Kneeboard Trap sheet shows wrong altitudes

[Rongor]

According to the trap sheet the landing on the carrier deck takes place at around close to 200 ft. How is this possible? Carrier deck is at 70 ft above the water...

I don't think the glideslope is suddenly bent downward in the last quarter of a mile, so this side view profile doesn't make sense...

Edited March 23, 2023 by Rongor

[Callsign JoNay]

Good catch, I've never noticed that.

[Despayre]

Is it possible the lower 300 ft of that graph is compressed. I'm assuming you're getting the 200' number from the obvious distance below the 300' mark on the graph, but that cannot be right, cuz obviously, where the water starts is 0 ft, ergo, the area from 300 to 0 is all within that lowest unmarked block on the graph (as there isn't enough area to create 3 blocks of 100' each to get all the way to 0).

 

Visually, if you compress those last 300 ft into a single block and you maintained glideslope, I would expect the graph to show a compression curve at the end. No?

[draconus]

The ship's out of scale, scales are non-linear, water line is unrealistic, no colors explanation... but I heard they are not touching it again

[Despayre]

 

Technically, this kinda feels like an explanation of the colours.

[Rongor]

13 hours ago, Despayre said:

Is it possible the lower 300 ft of that graph is compressed. I'm assuming you're getting the 200' number from the obvious distance below the 300' mark on the graph, but that cannot be right, cuz obviously, where the water starts is 0 ft, ergo, the area from 300 to 0 is all within that lowest unmarked block on the graph (as there isn't enough area to create 3 blocks of 100' each to get all the way to 0).

 

Visually, if you compress those last 300 ft into a single block and you maintained glideslope, I would expect the graph to show a compression curve at the end. No?

the side view of the glidepath would have to bend then

[IronMike]

Last 300 feet are just compressed. As mentioned before, trapsheet is still just a throw and glimpse at a feature that was never really planned and never really finished, we just left it in, because it is still nicer to have it than not to have it, and helps at least a bit with visualization. don't take it too literally or seriously though.

Maybe one day we find the time to finish it or improve it.

[Callsign JoNay]

I don't think the last 300 feet are compressed, or like Rongor said the glide slope would bend. I think the scale on the left is just incorrect. Easy fix?

[draconus]

7 hours ago, Rongor said:

the side view of the glidepath would have to bend then

Not when distance axis is also non-linear.

[Rongor]

17 hours ago, draconus said:

Not when distance axis is also non-linear.

which it isn't, as you can notice instantly on the screenshot I provided.

20 hours ago, IronMike said:

Maybe one day we find the time to finish it or improve it.

I very much hope so, as it is in fact a very important tool for practicing. It's an underrated feature I think.

Edited March 25, 2023 by Rongor

[draconus]

1 hour ago, Rongor said:

which it isn't, as you can notice instantly on the screenshot I provided.

look closer

[lunaticfringe]

9 hours ago, Rongor said:

which it isn't, as you can notice instantly on the screenshot I provided.

I very much hope so, as it is in fact a very important tool for practicing. It's an underrated feature I think.

It's absolutely nonlinear, and to be honest- there isn't much to be done to make it displayable on the kneeboard; reason being that the diagram would lose all visibility with a more accurate altitude presentation.  The ball projection out to 1 mile would collapse, making it far less illustrative for relative height; see the blue lines below the current ball projection attached- these are more representative of the 3 degree glideslope and the field presented by low and high ball positions with relative scaling to a 1/4th in presented deck height off the water, rather than the current roughly 15 degree projection representing the 3 degree +/- field.  The more "accurate" the display of relative altitude, the less illustrative the card would be from a half mile in.  And scale correction for downrange just makes the triangle collapse even further. 

The relation to the ball, with regards to range and altitude, is clear from a mile out until in the wires.  At some point, a non-scalar projection is going to catch up to the data and skew to adjust, and there isn't any other place for it.   

Edited March 25, 2023 by lunaticfringe