Jump to content

oldcrusty

Members
  • Posts

    2398
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by oldcrusty

  1. As far as coupling to TCN or ACLS TC (when intercepting FB after the 'push') - yes, I've seen the back and forward chase. It eventually settles. It's a bug and I don't think it's been reported yet. 

    I didn't see any issues engaging BALT hold at high alt.   I tried it today after reading your post.  I tipped the nose to 3' down, starting from 45.5k ft / M.88  and pushed the BALT button passing 45k.  The nose pulled up to around 3 or 4'  NU then settled level after 1 mild oscillation. Looked normal to me.  I was heavy though, 48.4k lbs  (c/l tank and JDAMs)

  2. 16 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

    Hi, 

    It is 100% accurate, the nose strut will extend after landing.

    If you are seeing issues by all means attach a short track replay example, we will be happy to take a look at them. 

    thank you 

    The strut part I can get used to. It's the inability to pull the nose up a bit more in case I wanted to aerobrake... the AF way

  3. On 3/8/2024 at 9:06 AM, Rankorn said:

    For me it became harder but feasible for sure.

    I guess it's now more real. Started noticing the weight, and had no problem landing on the deck at 38+ klb without wheel damage 

    Well, whatever the root cause of weight related issues with landing gear is... I wouldn't even notice the difference between pre-2.9 and the current, if I didn't see the reports.  However, what bugs me most is the 'scripted' behavior after the main gear slams on the runway. This silly 'slight nose up' attitude that can not be controlled. It almost feels like an old LOMAC F15 landing script...   Yes, this is OT here but I felt compelled to throw it in.  ( 'OT' is my next call sign)

  4. 1 hour ago, LastRifleRound said:

    Yeah it's weird. When you give a waypoint an O/S it becomes an OAP, because you are supposed to be aiming at it. When you have the OAP designated, and then refine it, say with TPOD and designating with TPOD, hitting O/S should apply the offset to that new, designated position. Instead, designating the OAP, then refining the aim point, then hitting O/S makes the O/S overwritten with the designation, instead of applying the O/S to the designation.

     

    Was this in a brand new mission or an older one made in previous builds?  (I don't know if that matters).  I did my tests using my own simple mission made in current build.  The reason I'm asking is that in one of my tests I did exactly what you described:  wpt=OAP  >>  O/S using bearing, range and elevation  and  all worked fine... on the first pass. 😉 

    EDIT:  Oh wait, let me correct my post a little.  When I tested my WPT as OAP I didn't make any corrections before designating it as OAP.  If I did I suspect I'd have to mark my new refined position and use "Mark #' for OAP.  That's what I had to do in my vid converting a visual designation to a Mark. You're right.

  5. I used the OAP/OS in my mission and yeah... there were issues. Not exactly the scenario that LRR described but definitely related.  I used HMD to designate my JTAC's position (OAP) and refined on TPOD. I used BRA to designate O/S.  This wouldn't work until I marked OAP as Mark1.  From there I created O/S with specified elevation (well, certain HSI map features are not modeled yet).  It showed correctly on FLIR.  Just some minor refinements on FLIR. Splashed the targets with IR Mavs.  Turned around for a second pass avoiding any violent maneuvering since this can cause the designation to go bonkers (in DCS).  All looked good but whenever I switched between OAP and O/S on HSI, the FLIR stayed locked on O/S wouldn't 'fuse' with Hornet's mission computer until I dropped FLIR's lock with the 'pinky'.  Then, after trying to re-designate the O/S,  the elevation was acting funny. It was showing 176 ft.  The programmed O/S elevation was 580 ft.  580 ft. is roughly equal to 176 m... could be some bug there.

     

  6. 2 hours ago, CBStu said:

    At my beginning 5 yrs ago I saw very little point in landing on land beyond getting practice getting to on speed/on aoa. On land the runway is stationary and it is not at an 8-9deg angle to the wind. I did see a LOT of advantage to doing a straight in approach to the carrier from 10 miles out at about 3000ft. I always use ICLS and the E-bracket. I ignore the aoa light completely, as for me anyway, the E-bracket is much easier to use and to fine tune.  I try to be fully flaps and gear down and on aoa at 10 miles or 8 at worst. BTW, I dislike the term 'on-speed' as to me it has nothing to do w/ landing the plane.  From the time I am on aoa I aim the VV (another term I don't like- I prefer 'Flight Path Indicator' = FPI or 'Fight Path Marker'  = FPM) at the base of the tall island on the boat. This keeps me going to the right so I am following the boat as it is moving to my right. As I get down under 1 mile out I start moving the FPI slightly to the left to now line it up w/ the notch. If you move the FPI to the center of the landing area before about .3 mile out you will end up left of center line and have to be crossing the centerline left to right to touchdown on the center. Some of this diagonal seems to be OK but much of it gets the plane flopping left to right on the landing gear. BTW, I never look at any controls indicator or aoa number. As long as I am centered in the E which is right in the hud, I don't care about either of those. BTW2 in that 'real pilot' video he was high and way left and managed to do a huge correction to hit a wire. Notice his FPI was dropping like a rock through the E in the last 3-4 seconds  before he hit the deck.

     

    Let's run it down top to bottom:  The severe crosswind on runways was a rule in our online bunch back in the day.  On the boat, the mission makers should follow a formula to point the angled deck very closely aligned with natural headwind corrected for carrier made wind.  AOA scan... as long as you pay attention to it in some way.  Terminology - feel free to call things whatever you like. VV or FPM,  how about this one... the ACLS bullseye is called needles and ICLS needles (that look like needles) are called bullseye. Cool.

    Also, operating Hornets from land bases could be exciting as well 😄

  7. On 3/11/2024 at 11:47 AM, Topper81 said:

    Hello, I noticed that by passing the carriers stern, there seems to be some "turbolences" which lead into a "Grade C 3PTS" touch down.

    I never noticed this with the old flight model.

    Opton for "wake turbolences" is on, but I don't know if it has to do with this issue and if it was set to on earlier.

    I haven't moved the stick so far just before touch down, however in external view, you can see how the FCS is working.

    Maybe this is not a bug and I'm doing something wrong, do I have to pull the stick just before touchdown?
    Or do I give to late full throttle?

    I attached a track file and a video where you can see my explained behaviour.

    nose_down_3pts.trk 5.17 MB · 1 download

     

     

     

     

    The borked 'burble' is exactly the same as before and dependent on wake turbulence option turned on. Keep on off until the burble is fixed.  

    • Like 2
  8. On 3/8/2024 at 1:42 AM, darkman222 said:

    It really seems to need the quick "off parameter" part to it. 9.1 G is not what the jet is rated for. Interesting tho that this small amount of over G already is enough to induce the oscillations.

    I think this adverse yaw oscillation (in the recent FM update) is caused by aggressive roll input, followed by an attempt to stop the roll with a quick stick movement in the opposite direction,  especially with c/l tank or heavier weight. It's not exactly the same as we've seen in early OB builds.  I've read or heard somewhere this was a thing in Hornets circa mid 80's.

    I have no idea what 'proms' or blocks of Hornets and if indeed ED was trying to model it or this is something that needs to be tweaked.  Another thing is damping... in later Hornets.  I think 'may be' could be a bit better.  It would be refreshing to hear some input from someone who flew it at one time or another 😉

  9. This twitchy trim in A/P threw me up and down couple of times as I was transitioning from T/C part of ACLS to P/R.  I managed to engage T/C guidance from 80nm out. (ACL1 active, TCN and WPT nav unboxed, ILS boxed by engaging ACL)  The only way I could trigger the 'CPL HDG' to intercept the marshal radial was by getting the clearance and calling 'established' 😄 . I also threw in 'commencing' just to be funny. It worked. The data started loading and was showing me a commanded a/s 250, descent rate 4000f/m, down to platform since I was commenced already. Well, I managed my altitudes, a/s and descend and arrived at 6000ft leveled off and by the time I passed my marshal point I was told to switch to approach and when I descended through platform I got another data update, cool.  Since I disregarded the push time, I didn't have to uncouple the T/C steering for orbiting in marshal pattern and it stayed engaged continuously and flew along the marshal radial which in DCS is always colocated with FB.  Everything looked good until the dreaded transition to approach mode. The procedure was to press CPL twice. First press cancels T/C, second engages P/R once available.  Auto throttle also had to drop off before switching to PA mode.  So... after gear down and flaps at 180kts, as soon as I touched the trim... it went wild.  I managed to regain control and coupled the P/R.  After this ATC was actually holding AOA quite good even before tipover, which was a surprise.   So... it looks like some elements, bits and pieces are there.  Someone needs to glue them together tho'

  10. 'Growler Jams' posted one of the best refueling vids we can find on YT.  Plugging into KC135mprs (if I remember correctly) in turbulent air.  He also explains the entire process.

    • Like 3
  11. Here's my re-learning progress.  Slowly getting there but it's not pretty yet 😉  For those who like to gas up from S3's, I'm sure you already figured out you need to stay positioned a little higher then before 2.9.3 (actually since a few patches ago).  I could wobble all over the place and stay connected as long as I didn't drag the basket down too far.

    My PIO's were spectacular behind an S3 (at light weight at 1500 ft.)

     

    • Like 1
  12. 18 minutes ago, Chaffee said:


    It showed me why a track/video is always requested and hugely valuable. Again, thank you for that.

     

    Speaking of tracks.  I'm slowly changing my opinion on accuracy of track replays.  Since the recent updates I haven't noticed any discrepancies in my replays, including some crazy missions with lots of maneuvering... well, I'm talking single player here.  I'm aware of some complaints in MP sessions.  As long as I don't get too carried away with changing the replay speed. 

    • Like 2
  13. 8 hours ago, Chaffee said:

    Okay, thanks for the video. This is not a criticism of your flying, but I can't say that what's happening here is a bug. Here's why:

    1) You start the turn in a 2.5-degree stable descent at 0.9G. So I'm not sure you're in good trim. Maybe you are, but there are some indications that you're not.

    2) Your pull from 0.9 to 8.8G takes 0.95 seconds. That's a pretty severe pull. FBW flight computers aren't magic. Looks to me like it's doing everything it can to do what you're telling it to do without allowing the aircraft to depart into an accelerated stall.

    3) 8.8G is beyond the operational rating of the aircraft. Are you hitting the paddle? I don't know what the flight computer starts thinking about when you do that, but I'm guessing, based on knowing something about such systems, that you're entering a flight control mode that's suspending certain safety parameters, again resulting in a near accelerated stall. If you didn't use the paddle, that just shows how behind the plane the flight computer was...

    In other words, the number of actual pilots who have done what you're doing here in real life likely approaches zero. Further, the extreme edges of the flight envelopes of any of these aircraft are likely not in documents that can be used by any content producer (like ED). I can't speak directly to that, but my thought is that simmers should have reasonable expectations at the extremes of any flight model.

    Part of this is framing. From my seat, I'm like "wow, the flight computer didn't allow the plane to depart when rolling 90 and pulling from 0.9 to 8.8Gs in less than 1 second."

    The wobble is a result of this. Is it accurate? I have no real idea. Is it likely under these conditions? I'd say yes.

     

    😄 ,  I threw the NATOPS in the trashcan like we know who...   First, the only time I use a paddle is to kill the A/P.   Second, I actually failed to induce oscillations that both darkman222 and I remember from olden days... they were severe and would continue forever.  This would only occur in a clean jet with low fuel. In my short and wild flight I was actually quite happy with the results.  Oh, occasional over g can definitely happen... w/o a paddle.

  14. Similar problem occurs when entering PA mode with A/P still on.  The A/P will disengage but the trim will be messed up unless we cycle to UA then back to powered approach mode. 

    I was already on speed before coupling to ACLS , level at 1200.  The ACLS lowered my AOA to maintain 1200 ft. above the water at 151 kts.  Great, then I accidentally bumped the trim and the ACLS immediately decoupled.  The trim function was extremely sensitive afterwards so I reengaged ACLS and let the ATC maintain the AOA.

    Yesterday, someone started a thread on this subject but I don't see it today so...

     

  15. Well, with 2000 lbs of fuel, yanking and banking... can't do it for too long but during this hop I've only seen one instance of yaw oscillations when rolling and pulling on the stick. I can't really say what I did differently before this particular roll. I tried to unload before every violent maneuver.  Overall it wasn't bad at all.  The roll-outs were quite crisp and stable.

    Short clip from this test:

     

  16. 32 minutes ago, markom said:

    For me, the bar for "is there damage" in the game is whether it beeps at me... I don't believe external visual inspection yields the same result as it would have in real life. In other words, thank you for confirming the damage 🙂

    OK, my final take on this...  flying the ball with 43,000 lbs all the way to 3 wire, I would definitely expect some sort of 'stress' on certain parts of the airframe.  I simply wanted to see for myself whether reports of 'within weight limits and 700/800 f/min descent produced bent landing gear, that's all.

  17. 1 minute ago, markom said:

    What do you mean no damage... you can quite audibly hear the wheel damage alert on that carrier trap.

    No obvious and visible damage as seen in some pics and vids (bent gear)  Sure, I can hear the beeping 😄   and I noticed missing left main 'green'  so yeah, it's going below the deck for a while. 

  18. 9 hours ago, darkman222 said:

    Exactly. No loadout and low fuel state. Its still there.

     

    I just tried it at various weights and I can't see it anymore.  Even when pulling some g's before violent rolls. It would simply cause 'loaded rolls'.  There is a very small FPM wobble (one or two) before it dies out.  Give me your exact weight/loadout, altitudes and whatever might make a difference.

    Edit: I'll give it couple more tries.  2k lbs fuel, clean (no pylons)

  19. 7 hours ago, rfxcasey said:

    I should have better specified, in landing configuration.

    There was/is an issue with configuring to landing mode without disengaging the A/P beforehand.  The trim would start acting wild.  I'm not sure if this is what's causing your trim problems.

  20. 2 hours ago, markom said:

    What did checklist page say your weight was? A few "experiments" I did with the new flight model tell me that anything above 34,000 lbs means at least one bent wheel. Under that, anyone's guess. Under 33,000 (which is documented max weight for a trap), as long as you're under -900 fpm, you are good.

    I think current modelling is in the ball park... more or less 😉    My final test:  43,500'ish lbs on the runway landing the AF way then on the boat... well, I got some fault codes on this one but no visible damage.

    https://youtu.be/11CdUppYeX0?si=6ue8dcSGI1RalU0n

     

  21. 4 hours ago, darkman222 said:

    Its not that the wobbling oscillations should not happen at all. But once they start in the lateral axis, it wont stop unless you stop pulling. Not really sure if thats intended.

    Hmm, I'll do some tests later on with different weights and loads.  The problem you're describing was 'sort of' fixed years ago. The exaggerated wobble was always there even after the fix but the oscillations would eventually die out 😉   This was especially evident at very low weights.  

×
×
  • Create New...