The Pitching Deck Saga

[SpazSinbad]

Orion, Not sure what you want to show here. If the deck was pitching we could not see that very well in the video. You must have been 'deck spotting' and flaring to get on board because 'in close' the ball drops off the bottom of the mirror - LOW. Over the ramp for some reason the WAVE OFF lights start flashing but you land anyway. Hmmm. 

Personally I don't see the point of landing on the carrier 'any old how' (including deck spotting). Just my opinion though. It is always worthwhile to wave off and to have another go. I understand the pressure to get onboard if you are making a 'live' video but this one is not a good example IMHO.

[neutrino]

Orion, that's an amazing video - I like the view of the pitching deck in the beginning, truly artistic shot!

The landing was difficult because the deck was pitching - so much so that the lens assembly was hidden from view by the deck, therefore he had to rely on instruments. Actually in close and over the wires he was on the ball, on speed and on centerline - so a very good landing in my book

[Orion]

Thanks guys.

James: Yes, it is all in FSX.  No post production aside trimming the clips and adding the title and credits.  Also, please just call me Orion.
Spaz: I was trying to show the pitching deck, not my landing.  Since the pitching deck is pretty subtle in this video, I've removed it.  I'll put a different one up when I have the time and will to make another...  Or put the same one back if enough people request to see my atrocious landing and subtle pitching deck .
JR: Thanks for the compliments .  I still don't think it was that good of a landing though .

[SpazSinbad]

Yes it is amazing that he landed, where I think we have agreed (perhaps not?) that 'instrument landings' are not the way to go for the last 3/4 of a mile. If the ball in the mirror cannot be seen or followed then I think the system with the pitching deck is not worthwhile. But I am not you.

It is possible to land onboard without the mirror in any conditions - where the deck can be seen - but it is not certain. Landing visually via the mirror should provide that certainty. If not then what is the point?

I guess there is a view about such things that 'any landing is a good landing' but magically, apparently, being in the right spot at the right time just before touchdown is not OK. I'll look again at the video to follow the needles (you could imagine I was just looking at the ball - what else is there to look at?). However even if the needles are spot on all the way down I still don't see the point.

This is only my opinion and I'll acknowledge there are other opinions. If instrument (needle) landings are the way to go then don't bother with the mirror because.... ??
__________

Have watched the needles this time to see started low, stayed low then 'at the ramp' got back to 'on the ball' but then got low again (maybe irrelevant just before touchdown). My reading of most LSO literature says "never accept a low ball" and 'wave off early' when things are not close to ideal.

Bear in mind I can do 'landings that should be wave offs' because it is a simulator; but saying that a landing is good - when it is not - is not on. OK I have myself posted a video of a very bad carrier landing but I said it was such. So  has Orion said the same thing. My point was to point out that comments that it was a good landing are not correct. Videos of 'whatever landings' are good because we can all learn from them.
________________

And I accept Orion's point that the video was to show the pitching deck (not the approach/landing). Probably it is not clear to some that carrier landing in FSX is difficult. It requires practice and precision to a degree that most are probably not familiar using quite different flying techniques compared to (more usual) USAF/general aviation style (reducing power and airspeed) approach to a to flared landing.

The other thread makes it clear that a new Goshawk T-45C pilot does two weeks of intense FCLP to be allowed near the carrier.  http://www.fsdreamteam.com/forum/index.php?topic=3193.15

[Sludge]

Spaz...

Please, for the love of God, stop critiquing everybody's carrier landings.  If they post for grading and critiquing (like I do), then fire away.  But geez, the whole point on this video is ONLY TO SHOW THAT ITS A PITCHING DECK, nothing more.  Which it WAS!  Not about landing using the mirror or using the ICLS.  Ive taken Orion on "buddy rides" (FSX share aircraft in the Sludge Hornet), and shown him how carrier landings are supposed to be flown, so he knows the main concepts... again, just let it be, unless someone specifically asks you for a critique.  Critique my landings all you want, cause thats why I post them, I want grading on them, but geez... back off on the ones that are posting modding "concept" videos that have nothing to do with using the mirror or spotting the deck or using ICLS to land.  Thanks.  BTW, yes the boat does pitch very well.  Not as obvious or to the degree that JRs carrier does in his video, but Orion's carrier deck pitches quite noticeably in both the fly-by AND the landing.

James Chams...

As far as your "Naval Package", I dont want you releasing anything that I made or using the Sludge Hornet modifications in any way.  I thought you were gonna do that about six or so months ago, but heard nothing back from you, so as of right now, you are not cleared to release any of the stuff Ive made.  And as Orion says, just call us by name... not Mr. this or that... Sludge or Christian works fine for me.

Later
Sludge

[SpazSinbad]

Sludge, I have made it clear I hope that my response was not to the pitching deck video but to the claim by someone else that it was an 'alright deck landing'. If someone posts a video and says that the deck landing is not good (and something else is being shown) then you won't hear a peep from me. I think I made that clear.

I was going to suggest that people wanting to see some good deck landings go to view some of your own recent ones - but I won't do that now.    I have a sense of proportion about this - that it is a simulator and people are not familiar with a lot of concepts. However I cannot take 'good' landings for bad. Otherwise I don't see the point myself.

Let us have a sense of proportion. I certainly do. I'm in awe of the change that has been made to FSX Accelerator by all concerned with the new HUD and needles. Why a pitching deck is thrown in to something that is difficult enough beggars belief, especially if the glideslope is not stabilised (not pitching with the pitching deck). I would recommend that the deck can be shown to pitch for the sake of a video clip; but otherwise please have the approach to a non-pitching deck. Then I think it will pitch enough.

Once again I have no problem with any video - except if a claim is made that it is a good landing when patently it is not. And Orion did not make that claim, in fact he said otherwise - no problem. Have a look at what I have written again with this in mind. Thanks.

[Orion]

Okay, I've put the video back.  As said earlier, please excuse my not-so-good landing.

Just to make things extra clear (and hopefully avoid off topic conflict regarding my landing), the purpose of this video is to demonstrate a pitching deck within Flight Simulator X.

[SpazSinbad]

Orion, thanks. My intent was not to offend you or anyone but to point out something already explained at length.

One question is the mirror / glideslope stabilised? If not then a pitching deck makes a carrier landing in FSX a non-starter IMHO. It is a good feature to have in a video to add atmosphere but to actually attempt a 'non-stabilised' carrier approach via any method (I'll assume needles not stabilised?) seems fraught.

The other thread showing the 'mirror/IFLOLS' gauge looks to be another excellent addition to the carrier landing tool improvements in FSX.

[JamesChams]

...James Chams...

As far as your "Naval Package", I dont want you releasing anything that I made or using the Sludge Hornet modifications in any way.  I thought you were gonna do that about six or so months ago, but heard nothing back from you, so as of right now, you are not cleared to release any of the stuff Ive made.  And as Orion says, just call us by name... not Mr. this or that... Sludge or Christian works fine for me.

Later
Sludge

Snow,
Nothing is being released to the public until...
1). All packages are finished/compiled together for relevance, function, correctness, etc.
2). I plan to ONLY distribute it to the developers of the respective packages first for evaluation. (i.e. if you contributed, you get the BETA Test copies)
3). Delays in individual packages updates are what is holding up things (> 4 months) and at this point, I'm the only one testing things.
4). This is completely FREEWARE for the purpose of easing installation, of all different Naval packages and is a completely configurable installer.
5). No one developer/user is required to participate.  It is completely voluntary and I will only use your package if you want it to be included.

However, at this point I'm including every freeware Naval package that is authentic, functional, and useful for FSX Naval Aviation for my own testing, etc.  Later, when it is finished, I plan to demo it to the developers.  Then, its up to you if you want it or not.  Does that meet with your expectations?

Also, I expect you'll to call me Mr. Chams or Mr. James Chams from now on.  

PS: Orion, I did call you by your forum name...  Now, can you kindly share the pitching deck features, please?   I think I'd like to try that out with my new VRS Super Hornet X...

Thanks!

[Orion]

Spaz:

No problem, it's just people seemed to think my landing was more interesting than the pitching deck .

Anyways, with that aside, I'm not sure what you mean by stabilized.  The IFLOLS lights, along with the runway lights for that matter, stay in the same place (I assume it's relative to the center of the model), and don't pitch with the rest of the visible model.  This is also described by Micro in the beginning of the thread.

Unfortunately the deck stays at the pitch angle you set, but if you notice, the ball is not “physically” attached to the model. It kind of floats in its normal position giving the illusion of being stabilized. The problem, as you can see, is that as the bow of the ship goes down, the deck actually starts to obstruct the ball. Just like in real life, the solution to this would be to have a higher than normal glideslope (3.5 – 4.0 degrees). Maybe someone out there with a knowledge of the FLOLS in Flight Sim can tell us if that is possible, but I would have no idea how to pull that off.

I believe the glideslope for carriers in FSX is 4 degrees (as shown by the IFLOLS and ILS), but I'm not sure where to go with that fact...

James:

Err, it's not quite perfect yet.  There are a few issues (which are actually quite hilarious and intriguing once you're done being annoyed by it) that I'm afraid we can't work around using this method.  I agree with the conclusion that Micro came up with back on page two, that the proper way to get a pitching deck in FS is to build it into the model.

[SpazSinbad]

Orion, once again thanks for the explanation. I'm not involved in the 'pitching deck' evolution so I have no idea what it does in FSX except for as explained earlier and now. I think you have highlighted the problems and I would not know how to correct them in FSX. Bear in mind there are sea conditions which militate against flight ops. Various LSO manuals give the limits for deck pitch height for example.

[JamesChams]

Mr. Lyau,

...Err, it's not quite perfect yet.  There are a few issues (which are actually quite hilarious and intriguing once you're done being annoyed by it) that I'm afraid we can't work around using this method.  I agree with the conclusion that Micro came up with back on page two, that the proper way to get a pitching deck in FS is to build it into the model.

I understand, its not a marriage made in heaven... anyway, I also understand if you don't want to share it publically because its not "cooked" and ready!  Eitherway, I love to play with things that work to make things real.

BTW FYI: Mr. Javier Fernandez's, Mr. David "DSWO", Mr.Voodoo are many other members that have already agreed to having me use their individual packages for my Naval Installer Package.  But, I haven't asked everyone yet, I'm still making tests of my own to see if some/many of these packages are what they are "cracked" out to be or not...  Some where good ideas but not IMHO authentic or in some cases even useful.

[Sludge]

Orion...

I noticed the angled deck landing lights fade in and out when the deck is pitching on the first fly-by, like runway or PAPI lights if you get "behind" them and at too acute an angle, they disappear.  And yes, the glideslope is 4.0, so if the pitching deck oscillations are too great, it will obstruct the meatball.  We might have to coordinate offline and Ill fly an approach using a tad high on the meatball to see if its still obstucted slight above glideslope.  Or get JR, he's a real good FSX stick, he could do it too.

Have you talked to Javier about any of these issues and shown him your video?  If anybody could give you good advice, he'd be the guy to talk to, as he built that carrier.  Plus, as a side note, we (you, me, or anyone else) could ask him if the meatball can be changed to 3.5 AND if we can build a user-activated "cut lights" switch into his carrier?  Or simply have the cut lights flash at .6 NM (FSX 3/4 mile point), for simulated Pilot/LSO acknowledgement of Ball acquisition.  Should be able to do it, as the "cut lights" already activate on landing.

Later
Sludge