Carrier Elevators? - Page 3 - ED Forums
 


Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-23-2020, 06:30 PM   #21
Tippis
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 831
Default

Yeah, it's more a case of it might be a neat spawn point for cold starts, but that would also introduce all kinds of queueing issues where the game has to keep track of when elevators are occupied and/or blocked, and being able to deal with conflicts when other plane spawns are on their way but someone is holding up all the traffic.

If it was added, it would be an interesting place to attach a new scripting trigger — a special-purpose zone that can be used to detect when a plane is properly landed and parked so as to trigger an end-mission action…

…now if only the end-mission action wasn't broken.
Tippis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2020, 05:46 AM   #22
Jackjack171
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2019
Posts: 56
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zhukov032186 View Post
There's no reason you'd be riding the plane down there anyway. Ground crew handle all that, not the pilots. You wouldn't even have engines on.
+1

The Aircrew hop out, if its an "up" jet, the jet is refueled/re-armed if needed and another crew takes the jet for the next cycle.
Jackjack171 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2020, 10:40 AM   #23
pete_auau
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 181
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 26-J39 View Post
Apparently functional already with AI aircraft. Get a bunch to land on the carrier and they will go down the elevator into the hanger. Haven't tested myself but it was posted on hoggit.
tested this a long time ago and it works
pete_auau is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2020, 09:19 AM   #24
cptmrcalm
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 25
Default

I'd want something significantly more advanced that what comes with the game. Seems pretty good though.



If elevators allow you to roll into the hanger under deck - then that is the kind of significant advance I am talking about. In which case - i'd buy it.


Its the first thing I and others asked about. Not the highest priority for everyone which is fine. But for me and a few others, it would certainly create a lot of interest.


That with the AI crew of course.
cptmrcalm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2020, 11:15 AM   #25
Chaogen
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: Georgia, US
Posts: 107
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cptmrcalm View Post
I'd want something significantly more advanced that what comes with the game. Seems pretty good though.



If elevators allow you to roll into the hanger under deck - then that is the kind of significant advance I am talking about. In which case - i'd buy it.


Its the first thing I and others asked about. Not the highest priority for everyone which is fine. But for me and a few others, it would certainly create a lot of interest.


That with the AI crew of course.

Yeah. And comes with a massive disadvantage in terms of PC Resources. More Polygons and Texture Maps to render. For something you spend less than 5% of your "flight time" on? So those of us flying VR on MP can sit and watch a slideshow of a carrier? There are more than enough museums to go visit if you want to see what the hanger deck of an Aircraft Carrier looks like. Btw its really not that interesting. So exactly which "significant advantage" are you referring to?



This Carrier Module is in support of simulating Flight OPS. Not the other way around. And in Flight OPS, as we have very clearly established, you wouldn't go below deck. Its fine to animate A/C being moved below by AI Deck Crew, which is at least predictable and doesn't require programmers to address every player action, on a deck they shouldn't be in, let alone spawn 2 hour GR video.
Chaogen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2020, 03:27 PM   #26
||CaptHawk
Member
 
||CaptHawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 218
Default

Yeh, maybe have it so the lower deck is open at the back, we could land right to the lower deck, no need for the elevators

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk
__________________

AMP WIZARD "Forest Gumble" "When the air becomes electric....It's like a box of chocolates"
Windows 10 Pro 64 bit | Intel Core i7 3770K @4.2 | Asus P8Z77-V Pro Thunderbolt | 32GB Patriot Limited Addition DDR3 1600MHz Ram | EVGA GTX 1070 SC @1594MHz/4000 MHz 8GB | 1x42" Multi Touch Screen and 1x27" 4k widescreen|Saitek x52 Pro|
||CaptHawk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2020, 04:35 PM   #27
Lunatic98
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 1,473
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaogen View Post
Yeah. And comes with a massive disadvantage in terms of PC Resources. More Polygons and Texture Maps to render.
Dude, the current Stennis already has animated elevators, in fact so does the old Vinson and Kuznetsov... Oh no muh performance! If only they hadn't modelled this cuboid moving up and down!

You're seriously over-blowing such a simple, trivial thing to be this oh so massive (your words not mine) disadvantage, worse one that's actually already present (albeit to some degree, not fully implemented) on current assets.

To put things into perspective, the current Stennis tops out at 324,000 polygons, the Hornet (with no weapons mind) tops out at 240,000. So 1.3 empty (apart from pylons) Hornets is the same number of Polygons as one Stennis... And if that doesn't put things into perspective, wait until you see the Tomcat... An empty one (again just pylons) tops off at 716,000 polygons. Well over double one Stennis. And that's just one, wait until you put 2 or 4 up on Deck...

Hopefully you're seeing what went wrong here. You're more than welcome to check with the modelviewer...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaogen View Post
For something you spend less than 5% of your "flight time" on?
What point are you trying to make here? What else do I spend <5% of my flight time on? Weapons employment? Countermeasure set-up? Lights? In fact what's the point of taxiing? it doesn't even take up the majority of my time!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaogen View Post
So those of us flying VR on MP can sit and watch a slideshow of a carrier?
Again, hard to believe that you think the freaking elevators are going to be nail in the coffin for performance... As opposed to say the deck crew, or the crazy level of detailing...

Also, funny thing about DCS, it has one of those things called a mission editor, it's actually pretty useful, pretty intuitive too I'd say. What it does is that it allows players to edit their missions to whatever they want them to be. So if you don't want to sit through something or include something, don't add them - simple as. Don't want to sit through a cold-start? Start from hot. Don't want long transit times? Start closer to your target. It really isn't that hard. Sure MP takes that a little out of your hands, but then you can always choose a server that suits you, I'm sure you're able to contact mission editors or discuss feedback if there's something you don't like. We have a whole forum section dedicated to missions, and another for multiplayer...

I mean you're quite literally throwing your toys out of your pram on this one.

I mean if I said "I don't want no damn SA-5 in my mission" That's fine, no-one is forcing me to spawn one in.

Tell you one other thing about DCS, it also has something called a settings menu, it allows you to turn some features you don't want off, and the ones you do, on. If you're getting poor performance, it's got you covered too! You can turn settings down.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaogen View Post
There are more than enough museums to go visit if you want to see what the hanger deck of an Aircraft Carrier looks like. Btw its really not that interesting. So exactly which "significant advantage" are you referring to?
Pfft what!?

There are plenty of airshows and museums where you can see basically everything wished for in DCS ever. Don't like the clouds? Well just go outside! "But I want to fly it" Simple! Just become a pilot!

Really? Seriously?

Also, here's another quick FYI for you, what you find uninteresting just maybe, might not be what others find uninteresting. I personally find 2010+ with completely glass cockpits uninteresting, I get much more of a kick out of the more hands on stuff that you get with older aircraft like the Tomcat and MiG-21Bis - and I'm 20 freaking 1! *

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaogen View Post
This Carrier Module is in support of simulating Flight OPS. Not the other way around. And in Flight OPS, as we have very clearly established, you wouldn't go below deck.
Quick correction, this super carrier module is supposed to simulate, wait for it... An aircraft carrier. I mean of all things! The hangars contribute just a teeny tiny part into making the aircraft carrier, more of an aircraft carrier. And no, like it or not aircraft handling, including bringing them up from the hangar (obviously where applicable) is a part of flight ops, just maybe a minor one and not from the pilot's perspective, which you are absolutely right on.

And what about smaller vessels? Where you can't physically support lots of aircraft up on deck, and for sorties where you have lots of aircraft in the air, you don't have much of a choice than to bring aircraft up from the hangar, arm them, fuel them, get in them and go. Like it or not aircraft handling, including bringing them up from the hangar is a major part of flight ops, just maybe not from the pilot's perspective.

True, pilots have no business being in the hangar, whatsoever (though only because procedure says so, it says so for an absolutely good reason, and having aircraft moving around in the hangar under their own power would be a massive safety hazard, I'd even describe it as terminally stupid to do so. But here's the thing, DCS is a sandbox, and like it or not as a sandbox, it means people can do whatever they like. They can do things as stupid, as inaccurate, as dangerous as they like. Or they can do the most true-to-life, historically accurate, everything by the book as they like... And that's the way it should be. IMO if it's physically, demonstrably possible then ideally we should be able to do wherever feasible.

And who says DCS can only ever be exclusively about the pilot experience? Sure it should be the number one thing, but being the number one thing and the only thing are 2 different things we already have (albeit limited), a whole host of ground vehicles, including unarmed ones. GCIs, ATCs even boom-operators all have been wished for...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaogen View Post
Its fine to animate A/C being moved below by AI Deck Crew, which is at least predictable and doesn't require programmers to address every player action, on a deck they shouldn't be in, let alone spawn 2 hour GR video.
What? How is it any different from any other surface in DCS? Sure there's the deck sliding, once that is sussed what are you going to need to change? Like it or not how AI aircraft interact with surfaces, is pretty much identical to how player aircraft do... Sure correct me if I'm wrong by all means, but I'm seriously failing to see the difference from any other surface? One more time you can already do this stuff on current assets, including mods. It's there, it's already present, it's just not fully implemented yet. Sure a few teething bugs, some a fair bit more prohibitive than others, but they'll almost certainly get fixed, and once those do get fixed then its done. What's the problem exactly?

Okay rant over... I'll just say this one more time... this carrier module costs $50 USD ignoring any discounts... Why on Earth is anyone so fervently arguing for less features!? Especially ones we basically already have. It is absolutely beyond me.

Sure I'm not saying that hangars or elevators are high priority at all, there are far bigger fish to fry... For me, I'd simply rather have them than not, ideally I'd rather ships be as true to life in form and function as possible, does that mean absolutely everything, full interior etc? Not at all, but anything that can be added gets a plus in my book. Again of course some aspects should get to go higher up the priority pedestal than others - absolutely.


* Yes I bought the Hornet, I do really like it and enjoy it and I absolutely do not regret buying it, but it's more capability with this one, as well as for me having that IMO, amazing cockpit. Rather than the actual experience of flying it, which is very easy, it basically does it all for you, though that's also beneficial to me as I'm currently playing on a 15" laptop, with no throttle and no rudder, so having forgiving aircraft is a plus for me.
__________________
Modules I own: F-14A/B, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, AJS-37, F-5E, Ka-50, MiG-21Bis, FC3, MiG-15Bis, A-10C, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, P-51D, CA, C-101, Hawk

System (RIP my old PC): Dell XPS 15 9570 w/ Intel i7-8750H, NVIDIA GTX 1050Ti Max-Q, 16GB DDR4, 500GB SSD

VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro

Dreams: https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/qdrM4n

Last edited by Lunatic98; 02-10-2020 at 11:53 PM.
Lunatic98 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2020, 07:27 PM   #28
=4c=Nikola
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 994
Default

^tl;dr

I'm against hangar deck modeled. Nothing to see down there regarding flight ops.
__________________
Do not expect fairness.
The times of chivalry and fair competition are long gone.
=4c=Nikola is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2020, 08:13 PM   #29
Mr. Big.”Biggs”
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Posts: 220
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lunatic98 View Post
Dude, the current Stennis already has animated elevators, in fact so does the old Vinson and Kuznetsov... Oh no muh performance! If only they hadn't modelled this cuboid moving up and down!

You're seriously over-blowing such a simple, trivial thing to be this oh so massive (your words not mine) disadvantage, worse one that's actually already present (albeit to some degree, not fully implemented) on current assets.

To put things into perspective, the current Stennis tops out at 324,000 polygons, the Hornet (with no weapons mind) tops out at 240,000. So 1.3 empty (apart from pylons) Hornets is the same number of Polygons as one Stennis... And if that doesn't put things into perspective, wait until you see the Tomcat... An empty one (again just pylons) tops off at 716,000 polygons. Well over double one Stennis. And that's just one, wait until you put 2 or 4 up on Deck...

Hopefully you're seeing what went wrong here. You're more than welcome to check with the modelviewer...



What point are you trying to make here? What else do I spend <5% of my flight time on? Weapons employment? Countermeasure set-up? Lights? In fact what's the point of taxiing? it doesn't even take up the majority of my time!

Again, hard to believe that you think the freaking elevators are going to be nail in the coffin for performance... As opposed to say the deck crew, or the crazy level of detailing...

Also, funny thing about DCS, it has one of those things called a mission editor, it's actually pretty useful, pretty intuitive too I'd say. What it does is that it allows players to edit their missions to whatever they want them to be. So if you don't want to sit through something or include something, don't add them - simple as. Don't want to sit through a cold-start? Start from hot. Don't want long transit times? Start closer to your target. It really isn't that hard. Sure MP takes that a little out of your hands, but then you can always choose a server that suits you, I'm sure you're able to contact mission editors or discuss feedback if there's something you don't like. We have a whole forum section dedicated to missions, and another for multiplayer...

I mean you're quite literally throwing your toys out of your pram on this one.

I mean if I said "I don't want no damn SA-5 in my mission" That's fine, no-one is forcing me to spawn one in.

Tell you one other thing about DCS, it also has something called a settings menu, it allows you to turn some features you don't want off, and the ones you do, on. If you're getting poor performance, it's got you covered too! You can turn settings down.

Pfft what!?

There are plenty of airshows and museums where you can see basically everything wished for in DCS ever. Don't like the clouds? Well just go outside! "But I want to fly it" Simple! Just become a pilot!

Really? Seriously?

Also, here's another quick FYI for you, what you find uninteresting just maybe, might not be what others find uninteresting. I personally find 2010+ full glass cockpit aircraft with completely glass cockpits uninteresting, I get much more of a kick out of the more hands on stuff that you get with older aircraft like the Tomcat and MiG-21Bis - and I'm 20 freaking 1! *



Quick correction, this super carrier module is supposed to simulate, wait for it... An aircraft carrier. I mean of all things! The hangars contribute just a teeny tiny part into making the aircraft carrier, more of an aircraft carrier. And no, like it or not aircraft handling, including bringing them up from the hangar (obviously where applicable) is a significant part of flight ops, just maybe not from the pilot's perspective, which you are absolutely right on.

And what about smaller vessels? Where you can't physically support lots of aircraft up on deck, and for sorties where you have lots of aircraft in the air, you don't have much of a choice than to bring aircraft up from the hangar, arm them, fuel them, get in them and go. Like it or not aircraft handling, including bringing them up from the hangar is a major part of flight ops, just maybe not from the pilot's perspective.

True, pilots have no business being in the hangar, whatsoever (though only because procedure says so, it says so for an absolutely good reason, and having aircraft moving around in the hangar under their own power would be a massive safety hazard, I'd even describe it as terminally stupid to do so. But here's the thing, DCS is a sandbox, and like it or not as a sandbox, it means people can do whatever they like. They can do things as stupid, as inaccurate, as dangerous as they like. Or they can do the most true-to-life, historically accurate, everything by the book as they like... And that's the way it should be. IMO if it's physically, demonstrably possible then ideally we should be able to do wherever feasible.

And who says DCS can only ever be exclusively about the pilot experience? Sure it should be the number one thing, but being the number one thing and the only thing are 2 different things we already have (albeit limited), a whole host of ground vehicles, including unarmed ones. GCIs, ATCs even boom-operators all have been wished for...



What? How is it any different from any other surface in DCS? Sure there's the deck sliding, once that is sussed what are you going to need to change? Like it or not how AI aircraft interact with surfaces, is pretty much identical to how player aircraft do... Sure correct me if I'm wrong by all means, but I'm seriously failing to see the difference from any other surface? One more time you can already do this stuff on current assets including mods. It's there, it's already present, it's just not fully implemented yet. Sure a few teething bugs, some a fair bit more prohibitive than others, but they'll almost certainly get fixed, and once those do get fixed then its done. What's the problem exactly?

Okay rant over... I'll just say this one more time... this carrier module costs $50 USD ignoring any discounts... Why on Earth is anyone so fervently arguing for less features than ones we basically already have? It is absolutely beyond me.

Sure I'm not saying that hangars or elevators are high priority at all, there are far bigger fish to fry... For me, I'd rather have them than not, ideally I'd rather ships be as true to life in form and function as possible, does that mean absolutely everything, full interior etc? Not at all, but anything that can be added gets a plus in my book. Again of course some aspects should get to go higher up the priority pedestal than others - absolutely.


* Yes I bought the Hornet, I do really like it and enjoy it and I absolutely do not regret buying it, but it's more capability with this one, as well as for me having that IMO, amazing cockpit. Rather than the actual experience of flying it, which is very easy, it basically does it all for you, though that's also beneficial to me as I'm currently playing on a 15" laptop, with no throttle and no rudder, so having forgiving aircraft is a plus for me.
So you would rather unrealistically ride elevators up and down than fly a plane? Maybe you need sim city??
__________________
I9 (5Ghz turbo)2080ti 64Gb 3200 ram. 3 drives. A sata 2tb storage and 2 M.2 drives. 1 is 1tb, 1 is 500gb.
Valve Index, Virpil t50 cm2 stick, t50 base and v3 throttle w mini stick. MFG crosswind pedals.
Mr. Big.”Biggs” is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2020, 08:15 PM   #30
=4c=Nikola
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 994
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Big.”Biggs” View Post
So you would rather unrealistically ride elevators up and down than fly a plane? Maybe you need sim city??
It’s a game dude. If you don’t like the suggestion don’t use it if they choose to implement it.
__________________
Do not expect fairness.
The times of chivalry and fair competition are long gone.
=4c=Nikola is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 07:40 PM. vBulletin Skin by ForumMonkeys. Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.