AAR

[lmp]

I suspect getting rid of the deadzone is what made the difference. My previous stick needed one because it was so old and worn out - and I couldn't AAR anything if my life depended on it. Now I have a VPC stick, got rid of the deadzone and making those ever so slight corrections is a lot easier.

Congratulations on your progress!

Edited January 14, 2022 by lmp

[jaylw314]

On 1/10/2022 at 5:07 AM, Caldera said:

I have never seen the clear crisp triangle on the left indicator nor the rectangle on the right indicator nor any circle centered indicator on either.  I did not even know that there were triangles or rectangles or circles present.  All I can see are very faint fuzzy green blobs moving forward or backwards or red blobs at the ends, barely. 

One other thing that might make a difference is increasing your antialiasing setting (16x or so?).  The director lights and runway markings are really the only place where this is practically noticeable, and it's a minimal performance hit.

Also, note that the Viper and A-10C fly differently in pitch.  The A-10C flies conventionally, so if you pull the stick back and let go, you pitch up a bit, then slow down a bit, and eventually the nose drops back down on its own.   To level out, you need to push the nose down, but less than you originally pulled it up as a result.  In the Viper, when you do the same, the nose pitches up AND STAYS UP because of the FBW auto-trimming to 1G.  To level off, you need to pitch the nose down exactly as much as you pulled it up initially.  There's definitely a small but significant difference in muscle memory that I'm having to learn.

[BuzzU]

Too much work. I just pull into a gas station and yell.......Filler up!

[Deano87]

21 minutes ago, BuzzU said:

Too much work. I just pull into a gas station and yell.......Filler up!

THAT EXPLAINS IT!

[BuzzU]

LOL

[Caldera]

Deano,

Now that's funny!  Seems so easy put in the right perspective...

 

Jay,

On 1/19/2022 at 10:55 AM, jaylw314 said:

One other thing that might make a difference is increasing your antialiasing setting (16x or so?).  The director lights and runway markings are really the only place where this is practically noticeable, and it's a minimal performance hit.

I did put my resolution back to 2560x1080, I realized that had to give too much of the rest of the game in order to do this one thing.  I did set Anisotropic Filtering back to 16x and the PDL' s are much clearer.  I can realistically only run MSAA 2x and no SSAA.

 

I always fly with Wake Turbulence on.  The F-16C seems much more reactive and harder to control in punching through "the hump to the nozzle" than the A-10C is.  The AAR videos I have watched show the F-16C pulling up to the nozzle (as in the A-10C), waiting for BODO to react and then slipping forward just underneath to the left or right of the nozzle.  It does not seem like Wake Turbulence is effecting their flight much and I do not know if it is actually on or not.

I have generally been trying of late to approach the nozzle a bit lower beneath it, then waiting for BODO to wake up, then slipping forward to the right PDL and then coming up to the left PDL.  This makes it harder for me to re-orientate under the tanker, but reduces the porpoise stabilization dance with the stick.

Sound about right?

How do you guys deal with Wake Turbulence?

Caldera

 

[Deano87]

If you're hitting severe wake turbulence on approach to the tanker in the F-16 IMHO you need to adjust your approach technique. I fly with WT on all the time and I never notice it. This is one of the reasons I recommend to form up on the tankers wing first and then slide back a small amount, down and across while staying quite close to the tanker. Remember the zone of wake turbulence is two conical vortexes leading back from each wing tip. The closer you are fore/aft to the tanker the smaller those vortex's are, and the easier they are to avoid, If you charge up directly behind the tanker and slightly lower you will be flying directly into it.

[Caldera]

Deano,

Thanks!

OK Gas Station?  I have never heard of it.

The Wake Turbulence (WT) is not severe where I am hitting it IE there is not a sudden and forceful rolling effect.  However, just aft of the nozzle there is a WT effect, I call "The Hump", that causes quite a bit of lift.  It has a fairly severe onset and offset just about as I get to the nozzle.  When I watch IRL actual refueling I try to notice this.  I don't see the same effect going on, but that doesn't mean that it isn't.  In the A-10C I generally just plow right through it. 

Caldera

Edited January 23, 2022 by Caldera

[Deano87]

18 hours ago, Caldera said:

just aft of the nozzle there is a WT effect, I call "The Hump", that causes quite a bit of lift.  It has a fairly severe onset and offset just about as I get to the nozzle.  When I watch IRL actual refueling I try to notice this.  I don't see the same effect going on, but that doesn't mean that it isn't.  In the A-10C I generally just plow right through it. 

Caldera

 

I have never noticed this, I will try and pay more attention next time. What speed do you have your tanker set up to fly? I usually refuel at 20-30k ft, mach 0.8 or 280-350 knots IAS.

Edited January 24, 2022 by Deano87

[Caldera]

Deano,

OK  I had not considered altitude much. 

My F-16C AAR training mission is a hold over (save as) from my A-10C AAR training mission.  Both are at 15k.  For the F-16C I kicked the speed up to around 313 IAS for hook up.  I will test at a higher altitude.

Caldera

[Deano87]

3 hours ago, Caldera said:

Deano,

OK  I had not considered altitude much. 

My F-16C AAR training mission is a hold over (save as) from my A-10C AAR training mission.  Both are at 15k.  For the F-16C I kicked the speed up to around 313 IAS for hook up.  I will test at a higher altitude.

Caldera

Altitude shouldn’t make much difference. That was just generally where I set the tanker. I did some refuelling today and didn’t notice the wake/lift hump at all. But perhaps I’m just approaching the boom lower rather than just driving directly towards the end of the boom from behind.