Andrew8604

What do you mean by "slave radio"? Are you talking about the TACAN? Or the BDHI indicator (bearing and heading indicator)? Those seem to work for me.

I had this problem, too. I did the installation right, according to instructions. All indications were that this was a "PLAYER" aircraft in Mission Editor, and yet it was not playable (no cockpit showing up upon launching the mission. AI controlling the aircraft). Installing the MSVC redistributable from the link above definitely fixed it. Unless I missed it somewhere, there should probably be some note in the instructions to ensure we have the latest or correct version of MSVC (Microsoft Visual C++ Redistributable Packages for Visual Studio 2015, 17, 19 & 22). Maybe you should start a new topic (restricted or locked to just you developers) for version 2.0. Because I got stuck on instructions for version 1.4. We can continue discussions here on this topic. This wasn't needed in version 1.4.2, right? The 1.4.2 mod-ule was working fine. I guess there is new coding in A-4E-C Version 2.0+ that now requires this, right? Which is probably what makes some wonderful new features possible. ...now to re-map my joysticks. This is referring back to the problem described on Page 47.

I've noticed this, too. I agree, the pilot figure is too small--sub-scale. Thanks for illustrating it. I have sat in the cockpit of a real A-4F. It is small and cramped. I'm 6'-0" tall. It gives the impression of some kind of little midget race car. The windscreen is small. In DCS, in VR, this A-4E-C cockpit seems too large, too roomy. The canopy bow is slightly too high, I think. And I have adjusted the VR- interpupillary distance so that most everything else appears normal. If you look at NP-505, in the foreground of this picture, you'll see the pilot's helmet is very close to the canopy glass. Also, the forward fuselage seems slightly too wide. The solution to this...would probably be a ton of rework. Too bad it didn't get set exactly accurate from the beginning. It's a relatively minor thing, considering the rest of the aspects of this mod are so cool!! I'm guessing some dimensions between A-4E and A-4M cockpits got intermixed, early on, or the cockpit was based on the A-4M's. The A-4A thru A-4L have the same cockpit dimensions. I believe the A-4M/N/KU cockpit was enlarged slightly and fitted with a different canopy. The A-4P & Q & S were reworked A-4B&C aircraft. The TA-4F & J had a substantially different cockpit.

I already have the Forrestal...and the Tomcat! Yes, I agree. But I just like those smaller carriers, too. By the time the F-8J comes out, someone needs to release an angled-deck, Essex-class carrier. The Crusader and Skyhawk worked together on those ships.

Thank you!! I've already just downloaded 2.0.0 RC3. I'll check it out later. Sounds great. In 1.4.2, I was having trouble with AI flying the A-4 and not being able to line up with centerline of angled deck on Clemenceau. I think I saw a mention of a solution to that. I'll have to check that out, too. Any of you know if there is an SCB-27C/125 Essex-class carrier mod out there (steam catapults/angled deck)? ...like USS Hancock or Oriskany? Should I remove this topic from the Wish List? Can I even remove it? Or maybe it can be locked and left here for those who might have the same thought I did? I don't think I want to start a whole new alternate discussion thread, do I?

Perhaps! I seem to be using version 1.4.2. I'll check for updates, then. Thanks! Yes, biggest disappointment was trying to land on modded aircraft carrier, Clemenceau (which is a lot like an Essex). I can't tell what's causing it, but it tends to explode often upon touching down on the deck where the arresting cables are. On the ball, on alignment, on speed for optimal AOA, using the APC, full flaps, hook down, gear down, all down, clear deck...kaboom. I'll have to go back and check it out on the Nimitz-class carriers. Maybe it's that Clemenceau mod. And yes, it's all in the Saved Games folder.

The "Community" version is a BLAST to fly around in carrier ops, even with its several missing features and quirks. (And I understand the community did its utmost best to get what they've got!) <-- That was version 1.4.2 -- version 2.0.0 goes far beyond! And there aren't many missing features or quirks, now. No Communications -- FIXED - Radios work, now, and you can call the tanker, ATC and the Carrier ATC, and more. No In-flight Refueling (and 'buddy' tanking) -- FIXED - Can refuel from any tanker with drogue "basket". Although, "buddy tanking" is not possible...at least not yet. No Custom Flight Model -- FIXED - It now has a fine External Flight Model (EFM) possibly "out-of-spec" cockpit and fuselage dimensions. -- minor...if it exists at all. I need some real aircraft measurements to verify. seeming hypersensitivity to arrested landings that causes aircraft explosions -- although that may be the fault of community aircraft carrier mods. -- FIXED - I've made over a dozen of arrested landings to Clemenceau and Forrestal carriers, as well as bolters off Melbourne...no explosions anymore! Other than that, it is a very fun "community" mod. I know it would be great to have a full module of the A-4E. Not needed. I feel pretty sure more people would buy it. It's FREE! I think the greatest objection to it in servers is simply that it is not a full module. -- That could be. I only use it single-player. Its place is on older super carriers like Forrestal, and smaller carriers like the "angled-deck" Essex class, Clemenceau, and Melbourne carriers. Going along great with it on such carriers would be the upcoming F-8J Crusader, A-7E Corsair II, and probably even the F4U-1D Corsair (painted over-all navy blue). True, it uses the old, obsolete bridle-cable for cat launches rather than the launch bar. But so does the F-8J (and F-4J Phantom II), so don't let that stand in the way. It's only cosmetic in the sim, anyway. I understand this may be more than 3 years down the road...if ever...because it would be a 'from the ground-up' production, like any other module. It is available, free, NOW! But worthwhile, I think. Nonetheless, as a customer, I wish to make my request to have a full version of the Skyhawk in the detail & scale and functionality of modules like the F-5E Tiger II. Cancel my request. We already have the Skyhawk! And nearly in the detail of full modules. (If the request is already duly noted and registered, then either file mine under it...or you can delete this.) Thanks!

It'll be a Navy Phantom, alright...the RF-4B. Let the cameras be its weapons. Wouldn't that be a riot? (probably a veritable forum riot, ha ha) But I agree. The Phantom will be one of those types that needs two versions. The E first, and then the J for carrier work.

How about it's the RF-4B? Ha ha. All it does is take pictures! No ordnance. Wouldn't that be cruel? Actually, I'd buy it. What the heck...it's a Phantom II and lands on carriers! Ok, nobody get the wrong impression. I'm 99.99% sure (based on no information) it will not be the RF-4B.

I've thought that, too. And the Mitsubishi F-1/T-2...first flight 1971. SEPECAT Jaguar...first flight 1968 Mirage F1...first flight 1966 ...and the MiG-23, to some extent...first flight 1967. The Jaguar would be another great jet to make.

I would say I've seen the most comments/requests for the F-4E. But since we have a lot of naval aviation fans, too, there should also be a Navy version. The F-4E was optimized to replace the F-105D, am I right? The 'E' model is a fighter-bomber with early precision guided munitions capability. It had a smaller, shorter-range radar but improved maneuverability, and probably better systems reliability. It is what the F-16 replaced. I think the F-15 replaced the F-4D. The 'D' model was the better interceptor/fighter escort, I believe. So too were the naval versions, the original 'B' model and 'J' model...later refurbished into the 'N' and 'S' models, respectively, with more defensive electronics and antennas, I think. So, I think a J or S model should follow the initial 'E' model. ...and that would probably be it. Gotta have a naval version of the Phantom II. It was originally designed for the Navy!!! The 'E' and 'J' couldn't be entirely different aircraft. Different radar and fire control systems, sure. Different rear cockpit...like the F-14, the 'back-seater' in the naval variants was a RIO and did not have flight controls. The 'back-seater' in the 'E' was a WSO, like in the F-15E, and had flight controls. They had different nose sections forward of the front cockpit bulkhead. But I would bet a good 75% of the systems were the same. Other differences have been pointed out by previous posts. It's not just a cosmetic difference, but it's not an entirely different aircraft, either. Probably a bit more work than the difference between the F-14A and F-14B. It would be painful to have an 'E' model that you can't land on a carrier. As well as having a 'J' or 'S' model that can't deliver precision guided munitions and lacks the internal gun. Unlike with the F-14A/B, they should sell the F-4E and F-4J separately. Those who prefer the 'E' will buy the 'E'. I just bet they'll be buying the 'J', too, a little later on...certainly during a sales event. I would be buying both. I know some would like to see the F-4K, as well. But, again, that would probably be nearly as different as the 'J' is from the 'E', I don't know. And for our Luftwaffe friends, the 'E' will probably have to be good enough.

If you can't obtain 100% of the flight nuances of the F-105B/D (let's forget about the "Wild Weasel" G-model for a moment), is that a reason to not reproduce it in DCS? Are any of the flight models in DCS 100% accurate? I highly doubt it. For example, I believe YouTube channel author and F-16 pilot, "Mover", commented how the DCS F-16C cannot sustain a 9-g turn like it should and can attain too much "alpha". So, these DCS models are not 100% accurate. They're pretty damn neat, though. DCS is not a certified pilot training device, it's for entertainment. They should just do the best they can. We have a lot of fun with the "fan-created" A-4E-C Skyhawk...it's not at all 100%...but it's still fun. There seems to be plenty of documentation available on the Internet for F-105D & F's Flight Manuals with detailed diagrams and descriptions of all the systems. Somewhere there must be descriptions of the radar modes and functions, as well. Also, some pilot accounts and descriptions in novels, "Thud Ridge" for example. There are no flight-worthy F-105's, but there are several on static display. That may assist in getting all the dimensions correct. I think the F-105D is a model that at least 75% of DCS customers will buy. Sure, many will say, "It's not a dogfighter. Who wants it? It can't beat a Mirage 2000 in a dogfight!" But that's those people. This isn't Dogfighter Simulator (or I didn't think it was exclusively supposed to be). This is Digital Combat Simulator. And the F-105D flew more missions against SA-2 SAMs and radar-directed AAA than most types currently in DCS. No, it didn't deliver your laser-guided and GPS-guided smart bombs or IR Mavericks, but it did deliver a pair of M118, 3,000-lb demolition bombs, or eight M117 750-lb bombs, without a HUD, in the hands of skilled pilots. You read "Thud Ridge" and tell me it was boring and the F-105 was a dull plane. They should do the wind tunnel testing on the F-105, then, like the P-47. Then sell the F-105 on DCS for $69...for 1 year subscription. Thereafter, each additional year would be $9.99, or three for $24.99. Maybe some of the wind tunnel money could be recouped, then, without people having to pay $100 just to try it out.

The link above, shared by drPhibes, leads to Wags' answer, with enumerated reasons. That looks like that's the final answer. I speculate that modeling all that detail into the City of Las Vegas...which a lot of people enjoy...cost the inclusion of NAS Fallon and NAS China Lake. But Nellis AFB is so close to Las Vegas that they couldn't ignore it. Based on the constraints mentioned by Wags, I can't think of any good solution. What if minimum PC RAM requirements was increased from 8GB to 16GB? Or have they been already? I run a machine with 32GB. Some 3rd party might (that's a wildly speculative "might") make a retro version of NTTR Map, that includes NAS Lemoore, Edwards AFB, China Lake NWC, in a 1967 setting, in which Las Vegas is much smaller and with fewer large buildings, maybe. Nellis and Indian Springs (Creech) AFB would still be there. That would then be the training area for the F-4(?) Phantom II, F-105D Thunderchief (which someone just has to develop sometime this decade), A-6E Intruder, A-7E Corsair II, F-8J Crusader (all in development), and very slim "hopefully" for the F-100D Super Sabre. The F-100 shares a lot of cockpit similarities with the F-86F, I think. Likewise, maybe a 3rd party might make a "Great Basin" map that would include NAS Fallon, Mountain Home AFB, Hill AFB and the Salt Lake City area, as well as Boise and Reno... and all that open range in between. A 340nm x 420nm area. But I very much doubt that will ever happen. And if ED had made this Great Basin map instead of NTTR, everyone would now be complaining about why Nellis AFB, Groom Lake and Tonopah Test Range wasn't included. We're never satisfied! The grass is always greener on the other side of the mountain...except in the desert. Is ED perhaps working on global scenery? Did I see rumors of that?

Thank you, Toan! I'll have a look at the Fletcher, right away! And I didn't realize USS Bowen was a Knox-class. I downloaded it, just haven't run DCS since to have a look at it. Awesome! It could be that a list or index of ships under "Mods" might be useful. That way we can make sure we get all that's out there.

Request: WWII Fletcher-class destroyer (1944-45) WWII Sumner-class destroyer (1944-45) WWII Cleveland-class light cruiser (1944-45) WWII Suamico-class oiler/tanker (1944-45) ...or similar (These would go along nicely with the WWII Essex-class carrier that's supposedly being made for the F4U Corsair.) FRAM II Sumner-class destroyer (1965-71) Gearing-class destroyer FRAM I (1960's-70's) Knox-class frigate - w/Sea Sparrow (1970's) and w/Phalanx (1980's) Wichita-class fleet oiler - (1970's-80's) ...you can't have too many classic ships!

Enough to somewhat replicate "Battle of Midway" and "Battle of Philippine Sea" scenarios. The Marianna's map can provide the setting well enough. But a 1942-era Midway map would be good, too...nothing but the Midway Islands and as many hundreds of miles(km) of open ocean as can be accommodated. That's just gotta be faster to produce than Marianna's was!! Well, there are a few other tiny uninhabited islands within a 400-nm radius of Midway...probably just sand. So, 800nm across the map, if possible. The main purpose for the large expanse of ocean is to emphasize the difficulty in finding the opposing battle group. Perhaps this map could provide for some advanced weather modeling, too...with towering cumulous thunderstorms and rain squalls...and high, mid and low layers of clouds. Another aspect might be carrier flight deck management. Carriers generally had to have their aircraft moved around and "spotted" on the deck for launch vs. recovery. I think this carrier sea-battle could be done pretty well with... On the USN side: The Yorktown class carrier (Essex-class carrier already being made) Two classes of heavy cruiser: New Orleans-class (early: for Yorktown) and Baltimore-class (late: for Essex) Two classes of light cruiser: Brooklyn-class (early: for Yorktown) and Cleveland-class (late: for Essex) Two classes of destroyer: Fletcher-class (early: for Yorktown) and Sumner-class (late: for Essex) North Carolina-class and South Dakota-class battleship (if users opt to use them, mainly for Essex-class carrier groups). Older battleships were too slow to operate with a carrier battlegroup. At the Battle of Midway, the USN had no battleships available. On the IJN side: (The difficult part, as IJN had several one-off carriers that varied considerably in design.) Carriers: Maybe just concentrate on a couple of these 6 designs: Akagi, Kaga, Soryu, Hiryu, Shokaku-class and Unryu-class carriers. Heavy cruiser: Myoko-class, Takao-class and/or Mogami-class Light cruiser: Agano-class Destroyers (there were about 17 classes). How about just: Fubuki-class (24 built), and the "Type-A" classes; Kagero-class (19 built) and Yugumo-class (19 built)? Yamato-class battleship (everyone's going to want this) and Kongo-class battle-cruiser. These were the faster battleships that might escort carrier groups. Of course, we users could mix and match as we wish.

I believe that's true. But we don't necessarily have to follow history exactly in these maps. They're good for "what if" scenarios...to a limit. My idea of a "what if" is to have opposing carrier forces. What if the UK still had its CATOBAR carriers with F-4K's and Buccaneers? And what if Argentina had picked up a surplus Essex-class ship with Crusaders and Etendards and with anti-submarine and guided missile escorts of the 60's, such as the USS Boston CAG-1 and Canberra CAG-2, and Galveston CLG-3? And what if they had land-based AJS-37's? Well, we don't have most of those in DCS. Wouldn't it be interesting if we did, someday?

Yep. Most seem to want the latest and greatest...to which I say, "Go for it!"

To the best of my knowledge, the "long hull" and "short hull" Essex class carriers had the same size hull below the waterline. Long hull vs short hull is really a misnomer. A more correct name would be "long bow" and "short bow". The original short bow carried only a single quad-mount 40mm AA battery that was limited in upward vision due to the overhanging flight deck. It had more of a 'cargo ship' bow. The long bow carriers had a widened and extended bow that formed more of a clipper bow and provided room for two quad-mount 40mm guns. The flight deck was actually shortened a bit to allow the 40mm mounts and director a better view of the sky. So your so-called "long hull" actually had a slightly shorter flight deck. And at some point, even the "short bow" Essex, CV-9, was modified with the long bow and two quad 40mm mounts. So will it matter if they make a "short bow" or "long bow"? I don't think so, really. Don't worry. Just having an authentic Essex-class carrier in a late-WWII configuration is the main thing. Sounds like they'll get it right. It's going to be fine. I think a previous post, back several pages, illustrated the original Essex armament. Long bow ships mounted more quad 40mm mounts on the port and starboard sides, besides the extra one on the bow. They might have had two quad-mounts on the stern, too. As short bow ships returned for yard work, they were supplemented with additional quad 40mm mounts to improve their AA defenses like the long bow ships. When these Essex-class carriers (long and short bow) were modified with an angled flight deck in the 1950's, the "hurricane" bow was fitted which blended and enclosed the bow right up to the flight deck. All the 40mm and 20mm guns were removed, but some of the open-mount 5-inch guns remained. The islands were usually modified, too, which removed the twin-mount 5-inch turrets. The two C-11 steam catapults were added to 7 of the ships and improved arresting gear and strengthening of the flight deck and other needed improvements for operating jets. Most of the others received a pair of H-8 (I think) hydraulic catapults, suitable for propeller-driven aircraft like the A-1 Skyraider, S-2 Tracker, E-1 Tracer and the A-4B Skyhawk...the only time Skyhawks carried Sidewinder missiles in US Navy service, I believe. They were the detachment of "fighters" to defend those carriers and their anti-submarine aircraft.

I'm all for that! French carriers and British carriers. We already have the Russian carriers. Other countries used carriers they bought from France or UK, right? Australia, Canada, Argentina, Brazil and India...I might be missing some...Italy, maybe. of course, Japan, South Korea and China have built new carriers. I'd like to see the British Illustrious-class Victorious, the Audacious class Eagle and Ark Royal... or at least Ark Royal. As well the "Harrier" carriers. And also the French Clemenceau class (one of which was used by Brazil) and the Charles De Gaulle. And India's modified Kiev-class carrier and their new Vikrant. But there are so many ships and planes and helos we all want. There just aren't enough available programmers, 3D artists and researchers to make them fast enough. Progress is very slow, unfortunately. What we do have is incredibly detailed! But nobody had more carriers or used them to greater effect and extent than the US...by a wide margin...nor had so many types of naval aircraft. Imperial Japan, during WWII was 2nd. That's the fact. So there should be a lot of US carriers. All I see in DCS is the Nimitz-class carriers. Only 5 of the 10 (in 3 subclasses) are covered...and I'm not saying they all should be. And I see the Tarawa class LHA amphibious assault 'carriers'. That's two classes. I think they just put different numbers on the same 3D model and call it a different carrier. I hear that someone is making, or has made, a Forrestal class. Also being made is an Essex class in WWII configuration, for the F4U-1D Corsair. I'd like to see an Essex class carrier as modified with angled flight deck and used in the 60's and early 70's...because the F-8 Crusader and A-4 Skyhawk operated extensively from them. What is also missing are the proper escort ships: cruisers, destroyers and frigates. We have a good set of modern US ships and Russian ships, but not the US WWII ships, nor the IJN ships of WWII. And I don't know how or when we'll ever get them.

Yep, there they are, F-4S Phantom II's. I'm pretty sure that's a "68" on the forward deck and not a "66", so yes, Nimitz. Yes, I would say some RF-8's probably operated from it, too. Must have been a short time where the ship was ready but the F/A-18A's were not, and maybe not enough F-14A's? And still some F-4S squadrons existing, waiting for Hornets. I think the F-4N's (reworked F-4B's) still operated from Coral Sea and/or Midway, too, into the early 80's. Ha... I remember watching an F-18L (I think it was...Navy's prototype from the YF-17) perform at an airshow about that time. And an RF-8G would open the show by performing an afterburner vertical loop over NAS Miramar, popping out photoflash canisters in the clear, blue sky. They made quite a bang and a flash and puff of smoke...about 16 to 20 of them. Of course the afterburner made a crackling thunderous roar, too. I can't find any videos of that. They must have been mostly like fireworks, I don't remember it 'raining' any debris from them. At the time, I had no idea that they were the 'flashbulbs' for aerial cameras...actually, I'm not 100% sure they were...I think they were. I wonder if there were some places they photographed at night where exploding AAA shells fulfilled the roll of photoflash canisters.

Well, Wikipedia articles could be wrong. Yes, I agree. Why the Skywarrior and not Phantoms or Intruders? Skywarrior MTOW ~ 80,000lbs. F-4B ~ 58,000lbs. A-6A Intruder < 60,000lbs. But landing weights are different. Maybe it had to do with landing speeds at landing weight and the capacity of the arrestor gear to bring them to a stop. Maybe the size of the tires, too? I don't think I buy those explanations, either. And if the Phantoms couldn't operate from the Essex class, I imagine the A-5 Vigilante couldn't, either. Here's a picture of the Oriskany with a Skywarrior, wings folded, near the starboard elevator. Looks like Crusaders, Corsair IIs and a Grumman E-1 Tracer, on deck, also. So must be a '68 to '72 era photo.

At first I didn't think too much of this idea. But this might not be such a bad idea. Pretty good size. Not overly detailed cities, I presume. Lots of desert terrain. Not many trees. On the Mediterranean Sea! Probably would not be so tough on HD space? A good air/sea/land battle playground, maybe? Then, again, shift these lines to the east...maybe Egypt, including part of the Mediterranean, the Sinai Peninsula, the Red Sea, southern Israel, western Jordan and western Saudi Arabia would be good. This would include the Suez Canal and possibly the Great Pyramids. Probably a lot more interesting...but probably larger on HD space.

I know this Crusader should be fine from Nimitz-class carriers, but I don't know that F-8's (or F-4 Phantoms) ever operated from them. They operated from Forrestal and Kitty Hawk classes of supercarriers (and the Midway's). But I sure think it would be neat to operate the Crusader it from an angled-deck, Essex-class carrier. There would two subgroups of the 7 Essex-class carriers modified with steam catapults and angled flight decks. The first group of Intrepid, Ticonderoga and Hancock differed mainly in having the right (starboard), deck-edge elevator quite far aft. The second group of Lexington, Bon Homme Richard, Oriskany and Shangri-La had the starboard elevator substantially more forward, just aft of the island. Of course, I would be thrilled just to have the Oriskany. But with two models, they could just put the numbers 11, 14 & 19 on the first model and 16, 31, 34, & 38 on the second model. I'm sure there were minor differences between the individual ships of the 7, just as there were minor changes in armaments and antennas of each ship between yard periods. I think just the two elevator differences and their nominal radars and armaments configuration during the mid-1960's would be good enough. These 7 Essex-class carriers filled in until more supercarriers could be built, but the F-4 Phantom and A-6 Intruder were too heavy for the Essex ships, so the lighter F-8's and A-4's did the job on these ships. The F-8J would be perfect from these ships, along with the A-4E-C Skyhawk. Then maybe some pretty well detailed AI versions of the EKA-3B Skywarrior (tanker), E-1A Tracer (AEW) and SH-3A or D Sea King (or SH-2 Seasprite) helicopters and it should be all set! And when the A-7E comes along, we'll be able to add that to these ships, too. (It was actually the A-7A & B on these ships...but close enough.) So, hopefully, the F4U Corsair and the WWII Essex, plus this version of the Essex-class when the F-8J comes out! I can hope, anyway. We'll see what happens. Money in hand, waiting for the F-8J !

Ok, I'll forget every variant of every make and model, then. The sim has apparently reached its end. I'll check back in 2024, maybe...or maybe not and see if anything new has come along. I don't understand how the F-14, F-16, F-18, AV-8B, and A-10C and so forth ever came into the sim if it's all just too difficult. I'll get off the forum.