correct as-is Landing gear after update.

[markom]

I was unable to reproduce this. I tried a few times at various VS. Perhaps it only happens on the carrier?

Gear Smash.trk

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

3 hours ago, Rissala said:

only the left MLG.

When I ran my test to damage the undercarriage on purpose, it was the right main gear that was damaged. The left was fine.

Edited March 8 by Raven (Elysian Angel)
Double post :-/

[Rankorn]

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 

[pokeraccio]

On 3/7/2024 at 7:13 PM, MARLAN_ said:

That's wrong, the normal is 34K. The "restrictions" are things like you can't use MOVLAS, there's a list in the NATOPS, and the listed restrictions are all special situations.

Of course I don't want to question real pilots informations and who is dealing with true operational infos, but from the papers I was able to read (maybe not updated) the wording is like me and others are mentioning here.

Max Trap Weight is 33K is Unrestricted and 34K is Restricted to 5 specific restrictions provisions. That's mean that if you are compling with those restrictions you can trap at 34K with no issues, but stating that this is wrong I think it is an assumption based on no evidences.

In our dcs F18, maybe they give us a limit of 34K as a margin anyway even if we do not meet the restrictions, I don't know, but could be possible.

[oldcrusty]

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)

[BIGNEWY]

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 

[oldcrusty]

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

[BIGNEWY]

4 minutes ago, oldcrusty said:

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

Got to love the navy  

 

 

[markom]

I think that Navy pilot flew my last Delta flight.

[MARLAN_]

6 hours ago, pokeraccio said:

Of course I don't want to question real pilots informations and who is dealing with true operational infos, but from the papers I was able to read (maybe not updated) the wording is like me and others are mentioning here.

Max Trap Weight is 33K is Unrestricted and 34K is Restricted to 5 specific restrictions provisions. That's mean that if you are compling with those restrictions you can trap at 34K with no issues, but stating that this is wrong I think it is an assumption based on no evidences.

In our dcs F18, maybe they give us a limit of 34K as a margin anyway even if we do not meet the restrictions, I don't know, but could be possible.

Yes, that is correct, but the "restricted" is the normal. The "restrictions" are normal situations.

Think of it this way:

Jogging:

Unrestricted: 10km/h

Restricted: 15km/h

Restriction: Must wear shoes.

Edited March 26 by MARLAN_

[markom]

Jogging:

Unrestricted: 10km/h

Restricted: 15km/h

Restriction: must have 5 km/h tailwind.

 

This is how I would rather interpret unrestricted/restricted.

Edited March 26 by markom

[AMEDooley]

15 hours ago, MARLAN_ said:

Yes, that is correct, but the "restricted" is the normal. The "restrictions" are normal situations.

Think of it this way:

Jogging:

Unrestricted: 10km/h

Restricted: 15km/h

Restriction: Must wear shoes.

 

You might want to re-read the NFM. It’s very specific 33k is unrestricted. 34K is restricted. You must follow those restrictions listed. Where as at 33K you have no restrictions. Some of them are the same, such as the 3.5 glideslope, but not the flaps. Less than 33K you can land with half flaps, above 33K and can only do that if you have winds of 40kn or higher. Or if your particular a/c didn’t have the hook mod you cannot trap above 33K at all. Those would be, by definition, restrictions. Restrictions have nothing to do with “normal” situations. They only limit what options are available to the pilot. Take the flaps as an example. I wouldn’t land with them in half, but I could if I wanted to. If I was above 33K I couldn’t land in half flaps even if I wanted to, unless the winds were above 40 knots (which wouldn’t happen a lot). Since it limits my options (whether I was going to use it or not) it is a restriction. 

 

[MARLAN_]

11 minutes ago, AMEDooley said:

You might want to re-read the NFM. It’s very specific 33k is unrestricted. 34K is restricted. You must follow those restrictions listed. Where as at 33K you have no restrictions. Some of them are the same, such as the 3.5 glideslope, but not the flaps. Less than 33K you can land with half flaps, above 33K and can only do that if you have winds of 40kn or higher. Or if your particular a/c didn’t have the hook mod you cannot trap above 33K at all. Those would be, by definition, restrictions. Restrictions have nothing to do with “normal” situations. They only limit what options are available to the pilot. Take the flaps as an example. I wouldn’t land with them in half, but I could if I wanted to. If I was above 33K I couldn’t land in half flaps even if I wanted to, unless the winds were above 40 knots (which wouldn’t happen a lot). Since it limits my options (whether I was going to use it or not) it is a restriction. 

I'm sick of going in circles. Go ask US Navy pilots what is considered the normal landing weight at the boat. You can interpret it however you want, but your opinion is just an opinion.

I'll try to explain one last time: the listed restrictions are normal cases (i.e. it would be a special case to be limited to 33K). You can only land at 34K when: using full flaps (or half if >40 knots) (normal), and if your lateral weight is not excessive (normal), and if you are using IFLOLS (normal), and if you are using a 3.5 deg glideslope (normal).

I really don't understand why this is so confusing, but I'm done going in circles on this, it is irrelevant. All that matters is that 34K is a case that can happen, and if the DCS F-18 is collapsing gears <34K (adhering to the applicable conditions, e.g. lateral weight and glideslope) then it is a bug, thats it, end of story. I still don't even know if it actually is breaking <34K because it seems the bug is something else entirely anyway. I am only here because I don't want ED to think that the DCS F-18 should be collapsing its gears >33<34K because that is completely wrong.

P.S. that image you posted is not public release, and breaks forum rules, you should edit it out and remove it before you receive warning points or worse.

Edited March 27 by MARLAN_

[AMEDooley]

12 minutes ago, MARLAN_ said:

I'm sick of going in circles. Go ask US Navy pilots what is considered the normal landing weight at the boat. You can interpret it however you want, but your opinion is just an opinion.

I'll try to explain one last time: the listed restrictions are normal cases (i.e. it would be a special case to be limited to 33K). You can only land at 34K when: using full flaps (or half if >40 knots) (normal), and if your lateral weight is not excessive (normal), and if you are using IFLOLS (normal), and if you are using a 3.5 deg glideslope (normal).

I really don't understand why this is so confusing, but I'm done going in circles on this, it is irrelevant. All that matters is that 34K is a case that can happen, and if the DCS F-18 is collapsing gears <34K (adhering to the applicable conditions, e.g. lateral weight and glideslope) then it is a bug, thats it, end of story. I still don't even know if it actually is breaking <34K because it seems the bug is something else entirely anyway. I am only here because I don't want ED to think that the DCS F-18 should be collapsing its gears >33<34K because that is completely wrong.

P.S. that image you posted is not public release, and breaks forum rules, you should edit it out and remove it before you receive warning points or worse.

 

I’m not denying you can land on the boat above 33K it clearly says you can. But you have to follow the restrictions listed. Hence the pub for the jet (not my opinion, but the rules from the Navy) saying it is restricted above 33K. I think you need to stop listening to people, and read the pubs. Also maybe a dictionary. Words have a specific meaning, especially when they’re opposites. The NFM-000 for the A-D is 100% public information. You can get it off of publicintelligence.net which uses only open source material. And it is also on ED’s forums. Just saying.

[MARLAN_]

2 minutes ago, AMEDooley said:

I’m not denying you can land on the boat above 33K it clearly says you can. But you have to follow the restrictions listed. Hence the pub for the jet (not my opinion, but the rules from the Navy) saying it is restricted above 33K. I think you need to stop listening to people, and read the pubs. Also maybe a dictionary. Words have a specific meaning, especially when they’re opposites. The NFM-000 for the A-D is 100% public information. You can get it off of publicintelligence.net which uses only open source material. And it is also on ED’s forums. Just saying.

Read page 1

[BIGNEWY]

please do not post from NATOPS on our forum, the restrictions on the cover page still apply, any document newer than 1980 should not be posted here. 

 

Again if you think something is wrong add track replays, but we have tested extensively and consider it correct as is. 

thank you 

 

[EmJay22]

As I was constantly breaking landing gear with the new FM update, I mapped the "arcade chase" view so I would know immediately if I broke them.. again.

If you watch from this view as the plane touches down, it seems to "jump" the last few feet straight down.

Looks weird.

[BIGNEWY]

8 minutes ago, EmJay22 said:

As I was constantly breaking landing gear with the new FM update, I mapped the "arcade chase" view so I would know immediately if I broke them.. again.

If you watch from this view as the plane touches down, it seems to "jump" the last few feet straight down.

Looks weird.

please attach a track replay example so we can take a look

thank you

[buceador]

14 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

please attach a track replay example so we can take a look

I despair at the amount of times this has to be said... 

[EmJay22]

7 minutes ago, buceador said:

I despair at the amount of times this has to be said... 

You and me both. 

As is there a way to edit a track prior to uploading? I am sure some one will say "THE SINK RATE IS TOO HIGH"

My airmanship is sucky enough without opening it up to additional criticism from the "I've never broken the landing gear" or "I can land CASE I on a CV with my eyes closed" crowd.

[pokeraccio]

18 hours ago, MARLAN_ said:

Yes, that is correct, but the "restricted" is the normal. The "restrictions" are normal situations.

I got it @MARLAN_ I see what you meant by "normal", the real pilots you had the chance to interview are just telling that the 34k higher limit is most of the time the "normal operations" because all the restrictions for a 34K trap are always met (there is also the ship arresting system version).

That's make sense.

Maybe in the past they also had different/mixed Carrier config so the need to specify this restriction in the list, too.

 

 

 

[Dragon1-1]

This is probably related to emergency situations when those restrictions are not fulfilled. If your flaps are broken, or the IFLOLS is, or you're laterally unbalanced for whatever reason, you can still trap, you just have to lose some pounds. It's important on the boat because generally, you'll only dump only so much fuel as to be at max trap when coming into the groove. Nobody is going to be dumping an extra 1000lbs of gas without a good reason. In fact, as a rule of thumb, if you're flying a healthy jet with no issues, your max trap is 34K. That's what I've heard in a video made by an actual Hornet driver. The unrestricted numbers are for when you have to go outside the normal way of doing it.

[EmJay22]

1 hour ago, BIGNEWY said:

please attach a track replay example so we can take a look

thank you

 

hornet_landing.trk

[buceador]

1 hour ago, EmJay22 said:

As is there a way to edit a track prior to uploading?

Not as such, no, the track can be played in DCS and using a screen recorder (like Nvidia ShadowPlay) you can pause and edit the track that you are recording but that might obscure important details that the moderators / devs / 'experts' are looking for.

[BIGNEWY]

34 minutes ago, EmJay22 said:

 

hornet_landing.trk 3.84 MB · 1 download

Hi,
What do you think is the issue here? I did not see any gear damage, the only thing I noticed was you were slightly above weight for landing.