Greenie Board Possibilities?

[Paddles]

Well... Here are some records, made by the vLSO, of my (wild) landing attempts:

(LOX) LOIM _FIM_ LOIC _FIC_ LOAR (LURFAR) _FAR_ Wire #1
(LOX) (LURX) LOIM (FIM) LOIC _FIC_ (LOAR) _FAR_ Bolter
(LOIM) LOIC (SLOIC) _LOSLOAR_ Bolter
(LOX) LOIM _FIM_ (LOIC) _FIC_ (LOAR) _FAR_ Wire #2

Is this understandable? Should I change anything about it? Any criticism/suggestions are welcome, as usual.

Note, that this is just a recording part of the program, acting like a real-life bookwriter. Evaluating and grading parts are not yet implemented.

[SpazSinbad]

fsxnp, I'll assume the vLSO comments are made at two second intervals? So each comment when added can give time in groove?

Looks like too many comments to me, comparing the comments made in a hand written LSO notebook (link on earlier page on this thread) where it seems only four comments made with odd 5 or more.

IF 15 second groove length is ideal then perhaps having a vLSO comment every 3 seconds will give 5? to be more manageable?

AFAIK no pilot needs to know the LSO shorthand because he never sees the notebook. Not sure if today those comments can be seen via computer / electronically by the pilot. Sure the pilot may pick up on symbols over time but the symbols will look undecipherable to most.

Is it possible to also have a series of phrases in the same order of the symbols as well? Sure the symbology does the job (for LSO) but making them user friendly would help.

[Paddles]

fsxnp, I'll assume the vLSO comments are made at two second intervals? So each comment when added can give time in groove?

Not quite... The comments are made when the aircraft passes through each of these four areas, so exact time intervals depend on the aircraft's speed. However, it is possible to measure 'in groove' time.

Looks like too many comments to me, comparing the comments made in a hand written LSO notebook (link on earlier page on this thread) where it seems only four comments made with odd 5 or more.

Remember, it's a very first version, which only logs every event.  If the program were evaluating recoveries, all my wild attempts would be immediately waveoff'd and the records would be much shorter...  

AFAIK no pilot needs to know the LSO shorthand because he never sees the notebook. Not sure if today those comments can be seen via computer / electronically by the pilot. Sure the pilot may pick up on symbols over time but the symbols will look undecipherable to most.

Is it possible to also have a series of phrases in order of the symbols as well? Sure the symbology does the job but making them user friendly would help.

Yes, human words are to be in the next version.  

(LOIM) LOIC (SLOIC) _LOSLOAR_ Bolter will be A little low in the middle, low in close, a little slow in close, very low and slow at the ramp, bolter.

BTW, any need of APARTS table?

[SpazSinbad]

"...low in close, a little slow in close, very low and slow at the ramp, bolter."    Must have hit the AFTERBURNERs and gone flat (or engaged the SKYHOOK!] to get the bolter! 

Understand now about the 'gates'. IMHO there can be too much information but probably too much is better than TOO LITTLE - or NONE - which is the case now.

Yes you have a point about 'wild' recoveries. Perhaps that should be part of the options. Some newbies, not willing to do FCLP, will have some 'amazing' approaches according to the vLSO for sure. Remember there are mandatory calls so if it is WAVEOFF then no matter the aircraft has to wave off; that will stop most bad approaches I reckon. If the aircraft continues there should be an option to invoke the 'Blue Screen of Death'. 

I don't think the APARTS table is needed, however I don't know how it is used currently on USN carriers.

[Paddles]

Spaz,
I like your BSOD idea. But this could scare some noobs to death, so they'd remove FSX forever...
But, hey, who said it's easy? Landing on moving deck is the ultimate challenge in aviation... 

[Orion]

You can actually cause a BSOD on demand using Mark Russinovich's tool, Notmyfault: http://download.sysinternals.com/Files/Notmyfault.zip.

More info:
http://blogs.technet.com/b/markrussinovich/archive/2011/01/11/3379158.aspx
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb963901

[Sludge]

Serge...

Also, just as a correction, the LSO Shorthand should read:  deviation/deviation(if needed)/point of deviation.  In example: (lo)x instead of (lox); meaning little low at the start.  A more elaborate example is (lobar), which should read (lo)(b)ar; meaning little low, little flat, at the ramp.  This is so you can differentiate between (lo)bar; little low, flat, AR and (lo)(b)ar; little low, little flat, AR.  Im sure you can see the difference.

Understand now about the 'gates'. IMHO there can be too much information but probably too much is better than TOO LITTLE - or NONE - which is the case now.

My two cents is: initially the vLSO program should OUTPUT all the errors.  Then as actual BETA testing occurs, you can always throttle back the OUTPUT and develop something "workable" based on all of our results.

Later
Sludge

[Sludge]

Serge...

Do you have the vLSO voice call parameters?  Other than the ABEAM distances, I cant see the GLIDESLOPE/LINEUP deviations in your picture illustration.  Which is really cool looking and puts your whole program in perspective, BTW.

Can you do the same type of picture?  But on this one, can you have it between the viewpoint you used and one looking down the glideslope from the jets point of view?  So we can see what your deviation zones will look like?  Could you add a optimum glideslope/lineup cone in GREEN or BLUE?

These are only requests... if you are too busy, just disregard and we will test when you release the mission pack.

Later
Sludge

[Paddles]

Sludge,
thanks for your input. Actually I wasn't sure about the LSO shorcuts... So, now my attempts would look like this:  

(LO)X LO_F_IM LO_F_IC LO(LUR)(F)AR Wire #1
(LO)(LUR)X LO(F)IM LO_F_IC (LO)_F_AR Bolter
(LO)IM LO(SLO)IC _LO__SLO_AR Bolter
(LO)X LO_F_IM (LO)_F_IC (LO)_F_AR Wire #2

Is it ok to record attempts this way?

It's virtually impossible to clearly show you all the areas of deviations, it would be a huge mess of those red frames.   All I could do are just an OK approach limits, as seen from nearly about the ball call distance:



And now imagine 56 invisible areas around these green boxes, used by the vLSO for registering every possible glideslope/lineup deviations.  

[Sludge]

Serge...

No worries.  It should be fine to record attempts that way.

OK, I see what youre saying.  Actually, you hit on exactly what I was looking for, but you said it far more clearly and less wordy.... something that shows a good glideslope/linup.

Later
Sludge

 

[GOONIE]

Looking good Serge, can't wait to try it out!  

To get ready, I've been flying your FCLP missions. One question, do you know how to reduce the halo around the IFLOLS in the picture below? I downloaded and installed the new halo.bmp that came with your FCLP mission, but it still looks fuzzy. Any thoughts?



-Capt

[Razgriz]

I think theres a FSX.CFG edit as well (located at %appdata%/microsoft/fsx/fsx.CFG).  Heres a link to the DFlights package that I've always used.  It may be the same thing as what Serge included.

http://www.flightsim.com/kdl.php?fid=134873

[GOONIE]

Thanks Razgriz! The lights update worked like a charm.

[Sludge]

Serge...

Havent heard from ya in a while.  Any updates on the mission?  I'm chomping at the bit, ready to test this bad boy out!

Seriously, no pressure... I'm just runnin my yapper. 

Later
Sludge

[Paddles]

Sludge,
Yeah, I understand your eagerness, but a certain delay is occured in the vLSO and mission development, mostly because of recent reading some really good LSO-related stuff.  Besides, that CAG LSO's words, you've cited recently,  "...we want to keep them safe and consistent on their passes" have changed my mind a lot.  Safety and consistency are the key words.
So, what I want now is not only making 'snapshots' of the aircraft's positions at certain approach areas and making appropriate voice calls (as it is in all present carrier missions), but also following trends and timely waving off bad ones, i.e. making the control process more 'human-like', to some reasonable extent...

Also, I want the program to be both carrier and FCLP missions worthy. All this require significant changes in algorythms and mission's layout. The process is running and, presumably, it will take a couple more weeks before some beta version is ready.

And here are my new questions:

1. What rate of descend (sink rate) is nominal for the Hornet? What RoD is TMRD and NERD (too much / not enough RoD)?

2. What angle of bank is DRW and DLW (right / left wing down)?