FSX F-18 Tinkering

[Sludge]

Check this out fellas...

The other day, in the midst of looking at the sdk developers site, http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc526949.aspx , I stumbled upon this under [airplane_geometry]... "fly_by_wire = 1", meaning Fly-By-Wire system available.  So I made the entry in the aircraft.cfg file and took the F-18 out for a spin.  At low speeds (takeoff/landing), it handles similar to what you are used to for a non-FBW aircraft.  However, forgive me if my memory is off, but around 200-250 kts it starts to respond as a very sluggish FBW system.  I commanded FULL LEFT AILERON and the Hornet just creeped into a left bank.

Now after looking at the sdk page again and reading the example, I'm guessing this FBW behavior is modeled to fit the "airbus 321" example that was given?  Also, if we can get FBW, can anyone think of a way to modify its behavior (ie, boosting/modifying its ultra slow feedback, and where it kicks in for landing responsiveness) through the .air file or something else?

Also, has anyone activated the auto-trim function available in the "fsx.cfg" file and used it with the Hornet?  Its there, and to activate, it needs to be set to TRUE not a 1 value.  I have done it but it seems that one has to be bullish to get it to respond, meaning alot of input either forward or down to get the desired auto-trim to where you want it is required.  Not just a simple few degrees nose up or down, but 10 to 15 deg to get it to re-autotrim bout 5 deg., so I turned it off and still use manual trim.

Would like to hear if anyone has done this and what they have experienced and if you have any ideas about modifications.
Laterz
Sludge

[Razgriz]

If you copy the 2d overhead panel of the A321 into the F/A-18, you can disable the flight computers that limit the FBW.  Tell me if you want me to do that for you.

[Sludge]

I think I can do that, when I get home ... Ill try to install and work it and let you know.

[Sludge]

All it seemed to do was send me back to non-FBW Hornet in flight response, so I really didnt mess with it in depth, thanks for the help though.

On another front, I've put together a very decent of ground contact points that make the Hornet look alot more what its supposed to be without the "bumps" when switching views.  Also, with this mod, you have to set your Mesh Resolution to 10m, everything else can be full to the right.  Everytime Ive gone to the right of 10m I get the "bumps" when taxiing at times, or when I switch views, especially the tower.

These settings are also very good for carrier landings, dont have the "tipovers" as other people do, even when slightly off line.  So far, these numbers in my config file seems to make the Hornet very stable and smooth on the ground.

Give them a try and send me feedback..

Laterz
Sludge

[wilycoyote4]

checking, will report back in a bit of time, busy day.

I have been using contact points that solved cat launch and trap problems for the default F/A-18C and payware XLoad F/A-18D, although still testing these but will compare.

[JamesChams]

Mr. "wilycoyote4,"

I resolved that issue for those aircraft and many others... Here: Aircraft AI Carrier Configurations v1.8 by James F. Chams

If you wanted to save yourself some time.

Enjoy!

[Sludge]

James...

What issue did you resolve with that link?

Your hook contact points are good, since Ive used them, but I was talking about the gear contact points with realistic gear compression that gives the acceleration F-18 a very slight nose down, gear compressed, flat orientation it should have.  Not the crazy, original F-18 acceleration static "tail high" orientation that isn't right.  You know, the dragster look it has when just sitting on the ground that any search of Youtube or any other source will show you how wrong that gear compression is modeled.  The reason I was posting my numbers to see what other people experience... and to see if my numbers along with pulling back only the Mesh Resolution slider on scenery realism works for them as well as it did for me to eliminate the "bumps".

[JamesChams]

Mr. Christian "Sludge" Snow,

... but I was talking about the gear contact points with realistic gear compression that gives the acceleration F-18 a very slight nose down, gear compressed, flat orientation it should have.  Not the crazy, original F-18 acceleration static "tail high" orientation that isn't right.  You know, the dragster look it has when just sitting on the ground that any search of Youtube or any other source will show you how wrong that gear compression is modeled.  The reason I was posting my numbers to see what other people experience... and to see if my numbers along with pulling back only the Mesh Resolution slider on scenery realism works for them as well as it did for me to eliminate the "bumps".

I spoke with a the modeler of the IRIS F-14 Pro series (Stephen V.) a long time ago about the F/A-18 nose being pitched down; he informed me, that they made it that way so that they wouldn't have to animate the model for the required kneel/squat that carrier aircraft have to do inorder to meet the catapult for the launch.  Also, CaptainSim modeled their versions to enable for payloads to cause the aircraft to looked stressed when overloaded or not properly loaded.  The result is the bounce effect you see from time to time (Virtuali informed me about that) on any ground surface at an airport or even on the carriers.  Finally, I posted the carrier stuff for Mr. "wilycoyote4" because it seemed that he was trying to align the proper locations for the tailhook and launch bar; something that I had already done.

I have no solution to this or I would pass it along.  Best of luck to you.

[Sludge]

James...

OK, fair nuff.  I see where you were going with that.

Now, check this out.  I just got done using my aircraft cfg, scenery realisms to full except Mesh at 10m and all aircraft realisms to full including "allow collisions w/other a/craft" using FULL FLAPS and launched on all CATs without fail, on both ful mil power and ful AB.  I'm guessing this has to do with how nose low the aircraft remains because my launches had me nose low where I immediately had to pull up on the stick and uptrim.  Also, when i used the keyboard to give the elevators some manual upstick for a little nose-up launch, it crashed, even on full flaps.
I will try some launches and traps to see if the trim needs to be reset to zero on traps, but seeing as how the real F-18 launches w/full flaps, if this really does work for others as well as it does for me, then I think we will have an even better flight model w/that much more realism.

Will report back.

[Sludge]

SUCCESS!!!

End of Day Report.

Did the 1st carrier mission as described before (aircraft/realism settings w/new gear points).  I did NOT have to reset my trim to zero.  I did notice a little higher takeoff angle (meaning not soo much stick pull and trim after cat) on the 2nd and later cat-shots.

Let me know how it turns out for you guys out there!
Nite, I'm out.
Sludge

Pic of the day's success

[wilycoyote4]

The following is my first opinion from several flights.  The white Hornet uses the cfg posted for download here.  The appearance is good.  

The first screenshot shows the Hornet with no fuel, parked on a ramp, so it has very low weight.  

The next shows cat launch at the end of the cat track at 167 KIAS and 23% fuel.  The Hornet appears this way, basically, from the start of the launch to end of the cat trap.  Note: throttle is not at full power.  Full power isn't needed at such a low weight.

Next is a Hornet waiting for cat launch.  This Hornet is at full AB power.  The Hornet kneels at the nose gear.  But it stays on the cat track and doesn't release early.  Weight is also low.

The blue Hornet uses a different cfg.  Fuel is 25%.  The main gear are somewhat high but look ok to me.  This cfg is also used for the Captain Sim XLoad payware F/A-18D which can be set up with greater weight than the F/A-18C.

But there is another consideration.  The cfg posted here is not as "stable" during taxi turns or trapping on a carrier, IN MY OPINION, as the earlier cfg I've been using.

[Sludge]

Thanks Coyote!

OK, will tinker with the config on taxi stability.  Now that you say it, sometimes on the flight deck I have to hit the brakes as it turns over a bit when going on NWS HI and maneuvering to get on a cat.

Also, how were your cat shots?  Any crashes?  I'm pretty happy with the config in that respect, also use full flaps and havent crashed against the deck on cat shots ONCE.

Laterz
Sludge

[JamesChams]

Mr. Christian "Sludge" Snow / Mr. "wilycoyote4,"

I got your PM but haven't had a chance to test things on my end.  Looks like you both have made some progress.  Keep at it and let us all know!

Good Job, Gents!

[wilycoyote4]

Now that you say it, sometimes on the flight deck I have to hit the brakes as it turns over a bit when going on NWS HI and maneuvering to get on a cat.

Also, how were your cat shots?  Any crashes?  I'm pretty happy with the config in that respect, also use full flaps and havent crashed against the deck on cat shots ONCE.

Laterz
Sludge

All cat shots are good.  Realism is max.  But will test for "crash" -------in other words, what is your definition of "crash"?  Landing at proper weights is important as I see the matter.  

I'm not home as I write this post but I'll post my gear contact points so you can compare.  I mean the contact points I use but must give credit to another person if I can find the website where I copied them.

The contact points I use now, the HUD glass mod, and the free speed brake modification solved  my problems, in my opinion.

[SpazSinbad]

wily, may I ask what you mean by this mod please "free speed brake modification" - thanks. Do you mean the movement of the Hornet when speedbrakes selected (fix for this from the FSX Blue Angels website) or do you mean something else (head bob?). IMHO the 'head bob' is a killer 'bug' for the FSX Hornet - wot needs to be fixed.  

Others mention taxiing in various ways. Taxiing dangerously (too fast) is especially problematic on deck. You will not see any aircraft going faster than a walking pace most likely always under direction of the yellow shirts. Lining up on the catapult is done very carefully without nosewheel steering most likely. Differential brakes are used for the final few feet with cat director indicating minute changes all made with brakes (here I'm referring to Skyhawk with nosewheel steering but imagine same technique for other aircraft). Nosewheel steering would be very sensitive for VERY SLOW taxi speeds deliberately so that easy tight turns can be accomplished. Always at very slow speed though (under direction of course). Happy taxiing - no one ever wins a prize for a taxiing accident.