Meatball Export - Page 3 - ED Forums
 


Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-08-2018, 07:26 PM   #21
TraxusIV
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 81
Default

I'd love to see an export of the meatball as well, though for a different reason. I'm slightly colorblind, and find it very difficult to distinguish the lights on 1080p unless I'm zoomed all the way in. If the meatball were exportable, or if the size of the lamps could be artificially increased, it would make it way easier to see them.
__________________
If you disapprove of this post, please feel free to give me negative rep. If you approve of this post, please feel free to give me negative rep.
TraxusIV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2018, 08:31 PM   #22
drallabco
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 25
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Weegie View Post
There is another mod I found which makes it larger but I think it breaks Integrity, although I've only used it a few times I thought it the best workaround so far



Found it on the Mudspike forum. I don't want to paste a link in case I'm breaking the rules here, last thing I want is to get banned. You can easily find it by googling but PM me if you cannot and want to try it


I do agree with you that a separate window, or possibly a semi transparent overlay would be the best, but don't think it's going to happen
I'll do it. Here's the link.https://forums.mudspike.com/t/dcs-vr-iflols/6293
drallabco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2018, 10:23 PM   #23
Matthew10_28
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 35
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadrunner View Post
Dont know much about exporting stuff from DCS, but if it is possible to export the position of the boat, your position and your altitude, someone capable of programming should be able to create a simple overlay, aye?


Just a thought.
Yes, that's what I started out doing. In dissecting their model and the geometry from the IFLOLS according the the LSO NATOPS, there is a bit of funny business I can't quite make sense of right now. I think I've got a decent handle on where the optical focal point is to calculate everything to the pilots eyes. The problem is, it doesn't yield exactly what everyone says it yields. Namely, I show a perfect 8.1 AoA on a 3.5 degree glideslope catching a 2 wire by several feet. It should be striking between the 2 and 3 wire. I'm going to be making a video on it; something to the effect of, "Way more than you ever needed to know about the IFLOLS geometry"
Matthew10_28 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2018, 01:44 AM   #24
Curly
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 92
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew10_28 View Post
Yes, that's what I started out doing. In dissecting their model and the geometry from the IFLOLS according the the LSO NATOPS, there is a bit of funny business I can't quite make sense of right now. I think I've got a decent handle on where the optical focal point is to calculate everything to the pilots eyes. The problem is, it doesn't yield exactly what everyone says it yields. Namely, I show a perfect 8.1 AoA on a 3.5 degree glideslope catching a 2 wire by several feet. It should be striking between the 2 and 3 wire. I'm going to be making a video on it; something to the effect of, "Way more than you ever needed to know about the IFLOLS geometry"
Are you accounting for hook to eye distance? The optical glide path needs to be moved up to account for the distance between the the pilot's eye and the hook. In the Hornet's case it's 16.7 feet at on speed AOA. If you're using 220 from the ramp, half the distance between the 2 and 3 wire, as your hook touchdown point you could also be running into an issue too.

Not accounting for a hook to eye and setting the hook touchdown point at 220 feet means the hook will be touching down at 203 feet of the ramp, 6 feet short of the 2 wire. Which would account for catching a 2 wire by several feet.

Just as an FYI the hook touchdown point for Nimitz class should be 230 feet, according to the pertinent aircraft recovery bulletins. I'm not sure how they set up IFLOLS in game or even if the distance between the wires is correct, all of which could be messing with your endeavor. Oh the optical focal point for the lenses is either 240 or 140 feet beyond IFLOLS. (EDIT) However after looking at this again I think you just mean the distance to the IFLOLS lights. Which should be 486 from the ramp in a CV 68. Also, are you accounting for wind over deck in caluctions. As wind over deck increases the actual glide slope decreases. This could also could be causing shorting the 3 wire.

Last edited by Curly; 11-27-2018 at 01:59 AM.
Curly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2018, 03:49 AM   #25
David OC
Senior Member
 
David OC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,810
Default

Be interesting to check the carrier. I would think this should be setup right in sim.

I read a pilots comment somewhere that said it all.

It's like trying to flying your head through a box that's only 3 feet high.
__________________


i7-7700K OC @ 5Ghz | ASUS ROG Maximus IX Hero MB
| ASUS GTX 1080 Ti STRIX | 16GB Corsair Vengeance 3466Mhz | Corsair H100i V2 Radiator | Samsung 960 EVO M.2 NVMe 500G SSD | 2 X Samsung 850 EVO 500G SSD | Oculus Rift | ASUS PG278Q 27-inch, 2560 x 1440, G-SYNC, 144Hz, 1ms | Fractal Design R5 Case

Chuck's DCS Tutorial Library

Download PDF Tutorial guides
to help get up to speed with aircraft quickly and also great for taking a good look at the aircraft available for DCS before purchasing. Link



Last edited by David OC; 11-27-2018 at 03:51 AM.
David OC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2018, 04:34 AM   #26
Matthew10_28
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 35
Default

Even thought I'm a bit off, this is still way more than you would want to know about carrier landing geometry and the IFLOLS. If you spot an error and can back it up, let me know.

https://youtu.be/LHjEjPx1pOM

EDIT TO ADD: Found a big glaring error in the model of the carrier I used in the video. The scaling is off compared to Nimitz dimensions. I did the model import in meters but I think it might be in yards. (Reason 256 why the metric system is better and we should ban any other system) I've got to redo the whole shebang!

Last edited by Matthew10_28; 11-27-2018 at 10:53 PM.
Matthew10_28 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2018, 02:18 PM   #27
Curly
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 92
Default

A few things. Your measurement of the Hook to ramp clearance as a sanity check is off. You’re measuring from the bottom of the round down. The measurement should be taken further forward of the rundown, where the deck levels. In doing so, you will have less hook to ramp clearance. Also I think your a bit confused on hook touch down point. I think your measuring the hypotenuse as the hook touch down point. The Hook Touchdown Point (HTDP) is measured from the ramp forward,it’s the adjacent angle in the glideslope right triangle

.

However there is another flaw beyond these points where some error is coming from. You’re not compensating the light assembly for hook to eye distance. The entire IFLOLS assembly rotates in order to raise the beam of light above the deck.

The net effect moves the optical glide slope forward. When you project the glide slope straight out of the lens 3.5 degrees without raising to compensate you will always end up with to little hook to ramp and early engagements. It would be like a PAPI light placed 16 feet below the runway.

The way you built your glide slope with cross checking light heights is also off. Since your hook to ramp is off your light heights / glideslope ends up shallower because your hook touch down point is to far aft. Which is why it ends up with the hook on the 2 wire.

Hook to ramp clearance is calculated as the Tan of the IFLOLS angle = hook to ramp / hook touchdown point. This is done to provide a safety margin which can quickly be adjusted and calculated as conditions change.




As first sanity I would check the dimensions of the carrier layout. The model of the carrier could be off in a few ways that would effect your modeling. The wire distance from the ramp could be wrong. The height of the IFLOLS could be lower than expected.


The LSO NATOPS provides and interesting way to try and validate the dimensions too. According to page 4-9. “A H/E of approximately 16.5 feet with a 3.5 BA and 230 HTDP, results in a source light plane level in roll (zero roll angle)”


I really liked the video and hope you keep it, the community needs more of this stuff.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	HTDP Triangle.png
Views:	185
Size:	95.4 KB
ID:	198785   Click image for larger version

Name:	Roll Angle Adjusment.png
Views:	186
Size:	171.5 KB
ID:	198786   Click image for larger version

Name:	Hook To eye Overview 2.png
Views:	189
Size:	149.9 KB
ID:	198787  

Click image for larger version

Name:	Roll Angle.png
Views:	192
Size:	163.7 KB
ID:	198788   Click image for larger version

Name:	Hook Tuchdown Math.png
Views:	180
Size:	82.2 KB
ID:	198789   Click image for larger version

Name:	Deck Layout.png
Views:	181
Size:	348.7 KB
ID:	198790  

Click image for larger version

Name:	sanity check.png
Views:	190
Size:	214.1 KB
ID:	198791  

Last edited by Curly; 12-01-2018 at 06:20 PM. Reason: spelling, clarity
Curly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2018, 04:26 PM   #28
Matthew10_28
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 35
Default

Thanks for the detailed reply. Before I go too much further, I think we may be saying the same things; technical topics always work better in direct human-to-human form. I've already noticed that my hook deck clearance should be taken from the flat of the deck and not the rounded portion. That helps push things forward a bit. (a bit too far on my first quick attempt actually: I don't quite trust the tessellations for the round down though).

One thing that stands out to me is that you seem to be implying that the glideslope relative to the touchdown center line is not actually 3.5 degrees; it effectively becomes something else. Is that basically what you're saying there?
Matthew10_28 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2018, 05:19 PM   #29
Curly
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 92
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew10_28 View Post
Thanks for the detailed reply. Before I go too much further, I think we may be saying the same things; technical topics always work better in direct human-to-human form. I've already noticed that my hook deck clearance should be taken from the flat of the deck and not the rounded portion. That helps push things forward a bit. (a bit too far on my first quick attempt actually: I don't quite trust the tessellations for the round down though).

One thing that stands out to me is that you seem to be implying that the glideslope relative to the touchdown center line is not actually 3.5 degrees; it effectively becomes something else. Is that basically what you're saying there?
No. The Optical glideslope and hook glideslope have the same angle. The Optical glideslope is just above hook glideslope. This is done by rotating the FLOLS. The optical glide path and hook glide path form parallel lines. Hook to eye distance is a perpendicular line between the hook and optical glidpath.


I think your main problem is your hook touchdown point is wrong. You are defining the hook touchdown point as a spot along the optical glide path. This is messing with all of your geometry. The hook touchdown point is simply measured from the ramp forward. In the case of Nimitz class, the hook touchdown point is 230 feet forward of the ramp.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Untitled.png
Views:	155
Size:	93.7 KB
ID:	198803  
Curly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2018, 05:52 PM   #30
Matthew10_28
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 35
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Curly View Post
No. The Optical glideslope and hook glideslope have the same angle. The Optical glideslope is just above hook glideslope. This is done by rotating the FLOLS. The optical glide path and hook glide path form parallel lines. Hook to eye distance is a perpendicular line between the hook and optical glidepath.


I think your main problem is your hook touchdown point is wrong. You are defining the hook touchdown point as a spot along the optical glide path. This is messing with all of your geometry. The hook touchdown point is simply measured from the ramp forward. In the case of Nimitz class, the hook touchdown point is 230 feet forward of the ramp.
Your point is well taken, though I don't quite see how rotating the FLOLS is relevant to the issue. Clearly I need to shift my origin of my optical glideslope forward such that it yields a proper hook strike. I was hoping the derive where the hook strike is based on optics positioning though. I've modeled the optical glideslope and let the aircraft fly down that. The hook by definition is scribing a parallel line and I was observing where it hit the deck. What I can't seem to justify is why the origin needs to be shifted like that unless we're just going to chalk it up to "fancy optics in the IFLOLS". I suppose that is my real question. I agree that the 230 feet is inaccurate as I've modeled it, but it is mathematically not a significant source of error - the hypotenuse corresponding to a 3.5 degree angle and a 230 adjacent is pretty darn close to 230 feet. Still, I'll correct it.

I'm going to rebuild a sketch and allow the tail to strike in the direct midpoint between wire 2 and 3. Then I'll do a sanity check with the plane on that glideslope at the ramp and make sure my 14.1 ft of hoook-deck clearance exists.

Last edited by Matthew10_28; 11-27-2018 at 05:56 PM.
Matthew10_28 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 08:06 AM. vBulletin Skin by ForumMonkeys. Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.