vLSO Beta release

[Sludge]

Serge...

OK, finally got done with modding the Sludge for the moment and got some testing done. I'm having the same problem others are in that, I get the "POWER...POWER" calls even though I'm a tad overpowered and I got an OK3 UNDERLINED.

I even tried "opening" up the LOCUS.GS numbers to allow for more leeway.

Here's the numbers I used:
;---    Dist  Up     Down
Pos.0 = 4000, 1.30, -1.60
Pos.1 = 2500, 0.75, -1.27
Pos.2 = 2000, 0.68, -1.15
Pos.3 = 1500, 0.66, -1.60
Pos.4 =  600, 0.57, -2.85
Pos.5 =  100, 0.45, -3.40

I took the FSX screen shot the moment I heard "power, power", so I'm guessing that call comes based on RateOfDescent and not the GS?

FYI, I was using the AUTO BALL CALL setting, and CAG level w/ZIP LIP disabled.

Later
Sludge

[Razgriz]

holy approach

[Paddles]

Sludge,
Thanks for your input! Yes, the program issues that 'power, power' call when you're a little low (and lower) at the ramp. I think this call is useless at that range, because there's no time remained to correct. So, I'll fix that in the next beta release, i.e. no power calls when 'a little low' and 'low' at the ramp. However I'm not sure should I remove it for the 'very low' condition too?

As for the locus, it just describes a boundary of a safe approach - fly beyond it and you'll get a waveoff. It has no connection with voice calls other than waveoff.

Thanks again!

[Mickey_Techy]

FSXNP,

On the VRS Superbug, I repeatedly get a waveoff at about 0.8nm, even though I have the cross centered. I have tried both Case I and III approaches.
If I fly slightly below GS, then there is no problem.

With the ILS cross centered, on VRS SH, I get waveoff's even much closer to the boat (0.3 nm, 0.5 nm etc). I have even gotten a OK3 by flying about half a ball width below GS. How do I correct this for the SH.

On the T45 however, there is absolutely no problems at all. Haven't flown the Sludge Hornet with vLSO much, since I know the original assembler (lol) would be testing it extensively, in any case.

[Sludge]

Serge...

However I'm not sure should I remove it for the 'very low' condition too?

Yeah, I think this is a good idea, as in some of the CRASH Y/T's we've seen, you can hear the "POWER, POWER!!" calls when he's about 1-wire/ramp-strike RoD approach.

As for the locus, it just describes a boundary of a safe approach - fly beyond it and you'll get a waveoff.

Thanks for the info., so now I can go back to the regular numbers realizing that the LOCUS.GS numbers have nothing to do with those "POWER, POWER" calls. Which reminds me, those numbers should have the vLSO waveoffs COINCIDE with the boat waveoff lights (upper and lower limits), right? If so, they are probly good as is, but I'll re-confirm when I get home.

No problem, always trying to help make your product the best it can be...

Later
Sludge

[Mickey_Techy]

...... always trying to help make your product the best it can be...

...Like....

[Sludge]

Serge...

Sludge,
Fair enough. However, my suggestion slightly differs:  
600' - AR; (1/4 nm) 1500' - IC; (1/2 nm) 3000' - IM; 4000 - X, BC; (3/4 nm) 4500' - BR
My guess is that the Start is where the pilot starts calling the ball, right? Given the approach speed of 145 kts, we'll have some 16 sec in the groove, and at 130 kts groove time will be exactly 18 sec...  
And it's ok to add some randomization, or a window. But currently no dashed lines, sorry  

I would suggest something closer to 3600 for Start (X) because using a nominal LSO NATOPS Case I WoD, using a natural wind of 12 kts + 15 kts boat speed (27 kts WoD), I calculate about 3350' at 137 INDICATED (110 TRUE). If we get up to 145 kts INDICATED, we get 118 TRUE (145-27=118) for 3600' (3584' rounded up). This is all assuming an 18 sec groove time. The numbers obviously get less/closer with a 15 sec groove time; such as a Start (X) at 3000' (2987' rounded up) using 145 INDICATED (118 TRUE).

My guess is that the Start is where the pilot starts calling the ball, right?

Let's get JJ's take on this and if the pass starts at pilot Ball Call or wings level on Final Bearing AFTER Ball Request.

Later
Sludge

[Paddles]

....those numbers should have the vLSO waveoffs COINCIDE with the boat waveoff lights (upper and lower limits), right? ...

No. Unfortunately they don't.
As you can see, the locus limits are not straight lines:


I'd say these lines are a function of the distance and the glideslope deviation...
FSX waveoff lights depend on the angle of view only. Thus you'll see flashing red lights even if you're in a safe position just below LO  (or above H) somewhere at 2700-3000'...

------
As for the distances.... BC = 4000..3900', X = 3700..3600'. Are we agreed? 

[Sludge]

Serge...

Yeah, I see what you mean in the illustration, but shouldn't the vLSO waveoff calls be in concert with the boat waveoff lights and separate from the grading LOCUS.GS?

I'm asking this as a question not a statement because I don't know if the vLSO is already programmed that way or if its something you've already discussed here and I missed.

As for the numbers, definitely agreed!!

Later
Sludge

[Sludge]

Serge...

I think this is the piece we were missing, the RELATIVE vs INDICATED airspeed approach plus 4.0/3.5 glideslope differential in FSX vs real world numbers. Here's my thinking... the RELATIVE vs INDICATED airspeed gets us right into the ball park and IF we had a 3.5 ball, we could be on the correct RADAR ALTs (450 at THE 90, approx 1.2NM TCN), along with getting a slightly faster (+2 kts) approach speed due to a tad less uptrim to control on-speed. This goes hand-in-hand with how much we see real world Hornet videos doing in the 140s indicated while the default/Sludge are always in the mid-high 130s, even at MAX TRAP. BTW, this is how it was in the sim, the Hornet easily stayed in the low-mid 140s all thru the pattern and on final bearing approach.

I'll try to confirm all this tonight and see how close we get.

Later
Sludge

[Paddles]

Totally agree! The hardcoded 4.0 GS makes a huge difference and this is where this simulator starts disconnecting from real world. MS developers didn't even think that such serious guys would fly their sim 

The locus... If the vLSO waveoff calls were in sync with the FSX waveoff lights then the locus settings would make no sense at all  The locus allows a pilot to reach an on-glideslope position even from a relatevily poor start. That's how they do in real life, I guess. In case of FSX lights the pilot would be waved off right there, at the start... That's why I added this feature to the program. 

[Sludge]

Serge...

Totally agree! The hardcoded 4.0 GS makes a huge difference and this is where this simulator starts disconnecting from real world. MS developers didn't even think that such serious guys would fly their sim

Yeah, I usually fly my patterns with a VERY SERIOUS FACE!! No funny business at all. Haha.

The locus... If the vLSO waveoff calls were in sync with the FSX waveoff lights then the locus settings would make no sense at all.

FSX waveoff lights depend on the angle of view only. Thus you'll see flashing red lights even if you're in a safe position just below LO  (or above H) somewhere at 2700-3000'...

I see what you're saying, and agree for the most part (especially the precision limited LOCUS and closer), with the exception that at the 2000' point and farther out, the LOCUS points should mirror the H and the L points out to start at 3600'? And I know we are dealing with FSX lims here in the viewable area of the glideslope but shouldn't a pass that starts out beyond those lims (even FSX) be a "waveoff pattern"?

Sorry, actually did some re-reading and Forum member K6952 already did the work. Learn to read, Sludge.
http://www.fsdreamteam.com/forum/index.php?topic=4915.msg45835#msg45835

I'll just use his numbers for the 2000'/farther, and your's for 2000'/closer. Probly use the numbers for two balls (4 on your IFLOLS gauge) or lower AR, so we get the waveoff if going two low and into ramp strike territory.

Finally, I did some calculations with the Abeam calls. Now NATOPS pattern illustration says 1-1/4 to 1-1/2, which calculates to 7595'/8195' (1.25NM/1.35NM; distance/distance plus 600' height). Is this why I'm getting the TOO CLOSE ABEAM calls when I'm 1.3 on the HUD TCN? I'm at 1.3 TCN and you've set it up to be greater than 1.35 TCN? After being in the sim and using 1.3 HUD TCN (as Chris said), I would ask if we could split the difference and use 7895' (1.3 HUD TCN as the closest before getting an abeam call)? What's your view on this?

Later
Sludge

[SUBS17]

VRS Tacpac is going to have a tanker call feature which will allow you to place one anywhere aside that you just have to use FS Recorder or an AI Flight plan.

TacPack isn't out yet?

...lol?

(VRS Tacpac is going to have a tanker call feature)  As mentioned above.

[MikeB54]

I took a somewhat less scientific approach to getting the Locus.GS numbers to what I felt was reasonable behavior.  Here is what I am using:

[Locus.GS]
; The glideslope locus.
; This is a boundary which represents the locus of points in the vertical plane from which
; the aircraft will reach an on-glideslope condition at the ramp.
; Distances are measured in feet from the touchdown point.
;---    Dist  Up     Down
Pos.0 = 5200, 1.07, -1.30
Pos.1 = 2500, 1.05, -1.25
Pos.2 = 2200, 1.03, -1.00
Pos.3 = 2000, 0.75, -0.80
Pos.4 = 1600, 0.59, -0.61
Pos.5 = 600, 0.50, -0.52


I started with numbers I found at FSXCarrierOps.com.  I was still getting waveoffs when it took minimal corrective action to still get a 3 wire.  About the only thing I did was open up the Pos.5 (AR) range.

Mike

[Paddles]

Sludge,
Obviously there's something wrong with my abeam position calculations. I'll check it again and fix the bug.