Jump to content

fat creason

3rd Party Developers
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    551

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

 Content Type 

Everything posted by fat creason

  1. fat creason
    Ah. Forgot those files were in there, but they're not actually used. Going to cleanup and re-org the audio folders as part of the sound re-work.
  2. fat creason
    But also...
  3. fat creason
    To expand on the FFB Trim option, it's really just to let the FFB implementation know you actually want to use FFB. Some people have vJoy "devices" presenting as FFB or keep things like racing wheels plugged in and we didn't want to assume FFB was enabled just because any type of FFB device is present in PC, racing wheels and other peripherals included.
  4. fat creason
    Still planning to do a major overhaul of the F-14 engine sounds after coming up with some new tricks and learning some things after doing the F-4 sounds. Just been super busy with day job and real life stuff....but it's not forgotten. Also the sound sample we used for the TF30 is absolutely not a J79....weird assumption to make.
  5. fat creason
    Planning to fix this along with an exterior/flyby sound update soon
  6. fat creason
    I'm hoping to add some new things to the F-14 audio package from tricks I learned and new samples from the F-4.
  7. fat creason
    Yeah this is the actual bug in this situation. HF8 needs to improve their vibration/buffet logic to consider AOA and airspeed. Just because your AOA is above 30 units doesn't mean you're stalling, you also have to be flying. Can't have buffeting due to AOA if there's no air flowing over the wings. Angle of attack can be anywhere from +180 to -180 deg, the sensor on the jet only goes from like -5 deg to 25 deg, so any time AOA exceeds this value it will be off-scale high in the cockpit. If you're on the ground with a direct tailwind, AOA will be 180 deg. There is nothing wrong with the indicator.
  8. fat creason
    We have no way to control when/how this HF8 thing determines there is a stall condition, contact them as it's an issue on their end. AOA can change wildly at low speed depending on wind speed and direction. If their stall condition logic to trigger vibrations was smart, it would also account for airspeed. This is not a bug on our end.
  9. fat creason
    We model the forces of the strut being compressed - when it releases at the end of the cat shot it's what gives the initial pitch up attitude. We tuned the strut forces to get a particular attitude on launch. The blackouts are caused by poor logic that controls the blackout effect, which we have no control over. ED needs to use a rolling average for G instead of what seems like a hard coded number in an IF statement. Or they could simply disable G-based blackout while on the ground. An API call to disable blackout could also work. I have suggested all these solutions in a Jira ticket with ED, so hopefully something can be done about it soon.
  10. fat creason
    I'm willing to bet "very strange" = no handholding from a FBW system
  11. fat creason
    Feel free to remind them again this is still an issue, I've already let them know.
  12. fat creason
    I filed a bug report in ED's Jira for the carrier launch blackouts, there's not much else we can do about it. The lower launch speed seemed to help for some reason...
  13. fat creason
    This is the plan
  14. fat creason
    We had too much energy coming off the cat before, which may have caused excessive pitching or rolling right off the cat. At this new slower speed, the whole airplane is more sluggish right after it leaves the boat. Also gives you more time to get the flaps up.
  15. fat creason
    It definitely seems to have helped, which is awesome.
  16. fat creason
    An informative video for anyone who thinks pulling the CB is a BFM exploit...
  17. fat creason
    This was literally a one character change, which seemed worth doing for all the people who try to use this as a BFM exploit (aka nearly everyone who asks about it). Spending a total of 3 seconds on code changes relevant to this topic is about as much as it deserves.
  18. fat creason
    Every time someone asks about the MCB circuit breaker this chance will increase another 300%
  19. fat creason
    Here's the logic for anyone interested: You really have to be in specific situations for it to open, pulling this breaker is more ill-advised than anything really. Also remember there is no indication in the cockpit that the MCB valve is open.
  20. fat creason
    Just going to quote myself here since I already addressed this topic.
  21. fat creason
    I do know what it does and exactly how it works, I created the MCB valve code and the CB to disable it. It functions exactly as described in the manual, refer to the manual if you'd like to understand the scenarios under which it's active. There's just no cockpit indication to know if MCB is active and I'm not planning to spend any more time on it. That's it. It was added to indulge people that wanted it, and now it's turned into a "give a mouse a cookie" situation. Pulling the CB was never a feature we planned to implement, I just did it because people requested it. If people keep asking more questions about it I'm more inclined to comment the CB pulling code and just move on. Everyone can simply appreciate the fact the CB pull exists in the first place, the current feature is as far as I'm willing to take it.
  22. fat creason
    You can't really, which is just another reason to get rid of it IMO. All it does it spawn question threads like this and it just isn't worth the time for what it is. Realistically I should have just never implemented the CB pull in the first place. The whole thing is based on a story that's clearly made up; You can't even see the CB in the RIO pit, let alone pulling it from the front seat like a certain pilot claimed he did. Not knowing the state of the CB is arguably realistic since you can't even see it from a normal seated position in the RIO seat. Every pilot we've talked to agrees pulling this CB would be absurd. I don't plan to waste any more development time on this breaker when there are so many other things to work on.
  23. fat creason
    There is no indicator to know when it's active, it's not something aircrews worried about. The test will not be implement as stated above, or at least it won't be implement any time soon. It won't tell you when MCB is active regardless.
  24. fat creason
    Yeah the test will not be implemented. Like I said, the "tactic" of pulling the MCB CB is silly in the first place, I don't plan to spend any more time on extraneous things like the MCB test. As for the compressor stalls, it's not a guarantee they'll happen. Our pilot SME had one incident in 2500 hours of flight, and that was due to a mistake. They're unlikely to happen if you keep the throttles in MIL or Zone 5, which I assume you're doing anyway because you seem concerned about thrust. There isn't a surefire way to trigger a compressor stall, there are just regimes where they're more likely to happen, it's not a boolean or IF THEN type logic.
  25. fat creason
    It was never broken to begin with so there was nothing to fix?
×
×
  • Create New...