VRS SuperBug Heads Up!

Post something over on the forums and Rob or Jon will work with you on it...They are OUTSTANDING with the level of customer service they have been providing (something a lot of payware developers severely lack these days). They are working with me right now on a few things, Mud. Give it a try.
 
Felixthreeone said:
Post something over on the forums and Rob or Jon will work with you on it...They are OUTSTANDING with the level of customer service they have been providing (something a lot of payware developers severely lack these days). They are working with me right now on a few things, Mud. Give it a try.
Click to expand...

I'll second what Felix31 just said. They (mostly Rob P.) are working with me and a couple others on the low frame rate issue, and are tireless. I'm very impressed with that bunch...
 
jmig said:
The only complaint I have against this plane is the flight dynamics. It may be the difference between FS9 and FSX but, I find the Aerosoft F-16 to be much more stable and responsive than the VRS F-18.
Click to expand...
You are comparing an F/A-18 flight dynamics to those of an F-16? Of course the F-16 is more responsive... IT IS AN F-16!

Why do people make these comparisons? And on what grounds other than "it feels better?"

I worked with both projects. You ARE comparing apples to oranges.
 
CodyValkyrie said:
You are comparing an F/A-18 flight dynamics to those of an F-16? Of course the F-16 is more responsive... IT IS AN F-16!

Why do people make these comparisons? And on what grounds other than "it feels better?"

I worked with both projects. You ARE comparing apples to oranges.
Click to expand...

You forgot to include the part that he also said (below) :santahat::santahat::santahat:

jmig said:
Otherwise, the more I fly it the more I enjoy it.
Click to expand...
 
Apples are faster because they're red and have a smooth skin! Everyone knows oranges are slower because their skin surface is rougher!! Geeezzzz!!
 
On the flying caracteristics of VRS Super Bug its seems that VRS is close to the real thing.

I think that comparing a Viper to a Super Bug is like comparing the driving of a Ferrari to an SUV !

Boeing F-18E/F have been designed from de start to do multiple jobs from Us Aircraft Carriers ( Intercept, CAP, Recon, Refuel, ECM / ECCM, etc... )
with a bigger "bring back" capacity than the "short legged" Legacy
F-18 A/B/C/D.

It is a third larger than the Legacy Bug that is itself bigger than an F-16.

If fact the Super Bug is a "Symphony of compromises" on all aspects.

Imagine ! Its underwing pylons are even offset a few degrees outward to the centerline to aveliate an induced drag problem of the design not discovered during wind tunnel initial testing.

The Super Bug is doing the job "OK Plus" with its top Electronics and Avionics and with a lot of internal space of updates.

It have never been designed to compete a Viper, a Rafale or even the
bigger Typhoon in a close Dogfight.

The Super Bug "F" is letting its WSO ( weazo ! ) and Advanced Amraams to do this job.
:kilroy:
VaporZ
 
just a few screens i made

HornetFlare.jpg


HornetNL.jpg


hornetab.jpg


hornetcat.jpg


hornetcvn65.jpg


hornethook.jpg
 
Beautiful shots, Patrick! Almost photographic. Which carrier is that, by the way?
Regarding the flight behaviour: I once did a carrier landing in a real F/A-18C simulator (owned by McDonnell Douglas, now Boeing). When I made my first carrier landing with the VRS Super Hornet this morning it felt the same as in the ‘real’ simulator, as far as my memory goes. I even made the same mistakes (overcorrecting pitch, coming in a bit too high in the end) and corrected them in more or less the same way. I find it difficult to compare the plane with the Aerosoft F-16 in detail; you have to cater for so many variables like payload etc., but to me VRS have delivered a masterpiece. My FS9, now re-installed out of necessity, is a de facto Hornet simulator. The flight behaviour is way better than the default Hornet in FSX Acceleration, and comparing the three carrier landings I made in professional simulators with landings in PC-simulators I conclude that the more realistic the plane is simulated, the easier the landing (of course apart from real-life risks and systems and environment complexity) . Please VRS, release an FSX version; I am prepared to pre-order it now and not concerned about getting an upgrade discount or not. You have delivered more than the money’s worth here, and I hope you are enjoying your well-deserved holiday.
By the way: if you sometimes get the word ‘rig’ in the flight control system (FCS) page, it may help to move your joystick and rudder briefly around to their extreme positions. With me it clears the message.
 
Stickshaker said:
Beautiful shots, Patrick! Almost photographic. Which carrier is that, by the way?
Regarding the flight behaviour: I once did a carrier landing in a real F/A-18C simulator (owned by McDonnell Douglas, now Boeing). When I made my first carrier landing with the VRS Super Hornet this morning it felt the same as in the ‘real’ simulator, as far as my memory goes. I even made the same mistakes (overcorrecting pitch, coming in a bit too high in the end) and corrected them in more or less the same way. I find it difficult to compare the plane with the Aerosoft F-16 in detail; you have to cater for so many variables like payload etc., but to me VRS have delivered a masterpiece. My FS9, now re-installed out of necessity, is a de facto Hornet simulator. The flight behaviour is way better than the default Hornet in FSX Acceleration, and comparing the three carrier landings I made in professional simulators with landings in PC-simulators I conclude that the more realistic the plane is simulated, the easier the landing (of course apart from real-life risks and systems and environment complexity) . Please VRS, release an FSX version; I am prepared to pre-order it now and not concerned about getting an upgrade discount or not. You have delivered more than the money’s worth here, and I hope you are enjoying your well-deserved holiday.
By the way: if you sometimes get the word ‘rig’ in the flight control system (FCS) page, it may help to move your joystick and rudder briefly around to their extreme positions. With me it clears the message.
Click to expand...

Hi Stickshaker, thanks for your input. My problems with the VRS F-18 controls have to do with delay between stick input and aircraft reaction. This tends to lead to a PIO situation where you continue to over correct. I don't think this is the natural way this airplane flies.

It may be my FS-9 setup? Like you I only use it for things like the F-18. I find FSX to be so much more realistic visually, I find it hard to fly FS-9. I fopund the F-18 from the Acceleration pack to be very much like the F-4, which made me think it was fairly realistic.

I have never tried it on a carrier. Being in the USAF I never had to land on those contracptions. LOL Give me 8000 feet plus. :jump:

Do you get 100% from the engines? I can't get over 95%.
 
I bought it and only flew it twice. Frame rate were kiliing me and I got a reall bad out of control shimmy inflight. It was like the plane was having an fit jumping and shaking all over the place an non recoverable. She's no longer in my flying status...oh well...back to my Warbirds P-51B/C.
 
Thanks, Patrick. Going to try it out.

Skyhawk: did you follow the proper setup routine (reversing joystick axes etc.)? That is mandatory!
 
I too have flown the Boeing FA-18C/D and E/F simulators at NAS Lemoore a few times over the years. To me this plane seems a bit “twitchy” – not as smooth at the “real” simulators. This may be due to my on-going frame rate problems with this ship, however, and not due to the flight model. The landing procedures and experience, as Stickshaker has said, is spot on. If you set your speed to 137 knots, keep the AOA bracket centered, and stabilize the speed (the energy cue is great for that!) you’ll make a perfect navy landing each time. No need to flare, she just gently (well, sort of gently) “meets up with” the ground! :costumes:

N2: I got it up to 97%, but it would go no higher.
 
Interesting, Paul. I agree that the plane sometimes seems a bit twitchy and that this may be due to insufficient framerates. But another reason may be the lack of motion cues. I flew a professional motion-based F-16 simulator once with motion both on and off, and with motion on it seemed less twitchy because, I think, you unconsciously compensate for acceleration cues before you see the visual effects of control inputs. Now the F/A-18 simulator I flew had no motion either, but there the big screen gives you, in my experience, more feedback of small motions (and I think they make up the ‘twitchiness) than a PC monitor. Anyway, I feel you can get used to the twitchiness. That is not always so; in my opinion many sim planes feel a bit twitchy, and with for example Il-2 that only was cured when they improved the control input processing software in the 1946 add-on.
 
I've done all the set ups for the flight controls but I'm still having major issues which I didn't have at first. First start up the flight controls don't recieve input at all. Only after the plane noses over and crash into the deck on takeoff and restarts do the flight controls get input. Then after I take off it's like a bad coaster, UP and Down! It's like the aircraft is recieving inputs and stops and starts again.....VERY fustrating!
 
Mud, I am sorry you are having so many problems. Mine are minor "nits".

My control issues deal with smoothness. Stickshacker, I know you said that you can't compare the AS F-16 and this F-18. I need to disagree in part. Both of these airplanes are supposed to be true fly-by-wire. This means that computers actually make the decisions on flight control movement. This also means that the control "feel" can be tuned to feel heavy or light. Where this made a big difference from the 3rd generation fighters, aka F-4, Century series, was in giving the pilot the same feel at different attitudes and airspeeds. One inch or one pound of aileron control pressure give the same roll rate at different airspeeds. Something, we didn't have in my day.

MSFS, be it FS9 with the F-18 or FSX with the F-16 attempts to duplicate this feature. In the F-16, if I am say two degrees nose low, I can smoothly pull the flight path marker to the horizon line and it stays there. In the VRS F-18, I start to pull and nothing happens. A half second later it jumps to say two degree nose high. Nothing major, just not perfect. Is this the twitchiness you were taking about?

I haven't looked at the FPS marker but considering my rig, I don't think it is a frame problem. However, I will do some checking.

A couple other nits that make this plane less than perfect is the inability to get full thrust from the throttle. Also, something rather weird, in my book. When the flight first loads, there is no plane. You have to switch views to say outside and tower, still no plane, then back to VC and suddenly the VC appears and everything is copacetic.
Again, nothing major. I really like the plane and I am looking forward to the FSX release. Get these problems sorted out and I could be a candiate for the "Pro" version, provided I thought the value was there.
 
Jmig, after reading your last post, I had an “aha…” moment. I’m getting the same behavior, exactly as you describe. It is like a “dead zone”, where none should be. This is probably the source of the “twitchy” feel I’ve been unable to elaborate on. This could also explain the odd takeoff behavior, where you try to rotate and nothing happens, then all of a sudden you’re zooming up at a crazy angle. Interesting. But rather than a "dead zone", this is more like a delay sometimes between input and control surface movement...
 
PRB said:
Jmig, after reading your last post, I had an “aha…” moment. I’m getting the same behavior, exactly as you describe. It is like a “dead zone”, where none should be. This is probably the source of the “twitchy” feel I’ve been unable to elaborate on. This could also explain the odd takeoff behavior, where you try to rotate and nothing happens, then all of a sudden you’re zooming up at a crazy angle. Interesting. But rather than a "dead zone", this is more like a delay sometimes between input and control surface movement...
Click to expand...

That's exactely what is happening to me also!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top