PDA

View Full Version : Start a flight on a moving carrier



sparouty
July 31st, 2015, 08:50
Hi,
I was always frustrated to not being able to start my navy flight on carrier's deck, that's why I coded a new feature for my "RFN Carrier" gauge to allow one to simply and quickly move his plane to a location on the carrier (catapult, elevator, hangar deck, etc...).
With the release 4.20, you can predefine up to 4 different locations per carrier, and then, during the flight, after having tuned the corresponding carrier frequency, you just have to select the location you want to go to!

http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/attachment.php?attachmentid=25940&stc=1
In addition, I added a tool to help you to define the location offsets (xyz coords of the targeted point calculated from the ship ref point) in order to enrich the parameters file with new locations and/or carriers.

You can find this new release in our RFN web site (http://www.google.com/translate?hl=fr&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://royalefrenchnavy.perso.sfr.fr/) in RFN Creations/Gauge part.
The new dll, the 2 new xml files just replace the previous ones. Don't forget to save the old xml files if you did some customization you would like to redo in the new files...

Enjoy!
Regards,
Sylvain

cortomalteseit
July 31st, 2015, 09:05
Fantastic stuff, dude! Thanks!!!

Boomer
July 31st, 2015, 09:31
That's pretty cool!

DaveB
July 31st, 2015, 11:08
Cool indeed!! Nice one Sylvain:encouragement:

ATB
DaveB:)

Bjoern
July 31st, 2015, 14:14
Merci beaucoup, monsieur!

PhantomP
July 31st, 2015, 14:27
Hi Sylvain,and thanks for making RFN gauge all that much better,I have a question thou,can I use the old xml files still,or should I just add the ship and runway entries to the new xml file? in other words because of the new features in RFN gauge does the new xml file contain features that the old one doesn't?

Cees Donker
July 31st, 2015, 20:59
It seems I started my trapping in FSX at the right time! Thanks Sylvain!

:applause:

Cees

sparouty
July 31st, 2015, 23:18
Hi Sylvain,and thanks for making RFN gauge all that much better,I have a question thou,can I use the old xml files still,or should I just add the ship and runway entries to the new xml file? in other words because of the new features in RFN gauge does the new xml file contain features that the old one doesn't?


Hi,

Good question PhantomP!
There is no major change into the xml files:
- In RFN_Parameters.xml : the addition is for the new short cut "GoToImput" into the block "Keyboard_Commands"

<Keyboard_Commands
ToggleInput="Shift+Ctrl+Z"
RefuelInput="Shift+Ctrl+A"GoToInput="Ctrl+F1"/>

- In RFN_Carrier.xml : the addition is limited to the definition of Target zone in some "Carrier" blocks

Target1_Name="Catapult #1"
Target1_Xcoord="-5.63"
Target1_Ycoord="16.771"
Target1_Zcoord="50.00"
Target1_Angle="0.0"
Target2_Name="Catapult #2"
Target2_Xcoord="-16.677"
Target2_Ycoord="16.771"
Target2_Zcoord="-46.000"
Target2_Angle="4.0"
Target3_Name="Spot #1"
Target3_Xcoord="10.46"
Target3_Ycoord="16.771"
Target3_Zcoord="-97.000"
Target3_Angle="56.5"

So if you have many customizations in your old RFN_Carrier.xml, you can keep it and just add "Target" entries one by one

Regards,
Sylvain

PhantomP
August 1st, 2015, 01:44
Hi,

Good question PhantomP!
There is no major change into the xml files:
- In RFN_Parameters.xml : the addition is for the new short cut "GoToImput" into the block "Keyboard_Commands"



- In RFN_Carrier.xml : the addition is limited to the definition of Target zone in some "Carrier" blocks
[HTML]Target1_Name="Catapult #1"
Target1_Xcoord="-5.63"
Target1_Ycoord="16.771"
Target1_Zcoord="50.00"
Target1_Angle="0.0"
Target2_Name="Catapult #2"
Target2_Xcoord="-16.677"
Target2_Ycoord="16.771"
Target2_Zcoord="-46.000"
Target2_Angle="4.0"
Target3_Name="Spot #1"
Target3_Xcoord="10.46"
Target3_Ycoord="16.771"
Target3_Zcoord="-97.000"
Target3_Angle="56.5"

So if you have many customizations in your old RFN_Carrier.xml, you can keep it and just add "Target" entries one by one

Regards,
SylvainAh! very good then thanks for the answer sparouty.

</keyboard_commands

henrystreet
August 1st, 2015, 02:14
Great tool, Sylvain. Appreciate your work.

spatialpro
August 1st, 2015, 02:55
This is a fantastic tool!

It seems very similar to a tool Phil (SkippyBing) at Flying Stations had/is developed/developing:

http://z13.invisionfree.com/Flying_Stations/index.php?showtopic=367&st=0&#last

I asked Phil the same question... This seems just one step away from having AI helicopters and aircraft flying to/from the deck. Do you think you could code this capability into your Gauge?

Andy

sparouty
August 1st, 2015, 03:20
This is a fantastic tool!

It seems very similar to a tool Phil (SkippyBing) at Flying Stations had/is developed/developing:

http://z13.invisionfree.com/Flying_Stations/index.php?showtopic=367&st=0&#last

I asked Phil the same question... This seems just one step away from having AI helicopters and aircraft flying to/from the deck. Do you think you could code this capability into your Gauge?

Andy
Hi Andy,
Thanks for the link, I had discussion with Skippy about "wind on the deck" question (still on my to-do list but with no clear solution yet for me...) but I did notice he had developed a "Go to" feature...
Regarding AI activities from a moving Carrier, the big blocking point is that moving carrier is not considered by FSX as an airport so we can't access, so far, to landing pattern for AI aircraft...
Regards,
Sylvain

spatialpro
August 1st, 2015, 03:40
Hi Sylvain,

Many thanks for your swift reply!

It would be great to also be able to alter the course of the ship into wind and back out again.

Regarding AI, might it be possible to not use conventional AI, but to drive the simobjects (i.e. aircraft) from point to point, with xyz coordinates being defined dynamically (i.e. in real time) relative to the ship? I'm thinking in this way at least it might be possible to have simobjects "fly" CAP (i.e. fighters) or search patterns (i.e. ASW fixed-wing and helos) and then return to the pattern and fly the glideslope onto the deck? These simobjects wouldn't use conventional airfields. I think this might be similar to the approach used by the "Heli-Traffic" product from Flight1?

Andy