FSDreamTeam forum
General Category => Unofficial F/A-18 Acceleration Pack board => Topic started by: micro on December 11, 2009, 11:30:42 pm
-
Sorry for the delay fellas. Well, here is what I have so far on the pitching deck: long story short, the deck was made to pitch by slewing the pilot-able version of Javier’s carrier. I chose that as my “aircraft”, raised the altitude to about 30 feet, and then started pitching with my stick. I recorded it with FS-Recorder, and then played it back to land on.
Now, because it is technically an aircraft dressed up to look like a carrier, the meatball does not work. So what I’m trying to do is take track of the pitching carrier and insert it into a mission where the real carrier plays it back. That way everything will work, and you might even have a tanker on station to really get your blue water jollies.
If you open up the sim.cfg for the carrier, you’ll see a line at the bottom that says “static_pitch”. While tinkering with that I discovered that the FLOLS is actually stabilized (kind of). In the following pictures I set the pitch from +1.0 to -1.0 hoping that would get the deck to start pitching.
(http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r275/microbrewst/DeckDownX.jpg)
(http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r275/microbrewst/DeckDownIC.jpg)
(http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r275/microbrewst/DeckUpX.jpg)
(http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r275/microbrewst/DeckUpIC.jpg)
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.
As for making the carrier itself get a pitching motion: according to the guys at FSDeveloper it should be possible, but for the moment it has a lot of people scratching their heads (go to fsdeveloper.com forums and search ‘bobbing’). That’s why I’m trying the mission route. That is where I am at. I would gladly appreciate anyone and everyone to join in on this project. Maybe together we can knock this out.
-
Hi, micro, thanks for the update! I can say from my experience with the carrier-ILS-capable HUD, that the ball is set at exactly 4.00 degrees, for both the default and the Nimitz carrier. I don't know if that helps. It's pretty high, but because in the carrier missions the carrier is moving at 35 kts and there is 10 kts headwind, that 4.00 degrees is a good value. The route you're following seems correct, I'll scratch my head too, see if anything comes up ;D
-
I can look around and provide some insight, but I'm no expert with carriers. I'd love to see pitching deck ASAP, so I'll look around.
-
USN LSO NATOPS might interest those looking at the pitching deck and associated issues. Graphic from one example (there are many online with different publish dates but the data is mostly the same): http://www.navyair.com/LSO_NATOPS_Manual.pdf (1Mb) EDIT Matter of fact same PDF (one of the smaller example PDFs) zipped should fit here BELOW.
-
USN LSO NATOPS might interest those looking at the pitching deck and associated issues. Graphic from one example (there are many online with different publish dates but the data is mostly the same): http://www.navyair.com/LSO_NATOPS_Manual.pdf (1Mb) EDIT Matter of fact same PDF (one of the smaller example PDFs) zipped should fit here BELOW.
You're really a PDF ninja. ;)
-
It's what I do! They're everywhere - including in my sig below. :o ::) ;D
-
Hi, micro, thanks for the update! I can say from my experience with the carrier-ILS-capable HUD, that the ball is set at exactly 4.00 degrees, for both the default and the Nimitz carrier. I don't know if that helps. It's pretty high...
I had issues with this all the way back in FS9. I was having troubles landing, needing 1000-1100 fpm descents to stay on slope sometimes. In my investigation, I found the ILS was set to 4.00 degress, not the 3.xx that a land based is. At first I thought this was really stupid. However, I was neglecting the 35 kts of wind over the deck (whether it's from the carrier moving or a static carrier with wind down the deck).
If you think about what 4.00 degrees means in terms of tangent that angle represents some vertical height in proportion to some horizontal distance. The problem is the frensel system is static...it assumes the carrier is stationary.
But it's not. Let's assume we start at 600' MSL and trace to touchdown. Then a 4 degree glide slope means we are 8,580' from touchdown (tan(4degrees)=600/base).
The problem is that at a speed of approximately 130 kts (making an averageish calculation here). This comes out to somewhere on the order of 35 seconds to touchdown (time=distance/velocity calculation).
Well, in that 35 seconds, a carrier moving at 30 kts (again, rounding) will have moved moved about 0.3 NM or another 1,800 ft (distance=velocity*time).
However, our starting height is still the same. So now the two legs of are triangle have changed from 600' MSL and 8580' to touchdown to 600' MSL and 8580+1800' to touchdown (10380'). So if we recalculate the new angle, 3.25 degrees (arctan(600/10380)--in orther words the dynamic glideslope is your basic 3 degree glideslope. The 4 degree static glideslope is necessary to accound for this.
Note, I'm doing this math using the google calculator from a hotel room, you'll likely get different...and more accurate...results if you repeat them with a real scienctific calculator.
-
ES...., probably you cannot see the GIF graphic (or the PDF zipped) from your hotel room connection. Anyway the table in the graphic says this:
WOD 35 knots - Basic (glideslope) Angle 4 degrees = Effective Glideslope 3.2 degrees
WOD 30 knots - Basic 3.5 degrees = 2.8 degrees
*Based on a 130 Knot approach speed
Thinking about variables in a carrier landing can be fun! The damn thing is moving away and to the right all the time (unless it is stopped).
-
I can say from my experience with the carrier-ILS-capable HUD, that the ball is set at exactly 4.00 degrees
While I do believe you, I'm a little confused by this. I made an ILS for the multi-player carrier mission when it came out and set the glideslope on it to 3.0 degrees. When I fly that ILS the ball is centered all the way down. Any ideas as to what is going on there? Also, does anyone know where the FLOLS effect/gauge/light (or whatever it is) is actually located in the FSX folders?
-
microbrewst, what are the conditions in the situation you describe otherwise. Perhaps my previous post explains - but not knowing flight conditions (WOD etc) it is just a guessing game?
Not being an FSX or flightsim tinkerer under the hood I can surmise that the ILS is set to 4 degrees but having your glideslope set to 3 degrees (in the wind conditions described "WOD 35 effective angle 3.2 degrees" things work out? Or am I on the wrong track?
-
Yeah Spaz, I think you may be over-complicating the scenario. What I’m referring to is that that FLOLS seems to be at 3.0 degrees in the multiplayer carrier mission. The ILS I made and the ball on the ship, seem to give the same glideslope information all the way down (as they should). Since I set my ILS to 3.0 degrees, I thought that is what the ball was set to.
Whether it be the ILS (ICLS) or the ball, they will and should always give the same info regardless of the conditions as they should be parralel. The effective glideslope comes into play only as the ship moves forward through the water and shallows out the approach profile.
(http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r275/microbrewst/Glideslope1.jpg)
(http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r275/microbrewst/Glideslope2.jpg)
Just as the pilot is expected to correct for the line-up moving to the right, he/she is also expected to correct for the apparent glideslope change.
-
microbrewst, OK thanks for explaining. I'll shutup now. :)
-
I did not mean it that way at all bud. I hope you didn't take it that way. Like I said, I'd like everyone to chime in on this. By all means, lets do this together and figure this out!
-
microbrewst, I cannot help with the sim part because I have never nor will I be likely to use the multi player or other missions (except what is in standard FSX Accel missions). Even though you explained about part of the conditions you did not mention WOD (how much) or if the carrier moved. Perhaps this is obvious to the mission user but I'm not in that boat.
I'm not sure if the small LSO PDF manual goes to all the detail. One or similar goes to a lot of trouble to explain all the variables. I will check. Forgive me for another PDF....
http://server2.simulacion-esp.com/Janes%20FA18/Documentacion/?download=Landing_Signals_Officer.pdf (5.5Mb)
A heck of a lot more detail is in this PDF "LANDING SIGNAL OFFICER REFERENCE MANUAL" but if it is relevant I'm not sure. For the moment I'll leave my investigation at this reference because otherwise I have seen now too many LSO PDFs (that are more or less the same) with this last larger one being comprehensive.
-
Maybe some sort of model animation could make it pitch on the CoG. I do believe the meatball is lined up with where the carrier pitches, so it has minimal movement.
-
That is what the guys at FS Developer say: build it into the model for best results. So if anyone knows a good modeler swing them by this thread and lets start to bribe them.
-
ES...., probably you cannot see the GIF graphic (or the PDF zipped) from your hotel room connection. Anyway the table in the graphic says this:
WOD 35 knots - Basic (glideslope) Angle 4 degrees = Effective Glideslope 3.2 degrees
WOD 30 knots - Basic 3.5 degrees = 2.8 degrees
*Based on a 130 Knot approach speed
Thinking about variables in a carrier landing can be fun! The damn thing is moving away and to the right all the time (unless it is stopped).
I couldn't see the graphic...but I guess it just goes to show you there is some sense to the way this all works out, as I was close in my numbers. Most noteably to do this to full accuracy you need to do area under the curve (i.e. integral calculus) and I love discussing this, but not enough to go back to calculus again ???
-
ES...., Log Tables? ;D
-
As it seems the Accel and Javiers Carriers are setup with a 4.0 GS Meatball, here's a question... how do we change the Meatball to 3.5 for both sets of Carriers? Since that seems to be the most common setting according to the NAV AV pubs. I for one would like to know HOW to change this value for myself, so I can tinker even more. Thanks.
Later
Sludge
-
What is wind over deck? This is relevant to glideslope angle. Changing WOD is another way to change the effective GS angle.
-
As it seems the Accel and Javiers Carriers are setup with a 4.0 GS Meatball, here's a question... how do we change the Meatball to 3.5 for both sets of Carriers? Since that seems to be the most common setting according to the NAV AV pubs. I for one would like to know HOW to change this value for myself, so I can tinker even more. Thanks.
Later
Sludge
Well, if the carrier is moving at a realistic speed, 4.0 degrees for the meatball is correct and equivelant to a glideslope of 3.2 degrees or less. I don't know how to change it, but while it is set at 4.0 degrees this is not what you end up flying. The easiest way to tinker with this is probably just by changing the wind of the deck. 35 kts gets you down to 2.8 degrees, 30 kts is around 3.2 degrees.
-
ES...
I would like to get the 3.5 settings cause according to the LSO manual "a basic angle of 3.5 is commonly used", which translates to a relative GS of 2.8 at 30kts wind-over-the-deck, a/c speed of 130kts. So the default carrier speeds ARE FASTER than most common in real life, is my guess.... which is why the default speeds work with the 4.0 GS Meatball and ICLS.
Anyway, if anybody has the knowledge on how to alter the carrier meatball GS basic angle, I would like to know.
Thanks
Sludge
-
If the deck is pitching then the LSO is likely to increase the glidepath angle to increase hook to ramp clearance etc.
-
What is wind over deck? This is relevant to glideslope angle. Changing WOD is another way to change the effective GS angle.
You're partially right. WOD will only change the glideslope when the carrier is moving. This is because increased wind decreases the closure rate of the aircraft to the ship. Thus the carrier moves a greater distance in the time it takes to go from the start to the ramp. I was refering to the multiplayer mission where the carrier is stationary near SanFran. In that case you can have 100 kts of wind and it won't effect the the angle of the glideslope, only you rate of decent will change. That is why I'm so perplexed by the ILS / Meatball discrepancy. ???
-
You're partially right. WOD will only change the glideslope when the carrier is moving. This is because increased wind decreases the closure rate of the aircraft to the ship. Thus the carrier moves a greater distance in the time it takes to go from the start to the ramp. I was refering to the multiplayer mission where the carrier is stationary near SanFran. In that case you can have 100 kts of wind and it won't effect the the angle of the glideslope, only you rate of decent will change. That is why I'm so perplexed by the ILS / Meatball discrepancy. ???
Micro, I checked inside the .bgl file that creates the ILS for the stationary carrier near SF. In the glideslope section, it says "pitch="4.00", which confirms that the basic glideslope angle for the FLOLS is 4.00 degrees.
-
Fellas...
Since I read in Spaz's LSO NATOPS file that says the MOST COMMON basic angle used is 3.5, all I want is to find out how to alter it for MYSELF. I think Micro has said and illustrated it best with his posts and I want to know if anyone knows how to change it for the Carriers themselves. The 4.0 used in the new HUD and the default carrier meatball is only good for the 38+ WOD as per the above mentioned file. I would like to run 30 kts WOD w/a Meatball and ICLS GS of 3.5, can anybody help me? If not, just tell me so we can move on...
Thanks Neutrino. Hopefully you know, or we can find someone that knows how to mod the carrier for a 3.5 GS on the Meatball.
Later
Sludge
-
Sludge, currently I am not aware of any way to modify FLOLS glideslope angle, I am not even sure where does it come from (is it built into the model, is it a separate file etc), but I am looking into it because of the 'pitching deck' problem. So if I learn anything new, I'll post it here. I am sure Javier, or anyone else that has built a carrier knows the answer, but I don't want to bug them at the moment ;D
-
Neutrino...
No worries. Thanks for the help! Youre always a real standup fella!
Later
Sludge
-
OK, fellas...
Back from testing and evaluation. Here are my results...
GlideSlope *3.5 (observed Y/T x 2) 4.0 (my fsx landings)
Dist/RAlt .7 TCN / 300' .7 TCN / 380'
.2 TCN / 120' .2 TCN / 150'
* est. due to lower than 4.0 readings from my results
Also, real life at the 90/1.2 TCN and 450', ICLS comes up on-glideslope. When flying FSX carrier patterns to approx the same specs, I am always below the glideslope at the 90.
IMO, this shows the carriers and ICLS are set to 4.0, and if anyone figures out how, would love to see 3.5 on both.
Later
Sludge
-
-
:o That's simply awesome, Mr. "neutrino" 8) Now when are you all ready to release these changes? ???
I'm still putting the entire NAVAL Package together... I waiting for several things from other dev.'s to be finished, first. And, with your permission, I would like to add this and all the other updates into one simple, easily-installable package.
Guys keep up these great enhancements/tests; your work is greatly appreciated ... ;)
-
j.r. thats fantastic work :o is this the secret project you have been working on that has been driving Orion nuts :)
Have to just comment that because of all the "neutrinoing" going on, not many people are aware of your piloting skills
which I have to say are right up there with paco and sludge!!! that pitching deck approach was really something !!
-
your piloting skills which I have to say are right up there with paco and sludge!!!
Simon, you hit that right on the numbers...
He is definately a very good FSX pilot. Top Gun movie love notwithstanding, his flight skills are definately top caliber. Im a tough Paddles, and I know he got at least two OK landings in my book. I remember one where I called "roger, ball" and had to say NOTHING til his jet caught the wire. He was in the center crosshairs ALL THE WAY down and if not for the last split-second low AtTheRamp correction, wouldve given an OK, UNDERLINED. Wouldve been a first in FSX carrier flight that I know of. Add to that he has a good imagination/ideas along with being a good programmer!
So JR, this was your super-secret "Id tell you but Id have to kill you" project you were working on?! haha... Great work!
Later
Sludge
-
Thanks for the kind words guys, but what you see in the video is still a work in progress. I did not expect such reactions, so I just posted it without description ::) My idea was to initiate some creative thinking about how to achieve the pitching carrier. It is possible to have the pitching deck in a mission, in fact what you see in the video is part of a mission based on micro's idea, but there are a couple of limitations one of which you may see clearly on the video. I made the video in Decemeber last year and kept it private hoping to be able to find some solution on my own, but I exhausted all methods that I know of and couldn't solve the problems. So I decided to declassify the video now ;D
Despite the limitations, the approach is very real - it is pretty challenging and catching the 3 wire as you can see is quite risky - so I made a lot of bolters and 4 wires before catching the 3rd 8)
-
I take it the limitation you are speaking about is the absence of a working meatball or have you managed to get that working?... also noticed you were flying without the ils needles did you turn them off for the approach , are they not working cos of the pitching deck or are you just using the old hud?
tell us or we will set analjet on you... ;D names witheld to protect the innocent.. ;) heheh
-
You got it, Simon - the meatball (FLOLS) and the catapults are not operational. The wires and the ILS work fine. I didn't use the ILS needles because I wanted to fly a visual approach. The needles however can keep you right on glideslope just like a stabilized FLOLS - they are not affected by the pitching motion.
To tell you the truth - I find the zero visibility, night landings (visibility set to 1/8 mi) more thrilling than a pitching deck - with a pitching deck at least you can see the carrier and bolter/wave off, but at zero vis - you see absolutely nothing until the last 3-4 seconds of the approach and if you miss (and don't crash into the carrier or the ocean) - you have to go around only by instruments as all you can see outside the cockpit is darkness 8)
-
Neutrino, now that you have 'fessed up' to 'deck spotting' perhaps we can comment about your 'dive at the 'moving' deck' in your video. I can understand why you had to do that (considering apparent earlier attempts). ;D
To me it looks like the carrier moves too rapidly up and down. It is a large ship so it will move perhaps as much as it appears to move - but about at least half as slowly. That was my impression anyway. Do you get paid for those approaches? ;D
Agree about night landings. Anyway the only way FSX has become usable is from the sterling efforts of all involved on this forum (youse know whose youse are) in modding the Hornet HUD etc. Great work all round. Congrats.
-
Neutrino, now that you have 'fessed up' to 'deck spotting' perhaps we can comment about your 'dive at the 'moving' deck' in your video. I can understand why you had to do that (considering apparent earlier attempts). ;D
To me it looks like the carrier moves too rapidly up and down. It is a large ship so it will move perhaps as much as it appears to move - but about at least half as slowly. That was my impression anyway. Do you get paid for those approaches? ;D
Agree about night landings. Anyway the only way FSX has become usable is from the sterling efforts of all involved on this forum (youse know whose youse are) in modding the Hornet HUD etc. Great work all round. Congrats.
I agree, the deck is pitching waaay too fast.
-
Agree about night landings. Anyway the only way FSX has become usable is from the sterling efforts of all involved on this forum (youse know whose youse are) in modding the Hornet HUD etc. Great work all round. Congrats.
Couldn't agree more!!! I was ready to trash FSX, but with all the mods/improvements (HUD, multiplayer mission, sludge Hornet, refueling guage, tanker, Nimitz carriers etc) it's viable. Nice job is an understatement. I was reading the latest issue of Computer pilot. I the section where they review freeware, they are under the impression that multiplayer ops with a moving carrier, can't be done in FSX. I think, we should invite them to do story on our Saturday afternoon flying club. Complete with pics and reviews on the freeware available.
Paco
-
That sounds like an excellent idea, Paco. Who knows, "You're in the slot" could become an international flight simming catch phrase!
-
I was reading the latest issue of Computer pilot. I the section where they review freeware, they are under the impression that multiplayer ops with a moving carrier, can't be done in FSX.
Really? That fails...
That sounds like an excellent idea, Paco. Who knows, "You're in the slot" could become an international flight simming catch phrase!
And so could the use of "neutrino" when you pass by someone at high speed when they aren't expecting it :P.
-
And so could the use of "neutrino" when you pass by someone at high speed when they aren't expecting it :P.
Wikipedia: Neutrinos are elementary particles that often travel close to the speed of light and are able to pass through ordinary matter almost undisturbed and are thus extremely difficult to detect ;D
-
Well, yeah, who didn't know that? I was just thinking of using it as a separate FS term :P.
-
Wikipedia: Neutrinos are elementary particles that often travel close to the speed of light and are able to pass through ordinary matter almost undisturbed and are thus extremely difficult to detect ;D
"Speed of light", "extremely difficult to detect"? In that case, I neutrino people on the road all the time. ;D
-
Wikipedia: Neutrinos are elementary particles that often travel close to the speed of light and are able to pass through ordinary matter almost undisturbed and are thus extremely difficult to detect ;D
"Speed of light", "extremely difficult to detect"? In that case, I neutrino people on the road all the time. ;D
Yeah, that's what I was trying to get at. The use of neutrino as a verb :P.
-
Now everyone finally understand the irony of neutrino "neutrinoing" everyone in the session, because, that is exactly what a neutrino is. :o
-
To me it looks like the carrier moves too rapidly up and down. It is a large ship so it will move perhaps as much as it appears to move - but about at least half as slowly. That was my impression anyway. Do you get paid for those approaches? ;D
I agree, the deck is pitching waaay too fast.
Fellas, I dont think the deck is pitching too fast, I think the deck is pitching too high and low to land. If you look at this YouTube, the LSOs are standing around while the deck pitching seems too high, then as the jets are landing, look at the deck pitch off the forward end. Its alot less than before.
Here is an excerpt from a paper written about the safety/limitations for landing during carrier qualifications. Also notice, the "optimum" WoD is 25 kts, which would require a 3.5 Meatball and ICLS. As well as the max crosswind component being 7kts. So for all us "hardcore, night flyers" in the SF mission where we are out there in the dark and land in 8+ kts of crosswind, we are out of LIMs. But thats the real challenging part for FSX carrier operations, landing out of LIMs
http://www.tpub.com/content/aviation2/3740.9Dwch1&2&3&4/3740.9Dwch1&2&3&40021.htm (http://www.tpub.com/content/aviation2/3740.9Dwch1&2&3&4/3740.9Dwch1&2&3&40021.htm)
Overall, this project may be a moot point if someone doesnt figure out a way to get a working Meatball or Cats on a "pitching" carrier, but was just offering some observations.
Later
Sludge
-
Good info find Sludge. Graphic from your URL link below. About the video of pitching deck. Movement can be exaggerated by the zoom lens of camera effect. Also position of camera in relation to the deck can change viewer perception. While (without knowing exact circumstances at the time) perhaps the worst movement seen is because the carrier is not at 'flying stations' and not at ideal recovery ship speed with WOD ideal for conditions and ship movement optimised for conditions. How fast a carrier moves into the swell (with type/length between swell) is important. The captain will know how to get the best (least movement) on the day.
So perhaps we see initially the ship side on to swell or moving into flight operation conditions. Then when at ideal recovery circumstances things look different. Whatever - looks challenging nevertheless. Big ocean swells can be deceptive. When the distance between swell is such that the ship moves a lot - then it will. At other times the ship will not move so much in similar but shorter time between swell sea states. Smaller carriers can move less in the same conditions that will cause a larger carrier to move a lot. It all depends I guess. ;D
This movement speed as seen briefly in the example FSX video is too fast to be credible was my point, but that is only my opinion. I guess the speed of movement is realistic for a small boat but not for a large carrier.
-
Spaz...
I dont think the rate of movement was out of whack. Maybe a touch fast, but I think the range of motion (+/- 30ft, visual estimation) for landing LIMs was too much. I mean Ive deployed on a carrier and 5ft of movement on a carrier is not that much. IRL, it would be a barricade/ditching situation if the deck was pitching that much and that was the pilot's final option. But again, thats IRL, not simming. In sim, we can pretty much do what we want, without crash detect enabled.
How fast a carrier moves into the swell (with type/length between swell) is important. The captain will know how to get the best (least movement) on the day.
In trying to get close to real life, you have to realize the LIMs of FSX. There is no captain, and Im mostly talking about how we can make this the closest approximation to real life with what we have in FSX. Obviously, there is no LSO to talk to CATCC/AirBoss/Captain to set ship's course and speed and find out an actual sea state for realistic launch/trap evolutions. Nor is there a true sea state as we all know with the sorry "seas" we get in FSX. Yeah, they can look pretty with some add-on/mods, but in the end, they are simply eye-candy and not even close to being different states. All we have are sets of variables that we change in a program that dictate the simulated environment. Those are the things that Im referencing. Certainly in the weekend Multiplayer, our initial BRC is 277 mag, w/8 kts of headwind. Thats it, end of story. As a "simulated" AirBoss/Paddles, there's nobody I can talk to or change that "in game". Those are numbers IceCream put into the mission parameters and they are set in stone for that mission.
Anybody have any luck finding a fix/workaround for getting the Meatball or working Cats added to the pitching carrier? If not, I will research this when I get home, but loosely remember a forum thread on some other site, where I found this guy altered the CG and the contact points of a coast guard cutter and it was "bobbing" (pitching) thru the waves. Those guys problem was that it wouldnt maintain the "bobbing" action because the oscillations of that effect die down over time? Let me get back to you on this, if I can find that forum again.
Later
Sludge
-
Yes it is difficult to discuss FSX and 'real life' and I will always acknowledge that FSX is a fun simulator and never going to be like the real world but in an effort to get the sim 'more like real life' these issues are worth discussing, and they are only opinions - mine anyway. The original 'pitching deck' video was very dark on my computer. Here it is 'topped and tailed' (acknowledgements always to original maker) but lightened (but close to original quality I hope) so that more detail can be seen. Landing visually on a pitching deck should be a banned. ;D
http://www.filefront.com/15858767/FSXpitchingDeckHiQdvdLightenedWMP.wmv (8.8Mbs)
-
Gang,
Here are some real world numbers from real world experience.
1. Day VFR landing pattern: Downwind at 600'; 1-1.25 miles abeam. Start turn to final bearing between LSO platform and aft end of flight deck; at the 90 position be at 450'; at the 45 position be at 350'; crossing the wake (a real wake is much narrower than the FSX wake) be at 300'; roll out on centerline 3/4 mile from the ship (approx 17-20 seconds on the ball).
2. Instrument pattern: outside of 3 miles from the ship be dirty and on speed and at 1200'. Track inbound and at 3 miles tip over to glideslope (the numbers equate to a 4 degree static glideslope). Follow needles until 3/4 miles and then transition to visual acquisition of the ball. If you're simulating real weather, ILS on the ship minimums are 200' and 1/2 mile. ACLS (which FSX doesn't simulate) is 100' and 1/4 mile.
3. Small point for someone working details of the carrier model ... no personnel in the landing area during landing. All personnel to the right side of the landing area 'foul' line.
4. For a pitching deck, the glideslope is stabilized. The carrier pitches in a sine wave fashion. Try a 6' amplitude; 30 sec period ... if someone can figure out how to do this in FSX code. That's a reasonable sea state for less than ideal weather. 30' swells are typhoon waves or winter in the North Atlantic/Pacific ... extremis conditions.
5. If you want to use a holding pattern for the IFR approach, the holding radial is the reciprocal of the final bearing, range is 15 nmi + the holding altitude in thousands (holding at Angels 18 ... 15 + 18 = 33 DME). Descend out of holding at 33 DME inbound to the ship. Holding is a 6 min left hand race track (1 minute legs). Be at 1200' at 6 DME. Stay at 1200' until 3 DME
6. If someone is really into carrier detail, he can model the 'autodog' machine. Spaz knows what I'm talking about ...
-
avjoe: Thanks for your real world input (mine is olde worlde on A4Gs 38 years ago now). 'AutoDog'? Wot? ;D WOOF! :D
-
HMAS Melbourne did not have PLAT camera technology - instead PHOTs wandered or from fixed positions filmed (with film only being developed if there was an incident) or photographed what they could, often putting themselves at risk (with orders not to do that again). That is why there is a lot of video and still photos of A4G Skyhawk operations on HMAS Melbourne (my time was actually 1971-2) and I have collated a bunch of material in a PDF or in a Video(s) that can be downloaded here:
www.a4ghistory.com
Smaller versions of above files can be downloaded from: http://www.filefront.com/user/SpazSinbad
There are a few classics with one A4G tipping onto port wingtip due to ship wallowing and A4G drifting from right to left during approach/arrest. All the incidents work out well - a bonus.
Looking at this website: http://www.aboutlanguageschools.com/language/slang/navy-slang.asp I could assume that an 'autodog' approach is one where the 'lollygaggers' (onlookers) are watching the PLAT with their 'autodogs'? :D The RAN FAA had the 'goofers' (as above).
-
Spaz,
'autodog' ... it's the heart and soul of US Navy Carrier aviation ... it's the soft ice cream machine on the mess decks and in the wardroom. Soft ice cream machine ... has the handle that looks like the dog's tail ... lift the dog's tail and ice cream automatically fills your bowl ... imagine chocolate ice cream ... and the rest is Naval tradition!!
I don't think it's something that was on carriers in your time.
I've been to Perth on a few port visits ... love that Swan lager!
-
'AutoDog'? Wot? ;D WOOF! :D
I was thinking the same ;D.
-
avjoe, Yeah got the ice cream choccy doodoo msg. :D HMAS Melbourne had limited aircon - probably one cold water fountain (near aircon aircrew briefing room - one only) in a ship built for cold North Atlantic operating in warm to tropical waters. It was a sauna. Your autodog machine would have made instant warm milk there! ;D
Recently some old Navy News (RAN) have become available online so a few 'visiting USN carrier' pics have been snaffled into the new version of the PDF (to be updated again in a few days). Here is a classic 'wheelie' photo at Fremantle for USS Constellation (old carriers used to 'wheel' under the power of prop aircraft on deck which was not good for the prop engines so seldom used in practice).
-
I keep forgetting about Utube. The original music has been messed up due to the copyright b/s but the video with the A4G ops with various incidents/accidents (turn down the sound) is still OK:
OR
Home page: http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=bengello
-
This is actually harder than I thought...
-
Edit: I've put the video back. As with my previous posting, please excuse my not-so-good landing.
-
Mr. Orion,
...P.S. Please excuse my bad landing.
A little bit of a hard slam but, you did pretty good there on the landing... ;)
Also, saw the deck pitch (in the beginning of the video); how have you all accomplished this in FSX? Something to add into the Sim.cfg files? ???
-
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. ;D
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.
-
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 ;)
-
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 :P.
JR: Thanks for the compliments :). I still don't think it was that good of a landing though :P.
-
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
-
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
-
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. ;D 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
...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... ;D
Thanks!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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... :-X Some where good ideas but not IMHO authentic or in some cases even useful.
-
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