IFLOLS accuracy?

Great, I´m not alone. It seems there is a whole bunch of problems. Sometimes the LSO calls "You´re low" but the IFLOLS shows perfect glidepath. Sometimes the LSO gives a "wrong" 3PTS (there is a thread in the bugs section).

 

Also, I sometimes somehow get the impression that the groove starts higher than before. I mean, halfway in the final turn I should be a aprox 450ft... I found this way to low in Supercarrier, I always have to get a good 100ft higher out of this curve to catch the ball perfectly.

 

I've been practicing Banker's mission extremely often. I wasn't perfect, but I was pretty good. The SuperCarrier feels so different to me that I still haven't gotten used to it since its release. Cant explain. The numbers feel different, the groove, the F-18 itself too. The last 5 seconds of my landings are always terrible because something feels wrong - or at least different from what I had practiced for months.

This is me......as I said, using banklers mission, I was able to get a grade in the sixties no problem at all, ( so its clear, I had a good technique...) but never really used to fly the ball, rather relied on my eye and the needles.

Now, since the SC release, obviously, I want to make use of the better SC environment, which includes LSO calls and now a visible IFLOLS via the overlay. However, following both of these does not give me the same results as before.

It would be interesting if someone from ED could comment on how accurate they see the current system as being, what scope there is in future development of the module for "tuning" the system if they feel it needs it, what perhaps the current limitations may or may not be, etc etc, information that only they as the devs would know.

I fly with an air wing of over 20 pilots. All are able to fly the ball and land on the carrier using the IFLOLS. I've personally trained about ten people to land via the US Navy's CV training manuals and have had all of them land properly utilizing the ball and trap 2-4 wires with normal passes. The issue in this thread is one of technique. I spent many hours and hundreds of passes getting good. So will you.

 

The only issue with the ball atm is it is too low on the deck, which has already been reported as a bug.

Theres always someone w an overinflated ego with no knowledge of the skill level of other pilots who are speaking who had the nerve to step in with a "get good" comment. SC ball has issues and is not accurate. Can trap perfect case 1's w a center ball and a 3 wire all day on the stennis. On the SC its a crap shoot anywhere from a 2-4 wire. The SC lso and ball are not reporting proper glideslope OR the stennis ball was setup in such a way as to make it easier or more accurate than it should be. Either way theres a disparity.

It's not an overinflated sense of ego. I echo mattag08's comments. We have pilots that are reliably trapping very well using the ball as it is on the SC. Mostly 3 wires, with a few 2s and a few more 4's thrown in there.

It's not about the wire you catch (unless you're catching 1-wires all the time) it's about the consistency of your pass. AoA, Line-up, Ball, works just fine with the SuperCarrier.

As to the other skill levels.....if the technique isn't there, should they be blaming the SuperCarrier? There's a reason naval aviators fly 100's of passes at a NOLF before they go to the boat.

Practice really does pay off. I've flown hundreds of passes in the last few months and my grades show consistency.

It's not an overinflated sense of ego. I echo mattag08's comments. We have pilots that are reliably trapping very well using the ball as it is on the SC. Mostly 3 wires, with a few 2s and a few more 4's thrown in there.

 

It's not about the wire you catch (unless you're catching 1-wires all the time) it's about the consistency of your pass. AoA, Line-up, Ball, works just fine with the SuperCarrier.

 

As to the other skill levels.....if the technique isn't there, should they be blaming the SuperCarrier? There's a reason naval aviators fly 100's of passes at a NOLF before they go to the boat.

 

Practice really does pay off. I've flown hundreds of passes in the last few months and my grades show consistency.

If the lso and ball are calling low, youre trimmed on aoa with proper descent rate and you fly over all 4 wires theres a problem. Because surprise ego, that means technique is there and the problems is with the new SC which btw is wip btw. I trained and qual'd w a prominent squadron and have flown natops case 1's since the hornet released. My traps are probably somewhere in the 1000+ range. There is an issue and the fact they have even stated the tomcats slope was incorrect should be all the backup needed to support that its a wip. If your traps are sloppy enough that you cant tell a difference perhaps the problem isnt that youre so good it doesnt effect you but instead that your so sloppy you its masking the problem.

If the lso and ball are calling low, youre trimmed on aoa with proper descent rate and you fly over all 4 wires theres a problem. Because surprise ego, that means technique is there and the problems is with the new SC which btw is wip btw. I trained and qual'd w a prominent squadron and have flown natops case 1's since the hornet released. My traps are probably somewhere in the 1000+ range. There is an issue and the fact they have even stated the tomcats slope was incorrect should be all the backup needed to support that its a wip. If your traps are sloppy enough that you cant tell a difference perhaps the problem isnt that youre so good it doesnt effect you but instead that your so sloppy you its masking the problem.

Why are you making things personal? If some people are having success and you're not, it isn't their fault.

I'm not seeing a contraction in your scenario either. If you're low your approach will be more shallow than it should be, so it's going to be very easy to drift over the wires.

Screenshots or descriptions aren't going to help here either. Can you provide a video showing the issue?

Is it possible to look at a .miz file and see what’s going on? Otherwise this discussion is purely subjective........

Why are you making things personal? If some people are having success and you're not, it isn't their fault.

 

I'm not seeing a contraction in your scenario either. If you're low your approach will be more shallow than it should be, so it's going to be very easy to drift over the wires.

 

Screenshots or descriptions aren't going to help here either. Can you provide a video showing the issue?

Not making it personal, responding to the condescending "get good" response. Issue is seen by many ppl who have no such complaints about the stennis. Responding by trying to brag how good you are and that everyone else is just at fault cause they arent good enough without any knowledge who youre talking to or what their skill level is is uncalled for. But yes, personally I havent had time to put together a full study into the matter with tracks/video cause summer time and family only leaves so much time for dcs and I'd rather spend it blowing stuff up than doing ED's QA work for them. When I get the chance I'll do so but atm I'm just sharing my own experience and that others I fly with have made the same complaints. When I look on the forums and see others talking about the same issue its pretty apparent its not a matter of "getting good."

And if youre low and youre aoa is too low as well then yes, youll overshoot. Which is why I specifically pointed out that its happening on the ball, trimmed for on speed aoa and at an appropriate descent rate.

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...

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...

As I mentioned before I havent done any detailed analysis but my own experience is that the SC puts you higher than normal on glideslope as you cross the stern and into the groove then drops at too steep a rate as you get "in close." Entering the groove should be happening at <400 ft but that alt on the SC will immediately put you low on the ball and have the lso calling you low. (And thats with an appropriate groove time) A dropping ball in close wasnt uncommon on the stennis but it seems to happen more dramatically and further out. It ends up causing me to have to adjust and add power to prevent hitting a 1 wire or worse which is probably what causes the occassional float over the wires. Then the way the game hangs for up to 2 seconds when getting over the deck (which is documented in other threads) compounds the situation.

Not making it personal, responding to the condescending "get good" response. Issue is seen by many ppl who have no such complaints about the stennis. Responding by trying to brag how good you are and that everyone else is just at fault cause they arent good enough without any knowledge who youre talking to or what their skill level is is uncalled for. But yes, personally I havent had time to put together a full study into the matter with tracks/video cause summer time and family only leaves so much time for dcs and I'd rather spend it blowing stuff up than doing ED's QA work for them. When I get the chance I'll do so but atm I'm just sharing my own experience and that others I fly with have made the same complaints. When I look on the forums and see others talking about the same issue its pretty apparent its not a matter of "getting good."

 

And if youre low and youre aoa is too low as well then yes, youll overshoot. Which is why I specifically pointed out that its happening on the ball, trimmed for on speed aoa and at an appropriate descent rate.

To be fair, your argument read that those who were landing fine didn't know what they were taking about, where as those who couldn't were the experts. Which was no less condescending, but also makes no sense.

Anyway, do you know if tracks of SC landings are reliable? Watching back in show mo could be useful.

To be fair, your argument read that those who were landing fine didn't know what they were taking about, where as those who couldn't were the experts. Which was no less condescending, but also makes no sense.

 

Anyway, do you know if tracks of SC landings are reliable? Watching back in show mo could be useful.

It did devolve into sounding that way, wasnt the initial response intention however. As for replays I wouldnt trust track files. They are notorious for completIy corrupting what actually happened. I would make a live recording and take care to show instrument readings during the pattern.

Would still be nice if someone from EA could comment......

Set up a mission today to start comparing the 2 carriers to see if the difference is real or just perception. Have only got to do one run so far. Straight and level approach from the stern @400ft. On both carriers, observing the physical ball on the deck, the low red ball appears at 1.1 nm. So can confirm the lower edge of the visibility cone matches for both. Plan to test the center ball and upper limit of the physical iflos still and then compare the overlays and confirm that they match what is seen on the physical system. Not even going to comment any further on what it feels like is happening. Just going to share the test results. Have to also consider that its at least in part due to the size difference of the carrier causing sight picture issues. Particularly if youve spent a lot of hours on the old carrier beating the sight picture into your brain. Happy to admit I was wrong initially if my own tests dont end up supporting a real issue.

It happens that I haven't been flying DCS as much in the last couple of weeks so all my traps on the SC have been straight-in approaches. I am less experienced than a lot of guys here so am not able to get into all the details. What I do know is the FLOLS and the ICLS do not agree. I was thinking there may be some kind of time delay in one or the other but can't see anything to substantiate that. So I ignore the FLOLS and fly the ICLS. Also, I have never been able to see the FLOLS well enough to use it although many say it worked fine for them. And now we have this way, way oversized arcade looking thing for the upgrade. I am not impressed.

It happens that I haven't been flying DCS as much in the last couple of weeks so all my traps on the SC have been straight-in approaches. I am less experienced than a lot of guys here so am not able to get into all the details. What I do know is the FLOLS and the ICLS do not agree. I was thinking there may be some kind of time delay in one or the other but can't see anything to substantiate that. So I ignore the FLOLS and fly the ICLS. Also, I have never been able to see the FLOLS well enough to use it although many say it worked fine for them. And now we have this way, way oversized arcade looking thing for the upgrade. I am not impressed.

If I'm not mistaken the icls isnt meant to be flown all the way to the deck. Procedure should be to follow needles till you can pick up the ball then follow the ball in the rest of the way. Someone much more knowledgable than me once said mentioned that icls isnt lined up for the trap point on the deck the way the iflos is. Its just there to get you in range so that being the case, the icls will not match ball indications by design.

I'm certainly in agreement about the overlay amd find it too large and distracting. They already said they plan on an option to disable it but also hoping they provide a scale option.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=277591

Also, see this thread. Whether or not something is off w the iflols or not there def seems to be enough ppl having issues with their traps when relying on it that it warrants investigation. Curious if the ppl having trouble are using the overlay or physical ball.

If I'm not mistaken the icls isnt meant to be flown all the way to the deck. Procedure should be to follow needles till you can pick up the ball then follow the ball in the rest of the way. Someone much more knowledgable than me once said mentioned that icls isnt lined up for the trap point on the deck the way the iflos is. Its just there to get you in range so that being the case, the icls will not match ball indications by design.

 

I'm certainly in agreement about the overlay amd find it too large and distracting. They already said they plan on an option to disable it but also hoping they provide a scale option.

All of this about ICLS is correct. Not to be used for guidance once in the groove. It’s not just that it isn’t used; it *shouldn't* be used.

If I'm not mistaken the icls isnt meant to be flown all the way to the deck. Procedure should be to follow needles till you can pick up the ball then follow the ball in the rest of the way. Someone much more knowledgable than me once said mentioned that icls isnt lined up for the trap point on the deck the way the iflos is. Its just there to get you in range so that being the case, the icls will not match ball indications by design.

 

I'm certainly in agreement about the overlay amd find it too large and distracting. They already said they plan on an option to disable it but also hoping they provide a scale option.

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=277591

Also, see this thread. Whether or not something is off w the iflols or not there def seems to be enough ppl having issues with their traps when relying on it that it warrants investigation. Curious if the ppl having trouble are using the overlay or physical ball.

That’s another thing to establish.....does the overlay mirror the ball exactly.......followed by how accurate and timely the LSO calls are

I am going to try and look further into this, and try to follow the ball all the way in as many times as possible.