Jump to content

AndyJWest

Members
  • Content Count

    152
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by AndyJWest

  1. Another suggestion: don't oblige people to enter a date of birth in order to sign back into the forum. Even (as I have) an entirely fictitious one. There is no reason whatsoever why a forum like this should even include this as an option, never mind try to make it compulsory (which I'd have to assume wasn't intended). People should not be encouraged to disclose personal details.
  2. I'd have thought that if the airbrake was intended to be able to be stopped in intermediate positions, there would have been some sort of in-cockpit position indicator provided. Otherwise, the pilot would have no way to tell where it was. What may be confusing the issue slightly is that, from what the NATOPS manual says, the extended position varies according to airspeed:
  3. This is a long-standing issue with the Windows game controller API. It has always been flaky, and expecting an application using it to continue working flawlessly while unplugging devices is optimistic, to say the least. A controller-specific driver may possibly help, but I wouldn't count on it. Don't use plugging in/unplugging devices while playing as a 'fix' for other issues. If it works, it is only by coincidence, and cannot be relied on.
  4. Yup. I had another go yesterday, and a little rearward movement at the start seemed to make it work better. The other thing you need to do is add power as you start to go nose-down - if you don't, you'll lose height. From what I can remember, pilot's demonstrating this seem generally not to try to return into a level hover. Instead, they pull up beyond horizontal, and climb away forwards (presumably with nozzles moved to less than the 82-degree level hover position). Probably easier than reestablishing a flat hover, and more impressive looking.
  5. I think the answer is that they are actually moving. Just not enough to be obvious. If you start in a stationary hover, and 'bow down' significantly, you are going to move forward, even if you swing the nozzles to the 99° position as you do so. Moving the nozzles maybe a second or so earlier will start you moving backwards though, so by the time you've finished your 'bow' you won't have gained so much forward momentum. That seemed to work for me, though I didn't put much effort into doing it with any precision - I'm still working on the more fundamental aspects of hovering, and was happy enoug
  6. Yeah, I um, discovered one of the Kutaisi airfields by accident, while flying the Viggen during the free-to-fly offer. Meant to land at Kutaisi itself, but got confused as I turned onto final, and lined up on the one shown in the screenshots. :doh: Fortunately, I'd set the auto-thrust-reverse gadget, so no great harm done. If I'd been flying any of the jets other then the Viggen, it would have ended in tears.
  7. Yup, I found the same thing. It only seemed to affect the 2.75 in rockets - the Zunis I used first were on target, or at least not so obviously wrong. Another thing I noticed, possibly related, was that the STRS page showed a TGT ELEV for rockets, whereas from memory, it didn't before: I managed somehow to get it reset to zero (closer to my target elevation), somehow, though I'm not entirely sure what I did to do this. In any case, the rockets were still missing afterwards. Something is clearly awry. EDIT: I've just noticed it also reads MODE MANUAL on the screen, but not on the ACP
  8. Yes, I know it isn't precise. Which is why I'm asking if there is a way to make it so. 'Buy more controllers' isn't really helpful, since RAZBAM clearly intend systems to work with the inputs they provide.
  9. Is there any way to adjust the rates of movement of nozzle rotation and STO stop position when using either a HOTAS button or the keyboard? They seem to move too fast for me, making setting a precise angle tricky. If the rate of movement was a little slower, it would make things much easier. I could put one or the other on my HOTAS radar elevation rotary, but that is also rather awkward to use with any precision.
  10. It has been done on other sims (see e.g. https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/9614-using-faders-as-sliders/ ) but it involves using external software to emulate a controller, is tricky to set up, and you may find the low resolution (0-127) of Midi sliders/rotaries to be a problem.
  11. As I understand it, jet engine inlet design involves compromises in order to achieve good performance over wide IAS & Mach number ranges. Inevitably then, any aircraft design is only going to achieve maximum thrust/fuel consumption efficiency under specific conditions. Maybe the F-18 is just operating closer to its optimum than the other aircraft under the test conditions described? To show that there is an issue you would really need to test under a wider range of conditions - different altitudes, different speeds. Though even then, it wouldn't really indicate that anything was wrong unle
  12. Possibly. But without a better source for actual performance figures, stating the conditions and configuration, there is no way to be sure.
  13. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer As for performance in DCS, it will depend, as with the real world, on aircraft configuration, and on atmospheric conditions.
  14. After looking into this further, and reviewing multiple tracks/recordings of my efforts, I've come to the conclusion that I do better if I use the ball (or ICLS, since they still concur at this point) to get close in, but for the last couple of seconds, use the velocity vector as a guide, and eyeball myself in. This isn't how NATOPS says you are supposed to do it...
  15. Yup, that's my impression too, at least some of the time. i have a suspicion though that there is something else going on, possibly related to things that shouldn't really be affecting the IFLOLS at all - possibly the wind speed and direction and/or the speed of the ship. I'm going to continue to look into this, and see if I can narrow it down.
  16. That may not necessarily be inaccurate. From Aerodynamics For Naval Aviators, 1965, P.381:
  17. Yeah, a video would probably demonstrate the issue better. I've got a track of that landing, but ideally what is needed is a live recording, with the control inputs showing. I'll see if I can come up with one. As for energy state, and adding power, you're right - though I don't think I did that, since I was deliberately following what ICLS said, rather then the ball, and had no reason to. Maybe I was a little early with the full-throttle-at the wire move, since I'd got rather used to getting bolters. I should probably repeat the test several times, and see if that may be part of the problem
  18. @G B: I agree that ICLS shouldn't matter if you are in the groove. The fact is however that the screenshot shows me as being low according to IFLOLS, yet I caught the 4th wire. As for science, or rather maths (this is a geometry problem), I'd agree that better data would help. If we had it. Meanwhile we can only go on what we have, and if I follow IFLOLS all the way to the deck (as per NATOPS), I miss the wires. Maybe there is something else going on, if other people aren't having the same issue, but it seems pretty consistent to me.
  19. Note that the velocity vector on the HUD doesn't give a direct indication of yaw. It will be offset in a crosswind, even if you have no sideslip, and the effect becomes greater as wind increases and/or your TAS decreases: the velocity vector tells you which direction you are moving relative to a stationary GPS/inertia derived fixed 'ground', rather than the air (or the carrier for that matter).
  20. It wouldn't explain why the ICLS and the IFLOLS contradict each other close in, for the Hornet. See the screenshot from SnapRoll here, which started the discussion in the other thread: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4379803&postcount=1 I've had exactly the same result: IFLOLS is showing way low. ICLS is showing marginally high. AoA is good. As is pitch angle (the W index is at 5°, as it should be with 8.5° AoA and a 3.5° glideslope). No wind, so level deck. Carrier was doing 25 kt. I caught the 4th wire, which is consistent with me being a little high.
  21. See earlier thread on the same issue. Something definitely seems off: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=277591
  22. As a noob Hornet pilot, I'm reluctant to blame the sim for something that may be down to my lack of experience, but I've been coming to much the same conclusion. As I've been getting better at following the IFLOLS close in, I've been getting more bolters. As I said in an earlier post, I'd taken to turning off the ICLS once I called the ball, since if they agree they aren't both necessary - but if they don't agree, and it is the IFLOLS that is wrong, I've clearly been making things harder for myself.
  23. I've found it easier to turn the ICLS off once I call the ball. Either they are both telling me the same thing, in which case I don't need them both, or they are telling me different things, which I need even less...
×
×
  • Create New...