Damn @MBot that was truly lovely!
3 Likes
Nice! This sim has some really high, high-points. Was beautiful!
1 Like
Yes, fly the ball until you hit the deck and then put the power up.
1 Like
I’ve been using the ICLS as a crutch to help on that part due to VR’s lack of visual acuity on the ball. I hate that IFLOLS overlay (particularly at night) 
I’m starting to feel like I’d have a better experience with a human LSO calling the shots. The AI we have now is a great, immersive experience, but it’s lacking those good qualities of real LSO’s you mentioned.
@Victork2 I have a habit of doing the same. Like you I tend to add power just before the trap in the Hornet because it is/was the only way to avoid EGIW grades. I’m not sure if that bug was squashed or not…I’m guessing not since I see AI consistently get EGIW when they’re AI flying a perfect approach.
3 Likes
Good one. Yeah, I would like something less obtrusive - and nigh-sensitive coloring?
I threatened [myself] recently; turn it off. Then realized it was a crutch I’m not letting go of, yet 
I’m getting there.
2 Likes
You guys ever consider zooming in a bit to see the actual ball better?
You do lose some peripheral vision, which can be slightly disorienting. But, since the first half of your approach turn should be primarily instrument, and once your are on the ball, your scan should primarily be restricted to, “Meatball, Lineup, Angle of Attack” the positives might outweigh the negatives.
As for VR, I’m not too sure how that would work unfortunately.
1 Like
I don’t mind the VR IFLOLS. I don’t think I could fly a decent trap without it.
1 Like
100% agreed. Seeing the ball accurately at 3/4 mile is impossible in the current and probably the next 2 generations of VR headsets.
IMO, the IFLOLS 2D overlay is required for VFR carrier ops in VR.
2 Likes
I fly in VR without the overlay, as I think it breaks my immersion. I always use the ICLS needle to get an idea of my positioning when turning into the groove. Then at about 1/2 NM the resolution of the ball becomes useful enough.
Too bad on the Forrestal, the datum lines are still blooming as hell in VR.
3 Likes
That’s actually a great idea. I have been flying the Tomcat purely VFR but remembered the needles in the Su-33 as I was typing this. I knew the Tomcat had the ICLS system but never looked into it or tuned it during Case I landings.
As for realism, I suppose using ICLS was normal procedure, except when under EMCON?
One last suggestion. Try to ask yourself where the ball was at the moment of touchdown.
If you can’t remember hitting the deck and seeing the ball, then you were probably spotting the deck.
I think the ball is still the primary landing reference even for Hornets (EDIT: despite the HUD). Don’t get sucked in using it for landing and resist the urge to peek at the deck in those last seconds of the approach.
Kind of like a taildragger. Fly it to a stop.
EDIT: I meant to say, Don’t get sucked in using the HUD for landing…what I get for replying at work!
3 Likes
Interesting. This is a thought I have playing golf (I know): if I’m not ‘there’ for impact then I, mentally, closed my eyes (flinched, or ‘anticipated’ it, f you will). Sometimes this even works!
1 Like
In VR zoom messes with the peripheral vision needed for the meatball/lineup/aoa scan, at least for me. With how I have my Quest 2 set up, I just use ICLS to maintain a good height during the last portion of the 90 and until I’m about ~0.7nm (Airbus groove). Once within 0.7nm I can see the ball just well enough to keep it on the datum line. The light bloom effect really messes with watching out for ball creep, though.
As for where the ball was on touchdown, it always rapidly sinks for me in the wires, even if I bolter or snag #4.
Last night I finally got consistent traps. Turns out it was my left hand not being alive enough. Still need to work on groove time and that 3PTS nose-suck bug drives me nuts. Even pulling the stick back to try and prevent it doesn’t work.
4 Likes
Great to hear! Yeah, I think pilots who don’t fly the ball in real life are pretty shocked when they get a backseat ride and see (and feel) that amount of throttle movement. It’s just not necessary in any other landing that I’m familiar with. 
Do you use three part power corrections: i.e. On, Off, Half Back On?
That 3 point thing is weird. Is it a known bug? Obviously you wouldn’t want to pull the stick back to land normally. Doing so runs the risk of a hook slap on the round down or an in flight engagement.
https://www.military.com/video/aircraft/jet-fighters/f-18-catch-and-bouncy-ride/644575058001
1 Like
Landing a Hind on Seawise Giant is the most satisfying time ive had on DCS for a long time
4 Likes
Yes sir! Mine was a “lets try this” mission where the new clouds came in: in VR, Night, IMC (Instrument Meteorological Conditions = 3 feet up a frog’s arse dark, with indistinct mushy stuff whizzing by the canpopy - CAT-3) landing on the boat. Man, that’s was intense.
Oddly, my landing was better than my last few clear & calm (VMC) conditions attempts. Focus I guess.
2 Likes
Consciously, no. Subconsciously, probably. Basically on/off the whole way down with quick taps of half on, quarter on, three-quarters on, to move up or down on the glideslope. Not much different than what my feet do on the Spitfire’s rudders when taking off.
That 3 point thing is weird. Is it a known bug?
Partially known. You can see it in Wag’s ACLS videos. Right before touchdown the AoA bracket will fly up for no reason and the LSO gives him a 3PTS grade. Last I read on the forums they said it might be related to other issues to be tuned “later.” I’m surprised they didn’t get tuned with the ACLS and burble since it’s kind of a major thing in regards to carrier traps.
Sorry for necroing this line of discussion, but yesterday on my evening run my mind wandered back to this and it ocurred to me that my explanation wasn’t very good, because I omitted an important part. That part is the most fundamental difference between STT and RWS.
In RWS, the data of returns has no bearing on the search pattern, hence the required quality of returns is very low. You just need some energy to come back and you can tell your user that there’s something out there. It doesn’t even matter that much if azimuth, elevation and range are very precise (at long range they aren’t), because just knowing that there’s something out there and the general vicinity is enough (again at long range).
STT is a completely different game in that regard, because there is a feedback loop between the data of returns and where the radar is looking. In STT, the update rate is so high that the radar only has time to scan a very small volume for a given amount of time. That means that it needs to be able to predict the position of the target very precisely, otherwise it would have to blow up its search volume and reaquire the target constantly, and this would drastically lower the update rate. But having to do precise predictions means that the processor needs precise data with regard to speed (not just the absolute value but the direction as well), range, azimuth and elevation of the target. Too much noise, and the prediction will have too much error, and that means that the radar will look for the target at the wrong spot, meaning the lock is broken.
So long story short, this idea of STT having more “burn through potential” than RWS just doesn’t work out, because to establish STT in the first place, you need the noise of returns to be very low.
4 Likes
Well it sounds like what you are doing is working for you so I’d keep at it! 
But, just for the sake of discussion, three part power corrections (in reference to flying the ball) work a bit differently than what I’m understanding is your method…or I might be misunderstanding.
Often, LSOs will reference your performance on the ball in terms of power; i.e. being overpowered or underpowered. So you can roll out of your approach turn high, but with a big comedown. That’s an example of being underpowered. That high is about to become a low.
By extension then, while high is an indication of where you are at the moment, your power state (or energy state) is an indication of where you will be. Identifying that is what makes a good LSO so valuable.
Now, anyone who has flown the ball in the sim more than twice knows that if you put a correction in and leave it in, you’re going to get more of a correction than you wanted. So the 3PPC is the recommended method of chopping corrections up into discrete chunks, like a discrete cube of energy, that you put in, or take out of, your bag of energy for the approach.
The form of the correction is always the same to provide you with a standardized tool with which to work:
Either, “On, Off, half back On”,
or, “Off, On, half back Off”.
How much is an, “On”? It depends on the pilot, but I used to think of it as about an inch of throttle travel. Of course, sim hardware will probably vary that considerably.
Why three? Well, a 3PPC is really a 2PPC. “On, Off”? That’s one part. You have added one “cube” of energy to your bag. “Half back On”? that’s a correction to address why you needed a correction in the first place. If you’re low on the ball, because your underpowered, then that cube of energy may raise you up on glideslope, but it won’t keep you there. That’s the job of the half correction. Naturally, it works the same way in reverse.
Obviously, this isn’t a tool for gross corrections. If you’re skying off the top of the lens, or dropping off the bottom, then these small corrections will be too modest for you.
But, if you have flown a good approach turn, and have trimmed the jet to be on speed, you can “stair step” your way up to or down to the glideslope, rather than making big plays for it…and over controlling.
As always, if I’m yapping too much, you can always invite me to enjoy a nice cup of STHU.
It’s just an interesting subject to discuss.
9 Likes
That’s very interesting! I never really knew that.
1 Like