I am sorry but I have to take a (small) break from FSX development.
Currently my job is absorbing much of my time - and honestly I do not want to spend the whole day in front of a computer screen.
I simply have no time right now - I hope things will get better in the next weeks.
Here is a the status of the projects I'm working on - and my thoughts:
F-35B - 80% of the external model is done - but the quality is not homogeneous, meaning that some areas look good while some others are barely acceptable. The fact is that it is extremely difficult to convert the model due to the high number of boolean operations I did (i.e. "cut and paste"). Each operation introduces and error - and some errors have been introduced by the mesh optimization algorithms I've applied...
In the end, I am not sure what to do. It is not good enough for release, but it is a little too good to go directly to the trashcan...
F-35C - As I thought, this is even more difficult than the -B. The first attempt in modeling the new wings looked ugly and was scrapped.
T-45C - This is looking very good. The new external model is much better - although it is only 50% done - and very efficient in terms of resouce usage. It is probably the best work I did in terms of compromise between visual quality and fps performance.
F-14D - The external model is almost done, although it still lacks wing animations. It looks great but it is a frame rate killer. As for the cockpit, I have not decided yet which part can be carried over and which ones should be redone. Redoing usually means better quality - but, of course, much longer lead times...
Right now I am thinking to close the F-35 projects (I've been evaluating some minor updates to the A model...but dropped them as nobody would have noticed) and work only on the T-45. But, as I said, I need to take a break for a while. I will keep you updated.
12 comments:
Dino, I know the FSX design and programming is very time consuming if you want to do things right and with great quality. You have more than deserved a break, I actually wonder how you managed to work on four aircraft at the same time :) Get back when you get more time and opportunity. Personally I am looking forward to anything than can land on an aircraft carrier ;)
~ neutrino
USN LSO PDF (1.3Mb) Sept 2010
"F-35C max trap weight will be around 46k lbs, with an empty weight of about 35k lbs. It will fly an on-speed AOA of 12.3° at 135-140 KCAS [Optimum Angle of Attack or Donut]. Due to the fact that flap scheduling is completely automatic, the cockpit was designed without a flaps switch. Additionally, the tail hook retracts into the fuselage and is covered by hook doors that have an as-yet-to-be-determined airspeed limitation..." http://alturl.com/8i9ny
Spaz, this was a very, very important information! I really don't believe the pilot will have a good downward visibility at 12.3° though. Also the HUD velocity vector disappears at 12.5°.
~ neutrino
i make a sound effect about g effect(for dino figthers),but i have same difficult with xml gauge..anybody can help me?It's only for freeware
Neutrino, The F-35C pilot could raise his seat to see over the top of the nose? Also the pilot can see through the aircraft with his Helmet Display but I guess that cannot be relied upon. I'm guessing there is a clear visual path between pilot eye and the 'meatball, lineup & airspeed' (Optimum Angle of Attack) component of the carrier approach. This is always a key factor in designing carrier aircraft. A good start about this point is this small 1Mb PDF: http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA399988 'The Influence of Ship Configuration on the Design of the Joint Strike Fighter' by Mr. Eric S. Ryberg
http://machinedesign.com/article/the-joint-strike-fighter-a-plane-for-all-reasons-0307
"FLY NAVY: Carrier operations account for most of the differences between the Navy and other JSF variants. Carrier landings, for example, are so severe, they're often referred to as "controlled crashes." The JSF, in a low speed approach to a carrier landing, will descend at about 11 fps, and will withstand sink rates up to almost 18 fps. By comparison, the typical sink rate for an Air Force JSF will be about two ft/sec.
To help handle better at low speeds, the aircraft will have larger wing and tail-control surfaces. The increased wingspan also boosts the strike-fighter's range and weapon or fuel load. Even without external fuel tanks, the JSF has almost twice the range of the F/A-18C. Larger leading-edge flaps and wingtips provide the extra wing area, while the wingtips fold so the aircraft takes up less space on the carrier's crowded flight and hangar decks. The Navy's JSF will also have two extra control surfaces — ailerons outboard of the flaperons on the wings — for additional lowspeed control and flying precise glide slopes. The Navy JSF currently flies landing approaches at about 130 to 135 knots, about 25 knots slower than the Air Force version."
“Handling with landing gear down was a key focus of the first flight as the F-35C has a 30% larger wing and uprated flight controls to reduce takeoff and landing speeds compared with the other F-35 variants. Knowles says the aircraft approached at 135 kt., compared with 155 kt. for the smaller-winged F-35A and B variants at the same 40,000-lb. gross weight. Takeoff rotation speed was 15-20 kt. slower, he says.... &
The 57-min. first flight focused on gear-down handling and formation flying with the F/A-18 chase aircraft in “an early look at handling around the carrier”, says Knowles, adding “The approach was very stable, with good roll response.” Jeff Knowles, 06 June 2010 http://alturl.com/fnsk
Neutrino, This PDF has a lot of information that would interest you about USN Carrier Landing Criteria but not specifically for F-35C:
http://www.robertheffley.com/docs/HQs/NAVAIR_2002_71.pdf
"5.3 FIELD OF VIEW - 5.3.1 DEFINITION p.98 (2.8Mb PDF) The FOV criterion is defined by the reference 1 as follows:
“The lowest level flight speed at which the pilot, at the design eye position, can see the stern of the carrier at the waterline when intercepting a 4 degree optical glide slope at an altitude of 600 feet. The origin of the glide slope is 500 feet forward of the stern and 63 feet above the waterline.”
X-35C Field Carrier Landing Practice Videos: http://www.jsf.mil/video/x35/x35c_fclp_high.wmv (4.5Mb)
http://www.jsf.mil/video/x35/x35c_fclp_low.wmv (0.5Mb)
Model-Based Development of X-35 Flight Control Software by Greg Walker 2 May 2002
http://sstc-online.org/proceedings/2002/SpkrPDFS/ThrTracs/p1417.pdf (0.7Mb)
"CV - Flying and Handling Qualities and Flight Performance at Representative Mission Points"
"Validated in X-35A/B/C Flight Testing at Edwards AFB and Patuxent River NAS"
&
"[b]Pilot Comments:[/b]
“IDLC Performance was Excellent.” (Throttle Bodes)
“Crosswind Landing was Easily Controlled.”
“[b]Airplane is Solid Through The Pattern. AOA Control is Solid. Good Control of Glideslope.”
(Manual FCLPs)[/b]
“Use of APC Reduced Workload Significantly Throughout the Pattern.”
Good SlideShow of LM F-35C photos including 'unders and overs': http://www.codeonemagazine.com/gallery_slideshow.html?item_id=941
The F-35A has a nice HUD, had you thought of adding a dimmer switch and a declutter or multi mode capability..?
Post a Comment