and will see if this latest set of fixes helps with that or if it still behaves erratically (at best) and dump the idea altogether.

Later
Sludge

Sludge, I think getting back to maneuvering flaps is a step back from the realism the Sludge Hornet has achieved. The maneuvering flaps setting allows only half flaps in flight, and if you want you can still land that way with manual flaps by pressing F7 instead of F8. But as you mention your approach speed will be 9-10knots higher than with full flaps and you may break two restrictions on carrier landings for the Hornet depending on your gross weight - first, you will exceed the max trap speed of 145 knots if you are heavier than 32,000 lbs (>70% fuel), and second, with gross weights above 33,000 lbs (>78% fuel) you are only allowed to land at full flaps.

With full flaps the FSX Hornet matches exactly the approach speeds for the real F/A-18 at optimum AOA across the different gross weights. It's within 1 knot accurate! For example, let's take the video you posted. You will notice he is slightly fast all the way to touchdown, which means that at optimum AOA the approach speed will be 1-3 knots lower or about 139 kts. From the F/A-18 approach speed diagram this corresponds to 34,200 lbs gross weight. So if you load the FSX Hornet to 34k lbs gross and fly a steady 8.1 AOA approach at full flaps, your speed will be 139 kts But at half flaps (or maneuvering flaps) the speed will be about 150 kts and they will have to use the barricade

So what I am saying is - sure, you can land at auto flaps at low gross weights, but don't limit the option to land heavier and at normal approach speeds by using full manual flaps.

Also, for the FSX Hornet calibrated airspeed and indicated airspeed is the same because there is no instrument error, so that shouldn't be an issue.