-Video-AI Carrier Approach Practice Testing

**StormILM** · August 30th, 2014, 13:18

Newest-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUO9kLyia9o

**Naismith** · August 30th, 2014, 14:06

Good stuff.

***TARPSBird*** · August 30th, 2014, 22:52

Very nice video. How do you get the LSO calls such as "Call the ball", "Don't go high", etc.?

**StormILM** · August 30th, 2014, 23:20

Thank you!

TARPSBird, it is the vLSO package which is freeware beta. I am using version 0711 (dated July 7, 2013). There are newer versions but the latest, I could not get in groove (even on the Nugget setting) and I kept getting WOP's(Wave Off Patterns). Now if you look at the video closely, I am flying like crap due to being out of practice with AI Carriers but also, I am experimenting with different FDE related settings to tweak some of the models to get a more stable approach behavior and thus, there's a bit of "chasing the bucking bronco" handling going on with my throttle & stick inputs. The S-3B is solid, the F/A-18C and F-14d are pretty much. The Superbug is a bit of an SOB IMO! The Etendard is awesome, solid as a rock! The Rafale is stable until in close and ramp when all of the sudden, it's like the bottom falls from under it! That's why I flew the ball a step high. Then again, as I've ever studied, Delta Wings and Carriers never seem to be a perfect match due to the sink rate. The French do well with it and I recognize the limitations within this realm.

Here's the link for vLSO:
http://vlso.blogspot.com/

**spins_vmfa321** · September 1st, 2014, 07:28

Heya Storm, which was easier for you? The Charlie Hornet, or the Superbug?

Jamal

***Victory103*** · September 1st, 2014, 08:47

The variety was very cool to see, only noticed more power changes for AoA vice that whole area of reverse command thingy (power for angle/pitch for airspeed). The documented "float" on the VRS is what's probably giving you the fits, not sure what modifying the FDE does to the warranty, but hey you paid for it.

**StormILM** · September 1st, 2014, 09:10

Originally Posted by spins_vmfa321

Heya Storm, which was easier for you? The Charlie Hornet, or the Superbug?

Jamal

Definitely the Charlie! I'd say it was solid as a rock, I just need to get more practice in with it.

**StormILM** · September 1st, 2014, 09:17

Originally Posted by Victory103

The variety was very cool to see, only noticed more power changes for AoA vice that whole area of reverse command thingy (power for angle/pitch for airspeed). The documented "float" on the VRS is what's probably giving you the fits, not sure what modifying the FDE does to the warranty, but hey you paid for it.

Yeah, that "floating" is one reason I battle with the VRS Superbug. With as much flaps as the real Jet has, I'd say the FSX version's flap lift is in the ballpark but the flap drag feels quite insufficient. I may adjust that parameter in the config file and see if it helps. My only concern would be that if changing that parameter might load excessive drag during maneuvering since there is some flap droop during maneuvers. The Superbug also feels a bit pitch sensitive which pointing out in the video my tendency for PIO during corrections.

**StormILM** · September 1st, 2014, 11:09

I took a look and found that the VRS Superbug's trailing flap drag settings were zeroed out so I adjusted them to see if I could get a better thrust/drag ratio for Carrier approaches. Before the edit the thrust required on approach was a fairly low throttle setting and any slight adjustments in thrust seemed to hamper pitch/AoA stability. With the small change in the flap drag, I am now able to make a more stable approach with a bit more power-on to counteract the drag and help maintain better AoA stability. There was no adverse effect on handling in other parts of the flight envelope.
(trailing edge flaps)
[Flaps.0]
type = 1
span-outboard = 0.5
extending-time = 8.5
flaps-position.0 = 0
flaps-position.1 = 5
flaps-position.2 = 10
flaps-position.3 = 15
flaps-position.4 = 20
flaps-position.5 = 25
flaps-position.6 = 30
flaps-position.7 = 35
flaps-position.8 = 40
flaps-position.9 = -5
damaging-speed = 286
blowout-speed = 287
system_type = 1
lift_scalar = 1.0
drag_scalar = 1.5//0 //<----the value change from 0 to 1.5
pitch_scalar = 0

(leading edge slats)
[Flaps.1]
type = 2
span-outboard = 0.5
extending-time = 8.5
flaps-position.0 = 0
flaps-position.1 = 5
flaps-position.2 = 11
flaps-position.3 = 15
flaps-position.4 = 19
flaps-position.5 = 23
flaps-position.6 = 27
flaps-position.7 = 31
flaps-position.8 = 34
flaps-position.9 = 0
damaging-speed =
blowout-speed =
system_type = 1
lift_scalar = 0
drag_scalar = 1.0
pitch_scalar = 0
lift_scalar = 0
drag_scalar = 1.0 //<---no change but take note the setting was/is greater than the trailing edge
pitch_scalar = 0

**spins_vmfa321** · September 1st, 2014, 11:46

I'm not sure if you fly online or not, but modifying the aircraft.cfg may cause you issues with Tacpacks "Anti-cheat". One of the sections that's usually read is the flap section.

Jamal

**StormILM** · September 1st, 2014, 12:36

Jamal, I do not have Tac-Pac yet so this is not an issue but I did perform a slight modification with the Superbug to a quasi EPE configuration and to get better elevator response and slower speeds/high AoA which seemed to be lacking on the original FDE. I can easily understand the logic in having a built in anti-cheat as from my long ago days in CS1/2 seeing so many "Mod" aircraft users who mauled other non-mod players with impunity unless they were booted by an admin. For me, I just enjoy flying in as accurate of an envelope as can be had within a mostly single player environment.

**expat** · September 2nd, 2014, 02:08

Some smooth looking traps in there. Crash detection "off"?

**StormILM** · September 2nd, 2014, 12:14

Originally Posted by expat

Some smooth looking traps in there. Crash detection "off"?

Yeap! Crash Detection is always off. regarding the smoothness of the approaches traps, They were all 3 wire except the Rafale on the CDG(since it is a 3 wire deck & not a 4 wire deck) but looking at the video it is obvious I am fighting to find a good stable glideslope groove but as I've found in many FSX models(mainly jets), it's like trying to balance on a fulcrum point with all kinds of things thrown in upsetting the balance! One of my friends who's a retired Navy Captain & former F-4J & E-2 Driver tested my setup and in general, he was very impressed but said he quickly identified the inaccuracies and instabilities and claimed that in many ways, the real thing was easier!

**expat** · September 3rd, 2014, 01:54

As a serial trapper (who disregards IFOLS and LSOs) and just "eyeballs it" down to the deck - I fly with crash detection "on" b/t/w (except if the carrier has some crash box issues, like the bow cats on the Clemenceau . .).

I find what messes me up more than anything, and suspect is not a problem IRL carrier ops, is the view magnification setting. If I don't pay attention setting things up properly first - I get quite enthusiastic about carrier traps - and forget to set my forward view magnification to at least 80% or 90 %, then I find too late I have a longer view of field (eg 40%) my eyes play tricks and suddenly the deck is too low or too high and I auger in or wave off. The other thing I tend to forget is to check I am not trying to land with a 100% fuel load which resets when switching aircraft a lot!