Jump to content

Andrew8604

Members
  • Posts

    202
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Andrew8604

  1. Well, I had a lot of fun with Combined Arms in single player in the Nevada map driving a vehicle in a lightly armed convoy of a dozen or so, on a 3-hour trek along highways in the Nevada desert, "to get supplies to a remote outpost". I set things up in ME so that the vehicle convoy was attacked about 4 times by pairs of AI aircraft. But one thing I did was restrict the use of air-to-surface missiles...just guns, bombs and rockets. I also had the convoy encounter some enemy ground forces, including some T-55 tanks...that was brutal. But with improved AI and improved vehicle details it could be oh so much better! Then I switched to using Rift S VR goggles...where the operating of ships' guns and ground vehicles is visually/functionally broken and unusable, with no apparent plans to fix it. I use VR goggles exclusively in DCS, flying aircraft. It is so much more immersive. Head tracking with Rift S is nearly perfect, 1-to-1. If I want to look behind me, I have to physically turn my body around, as I'd have to in a real aircraft (no swivel chair). I think, driving and manning guns on ground vehicles would be awesome in VR with detailed vehicles. I had always wanted AI to drive the Humvee while I manned the 50-cal up top. Or to be able to drive with AI manning the gun. As is, it seems like once you took control of the vehicle, you were the sole occupant. You might want to get your feet wet in DCS by first supplying animated, AI ground equipment, vehicles and personnel on an airbase...Nellis AFB, for instance. But how will that impact framerate? It's such a large base, I usually only use a small part of the ramp. If there were animated ground crews and vehicles around enough ramp space for 12 to 16 aircraft, that might not be too hard on framerate? I would think that would really bring the airbase to life and realism. Doesn't have to be overly done. Just what you might see on a real airbase. Ground crew to direct you out of parking to the taxiways and back into parking on return. Creech AFB might be a better place to start. But it sounds like your aim is surface combat. If it worked in VR, I'd love to get back to driving some vehicles...realistically detailed vehicles with functional systems...same as the aircraft. Your fan-base for this might be limited, though. Improvement of AI would be very important, I think. Even if the AI had to be run on a separate computer, to simulate all the ground units, I'd get a 2nd computer for that. I don't suppose you would be interested in creating a bunch of WWII, Pacific Theater, surface combat ships for DCS?
  2. Thanks for the video. That was awesome. We want that angled-deck, 2-steam-catapult equipped Essex-class carrier in DCS. Shangri-La, Oriskany, Bon Homme Richard, Hancock, Lexington, Ticonderoga, and Intrepid. BTW, it's A4D, not A-4D. Those were A4D-2 or A4D-2N...A-4B or A-4C after 1962. I think these were the A-4C with radar. A(attack), 4D(4th attack model for the Navy by Douglas Corp, -2N(2nd sub-variant with Night capability radar added). Like F4U-5N Corsair is F(Fighter), 4U (4th model of fighter for navy by Vought Corp, -5N (5th sub-variant, with radar added--night fighter). Douglas had the AD Skyraider, A3D Skywarrior, A4D Skyhawk, F3D Skynight, and F4D Skyray...all in the late '50's and early 60's. On top of that was the F4U, F6U, F7U, F8U, F2H, F3H, F4H, F6F, F7F, F8F, F9F, F11F, FJ, A2J, A3J, And I think that's why McNamara changed the whole system to something compatible with the Air Force system.
  3. Andrew8604

    Corsair Hype!

    Or at least an AI Zero with a decently accurate flight model.
  4. I was wrong here. Looks like Essex, Kearsarge and Lake Champlain were all also in the Korean conflict with the same SCB-27A modification to island superstructure and two Hydraulic catapults, and quad 40mm mounts replaced with twin 3in/50 mounts, like Oriskany. And at some point, at least some of the "short-bow" (short hull) ships, like Essex, were modified with a long bow. And when those ships were further modified after 1955, with SCB-125, they received the enclosed "Hurricane bows" and angled flight decks. Which then led to several of them serving in the Vietnam War. But there were also 7 of the Essex-class carriers that participated in the Korean conflict in pretty much the WWII configuration. All-in-all, I think the Essex carrier being made for the F4U-1D would be fine for use in a Korean Conflict scenario...if we ever get any Korean Conflict-era Naval aircraft...and I hope we do, starting with an F4U-4 or -4B. ...off in the future, somewhere.
  5. ...and that's why you said "place holder". Got it. Excellent!! Looking forward, very much, to operating the Corsair from this carrier. Sounds good. Short-hull (or bow) or long-hull...to me it's like...flip a coin. I'll be happy with either one. Thank you for taking it under "construction"! ...and it will make a good home for a Hellcat, Avenger and Helldiver someday...whoever makes them...I hope. As well as Korean War vintage, F4U-4 Corsair, Panther, Banshee, Skyraider and Sikorsky HO3S-1 helicopter.
  6. So if it's the F4U-1D, I'll buy that. I hope they would follow it up with an F4U-4 and -4B ( I think the 'B' swaps out the six 50-cal's for four 20mm's?). The fuselage, wings and empennage should be pretty much the same. Yes, a WWII Essex ship would work just fine as a Korea-era Essex. I think only the Oriskany had the modified island, until about 1955 when more were so modified. The others, were still 'stock'. Differences would be minor...maybe only in some radar antennas, like you said. "Long hull" vs "Short hull" Essex. I think they all had the same length hull at the waterline. The "long-bow" Essex ships were about 16 feet longer overall because they were built with a longer "clipper" bow that allowed carriage of a pair of quad 40mm gun mounts. They also had two quad 40mm mounts on the fantail. Whereas the "short-bow" units had only one quad 40mm mount on a bow shaped more like that of a cargo ship, and one quad 40mm mount on the fantail. The long-bow units had a flight deck about 18 feet shorter than the short-bow units, to allow the 40mm guns greater field of fire upwards. The initial Essex ships were the short-bow, and they only shipped 8 quad 40mm mounts, total. Long-bow units had at least 10 to 18 quads. Although, throughout '44 to '45, I believe additional sponsons were added to the sides of the short-bow units to add more quad 40mm's. I think F4U-1D Corsairs really only operated off Essex-class carriers in late '44 to the end of the war in Aug '45. I think by the time the Korean war started in '50, the Navy had F4U-4's on Essex ships and on CVL's and CVE's. However, we can operate them whenever we want. Sometime in the 50's, I think the 40mm mounts were replaced with twin 3in/50's, and probably most or all of the 20mm guns removed. But, of course, the main thing is having an authentic Essex-class carrier to operate from in DCS. Although...if I'm not mistaken...we will ONLY have F4U-1D's on that carrier until someone makes us some Hellcats, Helldivers and Avengers to go along with. In WWII, the CVE's (not fleet carriers or fast carriers -- only 23 knots, I think) operated the FM-2 Wildcat with the R-1820 engine and the Avenger. 18 Wildcats and 9 Avengers, typically. Another thing. I believe the catapult was only used when there were too many planes on deck to do a 'deck run' takeoff. And the catapult was hydraulic powered--no steam. Most of the time you would just make a deck run takeoff. ...I was just thinking...it would be totally awesome if the WWII carriers in DCS would automatically re-spot planes in real time, and animated!! I think it could be done. Animated, AI flight deck crew would bring Avengers up on the elevators and roll them to the aft flight deck, wings folded. Then they would bring up Wildcats and roll them aft, ahead of the Avengers. Meanwhile, the ship would be turning into the wind. Then launch those AI planes....with a player's plane embedded in the crowd, perhaps. Any extra planes would then be brought up from the hangar deck and positioned forward on the flight deck, as the ship turns back downwind to maintain its "station". Before the flights return, the ship would turn back into the wind and be ready to recover aircraft. As planes land, deck crews will fold their wings and position them forward on the flight deck, taking some of the arrived aircraft below to the hangar deck for servicing. So the elevators will animate, taking aircraft below. When all planes are recovered, the carrier will turn back to downwind and crews will position planes aft again to prepare for the launch of the next flights. And so on, cycling like that. Now that would be pretty awesome! ...And then a line of IJN battleships come out of the straights... ...and all of this in VR goggles!! It would be like you were there in 1944. Once that automated AI carrier gets perfected, do the same for Yorktown-class and Lexington-class carriers, with F4F-4 Wildcats, SBD Dauntlesses and TBD-1 Devastators on deck for Battle of Coral Sea and Battle of Midway scenarios and maps. A Midway map should be pretty quick to produce, shouldn't it? Almost all ocean with mostly deep, deep water. Can you do it, Magnitude? Well, maybe with some help of DCS and other 3rd Parties. I give you until 2024 to complete it.
  7. Okay, if that "bogus" illustration was just a place holder...I'm sorry. I didn't understand, before. It didn't look like DCS work. The pictures, though, are NOT bogus. I respectfully beg to differ. Although, maybe we just have a misunderstanding of terminology between us. A US Navy "Quad" 40mm AA gun mount, had four 40mm barrels...quad. They were grouped on the mount as if a pair of "Twin-mounts". A "twin" 40mm mount had only two barrels, mounted close together. There were also "single" 40mm mounts with just one barrel. In the picture above of the USS Boxer, CV-21 (a "long bow" Essex-class), we can see two Quad 40mm mounts, side-by-side, with their Mk51 or Mk57 director on the tall pedestal between them on the fantail. This is a Korean War-era photo, as you can see Panther and Banshee jets on the deck...and maybe Skyraiders forward. To the best of my knowledge, there were never "Twin" 40mm mounts on Essex-class carriers. There were quad, twin and single 40mm mounts on the Independence-class light carriers, CVLs, though (not to be confused with CVE escort carriers, like the Casablanca-class). The picture above the Boxer is a "short-bow" Essex-class. It had only one quad 40mm mount on the bow and one on the stern. It also had four quad 40mm mounts on the island superstructure and two quad 40mm mounts on the port side of the ship...one each next to the open 5in mounts, forward and aft along the port side. A total of eight quad 40mm mounts (32 gun barrels, in all). Farther up this topic is a 5-view illustration of the Bunker Hill, where the locations of all eight quad 40mm mounts can be seen. The "long bow" Essex's had two quad 40mm mounts on the bow and on the stern (as the Boxer does). I believe they also had more quad 40mm mounts on additional sponsons along the port and starboard sides. I think that short-bow Essex's also had some more quad 40mm mounts on sponsons added later in the war. The way the ships' armaments and radars changed throughout the war, I think you can only make a "nominal" Essex-class. But that would be plenty good! I think they seldom aimed these 40mm mounts by the pointer and trainer positions on the mount itself...the "tractor seats" with the open iron sights. They were remotely aimed by a nearby Mk51 director sight with lead computing. My understanding is that control of various 40mm mounts could be paired up with different Mk51 directors via a fire control switchboard in the lower decks of the ships. What difference does this make to DCS? Depends on how much detail of operation is to simulated in the ship. And also would be important if there is ever to be gun positions that can be "manned" by the player. Aiming a few mounts of 40mm via a Mk51, lead-computing director could be an interesting experience in DCS. And these mounts and directors were on most other ships, too...destroyers, cruisers and battleships. I'm talking about the 1943-45 time period...and into the early 50's. The era of the F4U Corsair. My intention is not to knock you or tell you you're wrong. Just that I think I might have the more correct information, in this case. Or maybe we're miscommunicating. If you are making the Essex-class carrier for DCS in WWII configuration...and I hope you are...that you get it as authentic and accurate as possible. Can't wait to see them in DCS!! And if you already know all this stuff...I apologize for repeating it.
  8. Andrew8604

    ships

    WWII US Navy ships? For an Essex-class carrier, I would suggest typical escorts of the time. The fleet carriers were "fast carriers". That is, the whole battle group was capable of 31 to 33 knots, I believe. DE's (destroyer escorts) and CVE's are not part of a fast carrier group. They could only do about 22 knots or so. They escorted slow amphibious groups and cargo/oiler ships. Destroyer (DD) - I would suggest the Fletcher Class. There were 175 of these built. The most numerous of probably any destroyer class of any navy. They were common. I'd suggest a version with five 5in /38 guns in single mounts (with single Mk37 fire-control system) and three twin 40mm mounts (with Mk51 FCS), as they probably would have been configured while escorting Essex-class carriers. Each twin 40mm mount had its own Mk51 director, nearby on a separate pedestal. The Mk51 was a visually aimed, lead-computing sight that then aimed the 40mm mounts assigned to it. The iron sights on the 40mm mount were a backup in the event of no Mk51's being in service. The single 40mm mounts on the APA (amphibious attack transport ships) in DCS are visually aimed by watching where the tracers go in 2D video...and good luck hitting anything with them. Light Cruiser (CL) - I suggest the Cleveland Class. 27 of these were built. Probably the most of any cruiser class. They carried 4 triple-mount 6" guns, 6 twin 5in/38 mounts, 4 quad-mount and 6 twin-mount 40mm guns with multiple Mk51 directors. Battleship (BB) - Probably the Iowa Class. 4 of these built. Besides the nine 16in guns, there were ten twin 5in mounts and 20 quad 40mm mounts. All of the above had various numbers of 20mm gun mounts, too. Light Carrier (CVL) - The Independence Class, for sure. 9 were built. With 2 quad, 8 dual and 16 single 40mm mounts, with 10 Mk51 directors. Various guns could be linked up with different directors. Essex Carrier (CV) - 24 were built, but only about 14 in time to serve in WWII. All had 4 twin 5in mounts and 4 single 5in mounts, from 8 to 18 quad 40mm mounts, and a bunch of 20mm. So 5 models of ships here. That should be a very good start. Eventually, I'd like to see an older set of 5 or 6 ships classes around the Yorktown class and Lexington class carriers. These would go along well with a Battle of Midway map and the F4F-4 Wildcat, SBD Dauntless and TBD-1 Devastator aircraft. Then all of these assets could be used in various scenarios in various maps.
  9. Who made that picture of the F4U approaching the "Bunker Hill"? I see what looks like pairs of twin 40mm mounts imbedded in the aft edge of the flight deck. I think those are totally bogus. I'm pretty certain all 40mm mounts on US aircraft carriers, and most other US capital ships were quad mounts, where all four barrels trained and elevated together, and were usually directed by a nearby Mk51 director mount. Those manning the gun mount were mostly just handling ammunition, I believe. But they wouldn't put guns, or anybody on the aft flight deck edge (there is probably a proper name for that, I can't recall), for obvious reasons...airplanes sometimes hit that deck edge. Also, unlikely to see a completely clear deck, as shown. Most likely there would be planes parked forward on the deck and personnel visible in safe locations. And I'm pretty sure any radio antenna towers would be lowered for flight operations. And where's the LSO? A pretty picture, but not very accurate. The 5-view illustration below that is much more accurate. The Bunker Hill had eight 40mm quad-mounts...4 on the island superstructure, 1 on the bow and 1 on the fan tail (under the flight deck), and one each next to the pair of single 5-inch mounts in the gun gallery below the port side of the flight deck, fore and aft. There may have been differences in all of the Essex-class ships, and they changed a bit during each shipyard visit during WWII...they changed substantially after WWII. I would hope a "nominal" "long-bow" variant of about early 1945 would be modeled in DCS. But I'll take any one you choose. The developer will get it right. And then modify that model to be an SCB-27C variant with 2 steam catapults and an angled flight deck of the 1960's, for the F-8J Crusader. The Ticonderoga would be a good choice for both time periods. But don't get stuck on one particular ship. BTW, here's a webpage that describes the operation of a Mk51 director with a 40mm twin or quad mount pretty well. History and Technology - The Mark 51 FCS - NavWeaps -- http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-049.php
  10. "should have different account", or is it "MUST have a different account"? For example, I have purchased nearly every module and every map...I now have two capable PC's and two sets of VR goggles. I just want to take my son and my wife (and other relatives) for a virtual flight in a two-place aircraft so they can see what I'm seeing in VR. I did this one time with the Christen Eagle via a free Internet server and sure enough, some jerk in an F-14 tried to ram me head on. I waited to the last instant and evaded, he crashed. So, I'd like to do this within my own LAN, free of jerks. And I imagine it would have much better response times in a gigabit LAN. So, I MUST purchase, say, a 2nd license of the Nevada map and a 2nd license of the Yak-52...and then it will work? Is that the case? Seems like it should be free to use within my own LAN, so long as not joining up more than two PC's. So that this kind of local "sharing of the experience" can be done.
  11. I wish I understood what this meant. I really, really, appreciate your reply AND your maximum effort!! Whatever "Elevation spatial generation" means, it must be a limiting factor in map size? You mean it's not possible to create a map of nothing but sea water, with a flat bottom deeper than 500 feet, to an extent of 1,000 x 1,000 nautical miles? No land, just ocean...what is the maximum dimensions? How does curvature of the Earth fit in...or does it? Is it a "flat world" in DCS? Is there an x, y, z coordinate system in DCS? Does it translate this to lat-long for matching to real world charts?
  12. Yes, I've read that about Midway, too. I like Coral Sea. Not quite so overdone with the flight deck. Almost forgotten is the 3rd carrier of that class, the Franklin D Roosevelt, CVA-42. You can't talk about Navy aircraft without talking about the Navy carriers...they sort of go together. All 3 were modernized to slightly different amounts. Midway was definitely modified the most. I think all 3 of these had 3 steam catapults. Supercarriers, which started with Forrestal had 4 steam catapults, the Midway's had 3 and the seven SCB-27C variants of the Essex's had 2 steam catapults. Midway is so much like a Forrestal, I'd rather have the Coral Sea and F.D. Roosevelt. I see a 1969-ish picture of CVA-42 with F-4 Phantoms, F-8 Crusaders, A-7 Corsairs, A-6 Intruders, E-1 Tracers (AEW version of the S-2 Tracker), and a Sea King helo, all on the flight deck together! That would be an awesome set of aircraft, right there. The F-8 and A-7 are currently in development, I believe. But I really like the challenge and limitations of the angled deck, steam catapult equipped Essex class ships...as well as the British Eagle and Ark Royal carriers. Back in the days before the nuclear behemoths. I think the Phantom, Buccaneer, Gannet and Wessex and Sea King would be a great set of Royal Navy aircraft.
  13. I guess my interest is really in a Korea or Vietnam map, as I keep trying to use the P-47D-40 as an AD-4 or AD-6(A-1H) Skyraider, and creating downed-pilot rescue scenarios. Who will get there first, the ground forces or the helicopter? (Hint to P-47 developers: Do the Skyraider next.) Part of the lack of interest might be the time span since WWII, --and-- that WWII planes are slow and players don't have the patience. There seem to be chiefly two groups of DCS users: Impatient youngsters that want to fly the latest and greatest computerized, digital-panel stealth fighters in a fantasy what-if scenario to find out if they should learn Chinese, Russian or English...i.e. who's going to win WW3? And then there are old guys, like me, that despise MFD's, that want to re-enact wars past and experience or re-experience what it was like: Vietnam, Korea, WWII, or other wars. It's just a matter of whether you are young or old. There is another split in the DCS group...those that swear the flight models work better in multiplayer and only fly online with others...and those that know the flight model is the same and just wish there was a much, much better AI so that they could control their DCS world and fly alone...because the online community is too chaotic and stressful and filled with spastic, impatient toddlers who are team-killing, show-offs. The other thing is the lack of patience with engine temperature monitoring, the difficulty of handling a tail-dragger on the ground, and the lack of an afterburner, smart bombs, MFDs and a HUD. ...and that is sucks at dogfighting against the Mirage 2000..."How come it can't carry Sidewinders?" ...because they hit the propeller and turn into sparks, that's why. --I would be happy with all the planes that were built before 1984, right on back to that I-16 and an F4F Wildcat. --Of course, this is a generalization and I do occasionally like watching laser guided bombs blow up the cross hairs every time on the little TV screen. As well, there are some young people that like piston-powered planes and old, smokey jets. Why can't we have both worlds? You'll run out of modern jets before you run out of old jets and props. I have learned that when it comes to blowing up as many armored vehicles as fast as possible, nothing beats the A-10C...except the A-10A. I'd like to add on here that the P-47D is my favorite propeller plane in DCS, so far...need more radial-engine planes...Wildcat, TBD Devastator, Skyraider all pique my interest. The Thunderbolt isn't all that difficult to handle on the ground, actually. It wants to wander up and down a lot in flight. Have to keep attention on attitude constantly to fly it level. Can't put your head down in the cockpit flipping switches. Gotta have eyes out maintaining attitude. I wonder if the real one flies that way.
  14. This is good, but could you explain just a bit more. And I am not disputing this, just want more details to fully understand it. With mags switch off, flipping the starter switch from energize to engage, both engages the starter and closes the circuit on one of the magnetos, overriding the mags switch? What happens when the start switch is released to off? Does that one magneto remain on? If so, how is it subsequently cut off again? By turn mags switch on and then off? Or is this all explained in the P-47D manual? There must be a reason for Republic and/or Pratt & Whitney to have made it this way. Is it possibly to prevent a faulty or damaged mags switch from causing engine failure? Is the cockpit mags switch not directly in the magneto ignition system circuit, such as only activates relays? Is there a procedure for the P-47D where you crank the engine through a couple turns of the propeller before starting? If so, that would have to be done before priming and with fuel at cutoff, right? Or maybe there is no such procedure.
  15. This is pretty cool. However, it's max speed is too much. It over-performs. Is that because it is really an AH-6 or Hughes Model 500D or such? The instrument panel is too advanced. Is that also a straight copy from the AH-6, or have you modified it a little? Fuel weight is too much, isn't it? Doesn't the Bell 47G carry only 41 useable gallons of fuel? 100 Octane gasoline at 6 lbs per gallon, so about 246 lbs total of both tanks, I think. But then, I don't know what fuel burn rate you have. The AH-6 most likely burns fuel faster. The Bell 47's specific fuel consumption is probably in the range of about 0.45 lbs/HP/hr.
  16. SAR missions. I created one using the Channel map and F-5E and F-4E's, they attack a "rail yard". I use France as "Vietnam" and set up Third Reich 88mm flak and Allied 4.1" flak guns, plus 40mm and 23mm. Then I set ground troops with AK's that move in toward the "downed pilot" in a clearing in the trees. I have to get in there with a Huey with door gunners with M60's and "pretend" to pick him up, because that part doesn't work. [i'm wrong. That part does work. I just place an infantry soldier as my "downed pilot" and set him to embark on the helo that arrives.] I also have a small convoy of vehicles from several miles out that follow roads. I use P-47D's with rockets and guns to stand in for Skyraiders, and take out the ground forces before they get my "pilot". Sometimes I get lost and can't find the pilot. Which usually means I lose the pilot. It's a grueling mission because the Huey can only do about 105 kts. :) It's a bit crude, but not too bad without scripting...which I don't know how to do. It would be a lot more fun if I had to actually search. But very difficult to spot the pilot on the ground even when I know where he is.
  17. But I think the Navy aircraft should be grouped with a map. Falklands map coming up (I don't know when?). So: Harrier FRS.1 and GR.3. And A-4Q (the community A-4E-C with EFM should do well enough). Need the Super Etendard and S-2E Trackers maybe as AI to start with). It's RAZBAM's map and RAZBAM's Harrier...so they should be making a Sea Harrier FRS.1...but I have heard nothing to indicate that they are. Because the AV-8B N/A just won't do. But if we stretch history a bit, for interest, add the Audacious-class HMS Ark Royal and HMS Eagle from the 60's, and you can add the Phantom FG.1 (F-4K), Buccaneer S2, Gannet AEW and Wessex and Sea King helo's. That should make it a lot more fun. Give the Argentinean Navy an Essex-class carrier, or two, from the Vietnam era, with the applicable aircraft (F-8J, A-7E?, A-4E-C, Super Etendard), plus some capable ASW escort ships and you'd have quite a match, wouldn't you? For a Vietnam map...which should be the number one next map (other than Marianna's and Falklands)...F-4B/J Phantom II, full-fledged A-4E, A-7E is on its way, F-8J is on its way, A-6E alleged to be started?, A-1J (AD-7) Skyraider would be nice. EKA-3B Skywarrior as an AI aircraft to serve as a tanker and stand-off jammer. RA-5C Vigilante would be cool, but far down the list of priorities, I think. The RF-8G took over the job of the RA-5C, I believe. So, wouldn't it be easier to modify the F-8J to be an RF-8G, rather than develop an entirely different RA-5C? And for helo's: SH-3 Sea King and SH-2 Seasprite. I think the Forrestal-class carrier is basically done? Need a USS Coral Sea and Midway with 3 catapults and two variations of the SCB-27C version of Essex-class carriers with angled deck and 2 steam catapults...mainly, the Intrepid, Ticonderoga and Hancock have the starboard elevator quite a bit farther aft than the other 4. Plus some of the escort ships of the time...including the Albany-class guided missile cruisers, with the 100nm range Talos missiles. For a Korean map...which should be the number two next map (in my little opinion): F9F-2 and -5 Panther. F2H Banshee. AD-4 Skyraider. HO3S-1 helicopter. F4U-4B Corsair. We're talking "Bridges at Toko-Ri" movie, here!! Need straight-deck Essex-class carriers (Philippine Sea, Princeton, Valley Forge, Boxer) and WWII destroyers and cruisers. The Korea map should be released as a 1952 map, with not a lot of structures and infrastructure. Mostly, just scenic terrain. I suspect a modern Korea map would take a LOT MORE work...don't do it...not at first. For the Marianna's map...it's a naval battle map. Have at it with any of the above, or below. Midway map: There should be one...with a click-box to choose 1942 or 1982 versions of Midway Islands. Release it first without the Hawaiian islands. Add them later, maybe. So this would be a 99.99% water map. It really, really should be faster to release. Maybe an area of 800nm x 400nm. Naval aircraft: F4F-4 Wildcat. SBD Dauntless, TBD Devastator, TBF-1 Avenger. But you need the adversary so: A6M-2 Zero and dive bombers, level bombers and torpedo planes. ...and the ships.
  18. F-4 Phantom II is long overdue. And it NEEDS multiple versions, I think. The same developer should develop these versions: US Navy: F-4B/N (what are the differences of B vs N? I think mainly threat detection and maybe countermeasures?) Probably the same with F-4J/S (although, did the S have slats?). Royal Navy: F-4K (FG.1). I suspect much like the J but with RR engines and a few other changes. And with this needs to go the Audacious-class carriers HMS Eagle and HMS Ark Royal...and then Buccaneers! Also, for RN: Sea Harrier FRS.1. But back to the Phantom II...for the US Air Force: F-4C and F-4D, besides the F-4E.
  19. It's a type of communications jamming. LOL But yes, definitely see your point. Does tuning your radio limit the menu choices? I think there's a sim mode setting for realistic comms? Like it might eliminate the problem altogether. But I'm not sure it actually does.
  20. I'm with you on that. I want the F-4B. But the F-4 Phantom II is one of those that I think really needs to be developed into multiple versions. If a developer is making an F-4E, I just can't believe they would have to start from scratch to make an F-4D, F-4C and F-4B. There has to be a lot of instrumentation and systems that are the same. The flight model might only need slight tweaking. The F-4F should be nearly identical to the E. The F-4G Wild Weasel would be different mainly only in radar detection and countermeasures from the E. The F-4J should be very near to the B and quite similar to the C & D. The B & J were single flight controls like the F-14, but the C & D were dual flight controls. The F-4K should be quite similar to the F-4J, but with different engines and I don't know what else. I'd like the F-4K (FG1)...if we can get functional carrier models of HMS Eagle and HMS Ark Royal of the Audacious class. ...and S2 Buccaneers to go with.
  21. F-106A? I would buy it! We probably would need a Century Series developer. The F-100D would be an essential module for a Vietnam map. I just think aircraft modules should be built to go with maps, not just built for some whim...the way it partially seems to be now. The MiG-21. People wanted one. They always want the latest and greatest of any model aircraft. So we got the MiG-21bis. But what map, what theater does it belong to? If we were to have a Vietnam map, for instance, the MiG-21PF should be the module...and it might actually fly better. F-106A: I'd love it, but what map does it fit with? It is a cold war interceptor. It's job was to shoot down Soviet bombers...that's about it. Well, I guess you could fly THAT mission on about any map...if you are doing an "Intercept strategic bombers" scenario. For the rest of the Century Series: I think the F-100D and F-105D would be best, because they would go along with a Vietnam map...which had an awful lot of historical missions take place. F-101, F-102, F-106?...interceptors. The F-104 can be a few different things. CF-104 was a nuclear strike aircraft. F-104S was multirole tactical. F-104A and C were interceptors, mainly. They were adapted to do things they weren't really designed for, but then that happens with a lot of aircraft. Historically, I think the F-100D and F-105D are the most important of the Century Series. But I'd love to fly the F-101B, F-102A, F-104 and F-106A, too. Maybe instead of a Century-series developer, they should be an Interceptor developer. Because there was also the F-86D Sabre Dog and F-89J Scorpion and F-94 Starfire that were "interesting" interceptors. And I haven't even mentioned interceptors of countries other than the US. What is really needed is a financial model that allows for a dedicated team of aircraft module developers to make it their day job. We, as customers, would have to shell out more money. I wonder if a sort of customer "bidding" system would work. You want an F-106A, for instance? All who do would have to place bids on one in, say, $25 increments. Not as in an auction, but as an investment. You really want that 106? You might purchase 20 bids on it for $500. Expensive? Well, do you want the 106 in your lifetime? And not only that, you'd want to convince as many others as possible to join you in placing their bids on it. These would be "paper" bids. You don't actually lose money...not at first. Let's say 2000 bids come in. Maybe that would be a threshold amount that would then trigger a "put your money where you mouth is" campaign. A developer wants to produce the F-106, let's say. Now everyone who bid would need to actually spend the money, as an investment, to confirm to the developer that the module can be built. If the real bids evaporate, then the deal falls through, and the module doesn't get built. In that way, popular modules would get built. Maybe more of them, more quickly. --is this possible?-- If a mixed full-time/part-time developer team could be kept busy for a year, or three, making modules that provides a living for the right, dedicated, enthusiast developers...maybe 3 to 5 modules could be produced per year instead of just 1. Now, an F-105D, for example, might get a lot more bids due to its legendary place in history in the Vietnam War. There might be some Instrument and engine systems similarities between the 105 and 106 that allows the F-106 to then be produced afterwards...J-75 engine, "tape" instruments, for example. And for the F-100D...its instrument panel has a similar layout and instruments and gunsight to the existing DCS F-86F. The F-100D flew more missions in Vietnam than any other aircraft type, I believe, and was never shot down by a MiG. It has 4 of the same guns the F-5E has. But it's going to be "manual" bombing with the F-100D just like it is in the F-86F. Would enough people place enough bids on it? There are a lot of interesting aircraft that had significant use in history that deserve to be built. But we will never see them in DCS if some new funding/production scheme isn't devised.
  22. This Falklands map would be great, as you have it, with that span from mainland Argentina to the "Falkland" Islands. But try to make sure there is ample open ocean space around the Islands...like a 250 nm radius around the islands. (I really don't see how stark, flat-bottomed at 300m, open ocean can cost file size significantly. "Ocean isn't free?") I will buy this map, for sure. But I wish there would be an array of appropriate modules to go with it. Hence... I think this map would make for a lot of awesome air-sea-land battles using 1960's-70's "Cold War" hardware. For Example: Falklands Conflict of 1982: UK: In addition to the two carriers that were historically present, I like this hypothetical idea: What if the last 3 British CATOBAR carriers were still in service in 1982? Never mind the financial/political arguments against, just what if? In other words, we don't stick strictly to history, but bend it a little...realistically. CATOBAR carriers: HMS Victorious R38 - Sea Vixens - 35,500 tons, 778 ft, 30.5 knots (not sure of displacement tonnage) HMS Eagle (R05) - Phantom IIs - 55,000 tons, 804 ft, 31 knots HMS Ark Royal (R09) - Phantom IIs - 54,000 tons, 804 ft, 31 knots Phantom FG1 (F-4K) Buccaneer S2 Sea Vixen FAW2 Gannet AEW3 (AI) Gannet COD4 (AI) Wessex HAS.1 & HAS.3 (AI) (until it could be made a flyable module) V/STOL carriers: HMS Hermes (R12) - 28,000 tons, 744 ft, 28 knots Sea Harrier FRS1 Harrier GR3 (AV-8B N/A's could probably be substituted--but if making the FRS1, I think that makes the basis for the GR3.) Sea King HAS5 & HC4 HMS Invincible (R05) - 22,000 tons, 689 ft, 28 knots (maybe renumbered R13, because Eagle would still have R05?) Sea Harrier FRS1 Sea King ...and the various UK escort destroyers and frigates and task force ships. Hypothetical Addition: US assistance with... USS Coral Sea (CV-43) - 67,000 tons, 973 ft, 33 knots F-4B/N A-7E - already being made a module A-6E KA-6D (AI) - but when an A-6E module is made, this needs to be an included variant as a tanker. EKA-3B (AI) - Tanker E-2B (AI) SH-3 Sea King ...and an accompanying escort group of Spruance-class, Perry-class and Leahy-class ships? Argentina: Aircraft: A-4B/Q & A-4C Skyhawks -- could modify the A-4E-C -- mainly the different engine, J65 IAI Dagger & Mirage IIIEA MB.339 - already being made a module Super Etendard (and why not add Etendard IV) S-2E Tracker (AI) SP-2H Neptune (AI) ex-HMS Venerable (R63) - Veinticinco de Mayo - 14,700 tons, 695 ft, 25 knots (is that tonnage right? Seems like it should be more like 20,000 tons) Hypothetical: What if these Essex-class carriers were not scrapped but sold to Argentina in the 70's, along with these aircraft? Never mind the prohibitive expense and politics, just what if? I mean, I think it's plausible enough. ex-USS Hancock and ex-USS Ticonderoga - 36,000 tons, 888 feet, 33 knots...with these aircraft... -- F-8J Crusader -- already being made a module -- A-4Q Skyhawk -- modify A-4E-C, or just use it as an A-4E. Could A-4Q's be made as AI Tankers? -- S-2E Tracker -- AI -- E-1 Tracer -- AI -- H-3 Sea King -- AI (until it can be made a module) -- KA-3B Skywarrior -- AI (until it can be made a module) - Tankers -- A-7E Corsair II -- already being made a module -- A-1J Skyraider -- AI (until it can be made a module) -- as well, or alternatively, Super Etendards/Etendard IV's should be able to be used. And what if some of these escort ships were sold to Argentina? The guided missile cruisers might never have been sold to any country, but what if Argentina had some of them...or a lot of them? And then having fairly modern anti-submarine destroyers, helicopters and the S-2 Trackers, might they not have been able to operate a substantial carrier battle group out to sea? Which is why I then supposed some hypothetical US assistance to the British with the Coral Sea battle group. Of course, anyone could use a Supercarrier to assist either side, but that might tip the balance too far one way or the other. ex-US Forrest Sherman class destroyer, modified as guided missile DDG (Tartar missile) ex-US Gearing-class, FRAM I, destroyer ex-US Allen M Sumner-class, FRAM II, destroyer ex-US Boston-class guided missile heavy cruiser - Terrier and 6 8-inch guns ex-US Galveston-class guided missile light cruiser - Talos and 6 or 3 6-inch guns ex-US Providence-class guided missile light cruiser - Terrier and 6 or 3 6-inch guns ex-US Albany-class guided missile cruiser - Talos and Tartar, ASROC, 2 5-inch guns With all of these aircraft modules...and ships...some of which are already in works...wouldn't this make the Falklands map quite interesting? Provided the DCS AI can receive a major overhaul. Could probably set up "Argentina" with some land-based Su-17's and MiG-23's, too? This whole idea requires quite a number of ships to be made...someone must have fun doing that, right? And it requires about 8 or 9 major aircraft modules. I think the end result would be quite worth it, though, for some "Cold War Era" battles. There just has to be some way to increase the rate of production of these aircraft modules for DCS! We can't wait until 2028 for this all to come to be. :) And all of these modules would fit right in with use in a Vietnam map, as well. And in the Marianna's map, too.
  23. I wish someone with the knowledge could expound upon what limits the size of a DCS "map". --Is it the coordinate system used in DCS? Or is that not an issue? --Is it the memory required to depict the terrain and features? --Wouldn't a stretch of 500km x 500km open, deep blue Pacific...no land or shoals or rises or sea mounts...in excess of 2 km depth. So say a simulated flat bottom at 300m depth. Wouldn't that essentially be zero memory? --All depths beyond about 40m would be essentially black and so the sea color would be the same. Surely wouldn't see the bottom from any depth. WWII submarines could only go to about 550' or about 170m, I believe. I suppose modern subs might go to no more than 300m, if that. The Falkland Islands appear to sit on the South American continental shelf, so about 200-300m depth, at most, as far as I can tell by maps I can find. It's not the deep. But since this is primarily a flight simulator, do 99.9% of us care how deep the ocean is where it is deeper than 20 or 30m? Now, if we are going to be able to command submarines and conduct anti-submarine warfare from the surface and air...then bottom contour might be important. But it doesn't have to be very highly detailed all over, even at that. And while flying, does bottom contour even need to be rendered? I'd sure like to know more.
  24. There was no choice for Falklands map. Is that still in works by RAZBAM? What is holding it up? They should at least let us play on the map, even if the proper aircraft and ships aren't yet available. As well, it would be a place for 60's and 70's British CATOBAR carriers...Victorious R38, Eagle R05 and Ark Royal R09, along with the Phantom FG1, Buccaneer S2, Sea Vixen FAW2, Gannet AEW3/COD4 and Sea King and Wessex helicopters. In an alternate timeline in which those ships and aircraft were still in service. Along with, say, an American carrier such as Oriskany or Coral Sea operating with the British side, or as if sold to the Argentina side, along with aircraft (Crusader/Phantom II, Skyhawk/Corsair II, E-1 Tracer and S-2 Tracker) and US escort ships of the time...Gearing-class FRAM I destroyers for anti-submarine, Charles F Adams Class guided-missile destroyers, and Albany-class, Galveston-class and Providence-class guided-missile cruisers. I mean, I wish that the war had never taken place. But as a historic wargame scenario...could be quite interesting with all these ships and aircraft, I think. Not to mention that Soviet ships could be included in the mix. This way--maybe-- it wouldn't be a forgone conclusion that a British submarine would just go in and sink the fleet. And all of these aircraft and ships could be used just as fittingly in a Vietnam map!
×
×
  • Create New...