Jump to content


Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1803 Excellent

About AndyJWest

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    London, England

Recent Profile Visitors

3292 profile views
  1. Just about to catch the 3rd wire for my first ever _OK_ graded hornet landing: πŸ™‚ The FLOLS overlay wasn't working (bug in latest beta), and either I'd not set the ICLS properly, or that had bugged out too. I shouldn't need the ICLS for a class I landing anyway... Still no joy with the in-flight refuelling. I think the basket is trying to avoid me. πŸ˜€
  2. I've found a report on F.M. Green's lecture on DEVELOPMENT OF THE FIGHTING AEROPLANE, published in Flight Magazine December 22 1921 (see here) . The report doesn't include anything Green had to say on damage to spars, but I did notice this comment, which seems rather relevant to this thread:
  3. Slight problem. THE AERONAUTICAL JOURNAL for 1921 is available online (see here), and the article by Green isn't in it. From searching, it appears that Green was due to give a lecture on the subject in December of that year, so maybe it is in the journal for 1922 - but that isn't available online as far as I can see. Personally, I'm reluctant to put to much weight on an out of context quotation from a wrongly-identified source. Have you actually read the article yourself Hagar? Is it available online?
  4. If Raaaid has been messing with destiny, it explains a lot of things that have been going on recently... πŸ˜ƒ
  5. I think you're misreading the recordings. There are two sets of data: accelerations (i.e. G, scale on left) and airspeed (scale on right). As I read it, G doesn't exceed about 4 in that chart either.
  6. Yeah, some things can definitely be a bit hard to see - like the ASI needle at low speeds. Rather important when landing, so I normally sit up in my chair before starting the approach, and reset my TrackIR. When I then move back down to a more normal position, this then puts my head lower in the cockpit. I can then see the ASI, but can't see the runway. πŸ˜€
  7. I wouldn't call it 'fixed' - it still fouls up occasionally. A lot better than before though, when Hornet recordings failed most of the time.
  8. I've sadly come to the conclusion that the LSO-bot's radio advice is best ignored too. He seems to get your height wrong when you first call the ball, and close in his advice comes too late to be useful. Needs more work. Better off using ICLS, the fancy multicoloured laser lineup indicator (Which presumably has an acronym like everything else. FMLLI?), and the ball overlay. Just used one of the existing missions as the basis for one of my own - attacking unarmed trucks with rockets as ground attack practice. Mission worked well enough (though my rocketry needs work - mostly on coming in steeper, since I was getting rather low), until it came to landing. At which point I discovered that the friendly fish-you-out-of-water-copter had strayed behind the CV, and was sitting just to the right of the approach path. On the whole, not the best positioning, for several reasons... πŸ˜ƒ @DD_Arthur How much wind did you have over the deck there? Seems a little implausible...
  9. Finally managed an 'OK' Hornet landing. Not as good as Bremspropeller's '_OK_', but an improvement on my usual efforts. And fortunately the LSO-bot doesn't seem to take much notice of height variations on the downwind leg of the circuit. Getting the thing accurately on trim while slowing and maintaining a constant altitude is tricky, and I made a pigs ear of it. The blinking AoA indicator light reminded me that I'd not got the hook down, which was a plus, but also a distraction. I need to establish a proper routine... As for 'so little time to enjoy both DCS *and* IL-2' I've got to admit I've rather neglected the latter. Only really given the new Yak 9s a brief test. They can wait though, while I master the art of surprising myself by colliding with a 104,600-ton object... πŸ˜ƒ
  10. There is an explanation in the draft Supercarrier Operations Guide (in \DCS World OpenBeta\Mods\tech\Supercarrier\Doc), which seems mostly to make sense, though some of it is a bit vague. As for the real Navy manual, it looks interesting reading, and I like this advice: πŸ˜ƒ
  11. Yeah, it seems to be possible. What I'm not convinced of though is how accurate the LSO-bot's gradings are. For example, I did this landing yesterday: The approach could have been better (I got lined up late), but that isn't what the LSO is complaining about. '3PTSIW' means '3 Points into the wire', which a replay shows is simply wrong. I definitely landed mainwheels first. I may have been a degree or so flatter than the optimum, from looking at Tacview, but the LSO seems to be allowing no margin at all. As for '_EGIW_' (throttling back to catch wire), which I've been getting assessed fairly consistently, it seems from other people's comments that it may actually relate to how fast you throttle up after you catch the wire. Now, not going full mil power at that point is a bad habit to get into, but again, there needs to be some latitude, I'd have thought. Trying to get a plausible 'human' assessment of a landing from software isn't simple, obviously. As a beta effort, this is good. I'd hope however that it could be improved though, because if it is getting things wrong it is going to encourage people to make poor landings in order to get a good grading. Edit: The landing in question (cropped screenshot of video of track, hence low-res). Mainwheels on deck, nose still up:
  12. Contact support: https://il2sturmovik.com/support/
  13. At the moment, you can't, without modifying a file (see here: I've not tried it). They will be making it optional in-game later, but the proper carrier ball is darned difficult to see, and I suspect it may not even be properly aligned. So unless you are going to eyeball your approaches, or rely on the LSO-bot's erratic assistance, you are probably stuck with it until they sort it all out.
  14. AndyJWest


    Halle. πŸ™‚
  • Create New...