Jump to content

fat creason

3rd Party Developers
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    568

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

 Content Type 

Everything posted by fat creason

  1. 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.
  2. fat creason
    I'm willing to bet "very strange" = no handholding from a FBW system
  3. fat creason
    Feel free to remind them again this is still an issue, I've already let them know.
  4. 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...
  5. fat creason
    This is the plan
  6. 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.
  7. fat creason
    It definitely seems to have helped, which is awesome.
  8. fat creason
    An informative video for anyone who thinks pulling the CB is a BFM exploit...
  9. 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.
  10. fat creason
    Every time someone asks about the MCB circuit breaker this chance will increase another 300%
  11. 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.
  12. fat creason
    Just going to quote myself here since I already addressed this topic.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. fat creason
    It was never broken to begin with so there was nothing to fix?
  18. fat creason
    You can pull it right now and it disables MCB, that's all the functionality that was ever planned for it.
  19. fat creason
    I could leave it if you guys really want, but I'm not going to dedicate any more time to it than I already have. There are no plans to add sounds or other indications it's been pulled or tests for it, it's just not worth the time, the current situation is as far as I'm willing to entertain it.
  20. fat creason
  21. fat creason
    Think I'm just going to remove the MCB CB pull keybind, it's silly to begin with.
  22. fat creason
    I think I'm just going to remove the MCB keybind and code, no one used this in real life anyway.
  23. fat creason
    I'm leaning towards just removing the MCB keybind and associated code, it's pretty silly.
  24. fat creason
    Guys, there is no bug here, there's nothing "look at". The aircraft is perfectly controllable above 25 units and behaves exactly as described in the manual AND our pilot SME agrees with the current behavior. See the attached video and the controls overly for proof. I guess it bears repeating: the Yaw SAS change has nothing to do with rudder authority or high AOA controllability. Perhaps you're getting so slow that none of the surfaces work effectively? You can't expect to maintain controllability down to zero airspeed, that's not how aircraft work. I recommend you practice high AOA flight if you're struggling, it's not a flight model issue, it's a PEBKAC error. Sequence_12.mp4
  25. fat creason
    FWIW, myself and our pilot SME use the VKB F-14 stick with at least a 10cm extension. A lot of the problems people are having here are likely hardware related. Also I can't reiterate enough how much better FFB sticks are for getting a feel for the jet and the trim. It's unfortunate that most current consumer offerings aren't great or are really expensive. Keep in mind that a trim state only exists at a particular flight condition, if you move away from that flight condition (change in speed, altitude, power, etc) the trim state will change. The F-14 itself also has a TON of movable surfaces including the WINGS themselves, which essentially makes it a different airplane at every degree of sweep. The F-14 is a fighter, it was not designed to be as stable as a Cessna 172 or an airliner.
×
×
  • Create New...