How will the Super Carrier be used in existing Missions?

I get where you're coming from, and I'd kind of like to see some autoupgrade myself, but I just don't see how it's practical.

 

Automatically upgrading or switching would be bad if any of

- multiplayer

- 'decorative' objects have been placed on it by the mission maker

- you want the mission to be plainer, without any extra procedures, obstacles, or other features used by the SC.

 

 

I'm guessing it will say in the store entry that you will need carrier capable planes separately from the carrier itself.

So let's say you just bought the bundle, and you strap on your f-18 go do the mini campaign... Wouldn't you be expecting to see your new carrier... But instead of the new hotness you get the old carrier... Booooo! :cry: In seriousness just some clarity would be cool it would take me a few mins to edit the missions one at a time, just before I use them... But there is quite a few

So let's say you just bought the bundle, and you strap on your f-18 go do the mini campaign... Wouldn't you be expecting to see your new carrier... But instead of the new hotness you get the old carrier... Booooo! :cry:

Well, unless you intend to play as a carrier (LSO, airboss station), there won’t be much change for you as a pilot - only the launch will be slightly more immersive with the crew and later in development the possibility of crashing into the barricade.

Even if it doesn't work with the old missions, who cares?

 

I mean we had plenty of time with the "old" carrier, and now we are about to step in a new area. And to be honest: I can't think of any Hornet or Tomcat pilot, that doesn't want the new carrier. I mean we love carrier ops, so why don't step up to the next level?

 

This will be a great experience and within the blink of an eye our cool guys that create our missions will support us with new, amazing missions.

It would be great to have new missions with the supercarrier included, but if people can't use their current missions and they aren't given (ie for free) versions of those missions using the supercarrier, some customers will be really mad. ED might want to offer refunds to those who aren't happy about being sold a module without notice of incompatibilities.

Of course all of that is contingent on the supercarrier not being available in current missions - if it is we're golden :)

Could we please have an official word on the OP?

You people will bitch about anything, and ask questions with terribly obvious answers. How much hand holding is too much?

The supercarrier is not a UI. It is actually a wholly separate unit. Which means it works the same way as for every other unit in the game. If it's not in the mission, it's not in the mission. That does not break or in any way invalidate pre-existing products anymore than adding the Stennis ''broke'' Vinson missions. New missions will be created, invariably, and some may even be retrofitted but I wouldn't hold my breath on that as it didn't happen with the Stennis.

You people will bitch about anything, and ask questions with terribly obvious answers. How much hand holding is too much?

 

The supercarrier is not a UI. It is actually a wholly separate unit. Which means it works the same way as for every other unit in the game. If it's not in the mission, it's not in the mission. That does not break or in any way invalidate pre-existing products anymore than adding the Stennis ''broke'' Vinson missions. New missions will be created, invariably, and some may even be retrofitted but I wouldn't hold my breath on that as it didn't happen with the Stennis.

I was neither complaining nor did I say it would "break" any mission, I said that people will care. It is nothing like the Stennis and the Vinson because no one bought either of those. This would be more like selling an improved Caucasus map and it being incompatible with current missions - which I would be fine with, but again, people will care. Are you saying no one will?

All I'm getting at is that sc compatibility with current missions is something that many will want clarified. Personally, I would still buy it, and I would hope many others would too, but let people know where they will get content for the module from.

Zhukov, if you're going to reply, please do everyone the courtesy of reading a post properly before spouting off.

Of course people ''will care'', somebody will complain about virtually anything. What of it? Will some people gripe? Yes, they will. Should anybody care? Not really.

If you already have the Hornet and Persian Gulf map it comes with a huge discount! Which in that case I would and did get... it was a no brainer for me. But I also love Carrier Ops and the Hornet, so it was well worth it.

@ED - I would like to know the answer to this before purchasing. If I have to go back into existing stock hornet missions or any campaigns/missions I downloaded or purchased and manually add this in, I will probably not buy. Likewise I want to make sure future "official" missions or campaigns that I buy will make use of it without me having to modify everything. It would eventually be a mess to keep track of...

I don't think any clarification is needed at all. The Stennis is a FREE carrier, it is THE stock carrier for DCS. Everyone has the Stennis, even if you don't own the F-18 or Tomcat. Why would they change ALL campaigns, ALL training missions, and ALL user missions to switch the carriers? Not everyone is going to buy the SC, so the default needs to remain the Stennis.

If the plane gets updated with new weapons, you still have to go in and swap that stuff out MANUALLY. Sure they may add more missions and training that uses the SC but shouldn't remove-replace the existing ones. Can you imagine the ball busting that non-SC owners would have if all the missions got changed to SC? The pitchforks would be the size of the Empire State Building. They have never given us the option with other modules to easily swap them in and out (thinking C-101 versions here, not F-18 to F-14) so why would they now.

I kinda agree with zhukov here that the answer is right in you face and the question shouldn't need to be asked.

For those talking about the SC Stennis, they already said that would be much later in EA, but it still wouldn't be a replacement or even two Stennis carriers. You would have the stock Stennis, and a SC Stennis. Not that hard

I don't think any clarification is needed at all. The Stennis is a FREE carrier, it is THE stock carrier for DCS. Everyone has the Stennis, even if you don't own the F-18 or Tomcat. Why would they change ALL campaigns, ALL training missions, and ALL user missions to switch the carriers? Not everyone is going to buy the SC, so the default needs to remain the Stennis.

 

If the plane gets updated with new weapons, you still have to go in and swap that stuff out MANUALLY. Can you imagine the ball busting that non-SC owners would have if all the missions got changed to SC? The pitchforks would be the size of the Empire State Building. They have never given us the option with other modules to easily swap them in and out (thinking C-101 versions here, not F-18 to F-14) so why would they now.

 

I kinda agree with zhukov here that the answer is right in you face and the question shouldn't need to be asked.

 

For those talking about the SC Stennis, they already said that would be much later in EA, but it still wouldn't be a replacement or even two Stennis carriers. You would have the stock Stennis, and a SC Stennis. Not that hard

One would hope ED are aspiring to higher standards than Aviodev. As for swapping out weapons, I don't remember ever having to replace an exact equivalent, like an AIM-120B for an AIM-120B. Even if that did happen, if ED sold - I don't know, a different block AIM-120B as an add-on, wouldn't it be reasonable for a potential customer to ask if they will have to swap out payloads in missions in order to use them?

A lot of people won't want to try creating missions themselves or downloading missions made by other end users (without the voiceovers or other enhancements people get in campaigns that come in aircraft modules), so there may be no way to use the supercarrier module if they did buy. Which once again is fine - every product does not have to suit every consumer - but people will want to know that.

ED can choose whether to respond to this question or not, but I don't see why anyone should be jumping on someone for asking an as-yet unaddressed product question. I considered this question myself before deciding to buy it regardless of whether I'll ever use it, but it is something that many will consider in their purchasing decision. If ED want to leave it as an open question that's up to them.

I should be super clear, I have already bought this, I'm kind of surprised at some of the tone of responses to the question, to each their own. I still want to know, and I would love ED to answer; I'm not expecting the default to change for people who haven't purchased the module... But if you have why would you want to use the old carrier (single player), I agree there is definitely a series of potential arguments for why you would want the choice in multilayer.

One would hope ED are aspiring to higher standards than Aviodev. As for swapping out weapons, I don't remember ever having to replace an exact equivalent, like an AIM-120B for an AIM-120B. Even if that did happen, if ED sold - I don't know, a different block AIM-120B as an add-on, wouldn't it be reasonable for a potential customer to ask if they will have to swap out payloads in missions in order to use them?

 

A lot of people won't want to try creating missions themselves or downloading missions made by other end users (without the voiceovers or other enhancements people get in campaigns that come in aircraft modules), so there may be no way to use the supercarrier module if they did buy. Which once again is fine - every product does not have to suit every consumer - but people will want to know that.

 

ED can choose whether to respond to this question or not, but I don't see why anyone should be jumping on someone for asking an as-yet unaddressed product question. I considered this question myself before deciding to buy it regardless of whether I'll ever use it, but it is something that many will consider in their purchasing decision. If ED want to leave it as an open question that's up to them.

A. You completely glossed over the fact that the Stennis is FREE, and the SC is not. The standard, the default, the everyone has this fact of the matter is the Stennis must remain the core module for carrier operations (at this point anyway, hopefully later down the road that changes). I'm sure NEW missions/training will be used/created for the SC. You want to use it in an older mission/campaign, YOU need to load it up in the mission editor and make the change. If a campaign designer wants to keep his/her campaign up to date, they need to update it. This does not fall on ED to do in any shape form or fashion.

B. The Stennis we have in game IS NOT an exact equivalent to the SC (using your words). Sure it's reasonable for to ask, but common sense should tell you the answer. It's right in your face. Again your point here is kinda busted as they are not the same units.

C. Since you're sure "a lot of people" won't want to deal with the mission editor, I'm sure "a lot of mission/campaign designers" will want to update their content with at least the option of SC vs non-SC versions. Again, this isn't an ED issue. So they have no answer to give one way or the other.

D. I'm not trying to jump all over anyone, I'm just trying to get people to actually think about what they are asking. This entire thread (hell even this post) is ME ME ME. "I don't want to do the leg work." "ED should have this done for me." I I I ME ME ME. These two ships are not the same, they are not identical, they are different.

Like I said in my previous post, I'm sure (I'm not ED, just stating my thoughts) ED will have new missions/training content to go along with the SC just like they have done for every other one of their modules. Their is no reason to think SC owners will not have content to use starting DAY 1!

A. You completely glossed over the fact that the Stennis is FREE, and the SC is not. The standard, the default, the everyone has this fact of the matter is the Stennis must remain the core module for carrier operations (at this point anyway, hopefully later down the road that changes). I'm sure NEW missions/training will be used/created for the SC. You want to use it in an older mission/campaign, YOU need to load it up in the mission editor and make the change. If a campaign designer wants to keep his/her campaign up to date, they need to update it. This does not fall on ED to do in any shape form or fashion.

 

B. The Stennis we have in game IS NOT an exact equivalent to the SC (using your words). Sure it's reasonable for to ask, but common sense should tell you the answer. It's right in your face. Again your point here is kinda busted as they are not the same units.

 

C. Since you're sure "a lot of people" won't want to deal with the mission editor, I'm sure "a lot of mission/campaign designers" will want to update their content with at least the option of SC vs non-SC versions. Again, this isn't an ED issue. So they have no answer to give one way or the other.

 

D. I'm not trying to jump all over anyone, I'm just trying to get people to actually think about what they are asking. This entire thread (hell even this post) is ME ME ME. "I don't want to do the leg work." "ED should have this done for me." I I I ME ME ME. These two ships are not the same, they are not identical, they are different.

 

Like I said in my previous post, I'm sure (I'm not ED, just stating my thoughts) ED will have new missions/training content to go along with the SC just like they have done for every other one of their modules. Their is no reason to think SC owners will not have content to use starting DAY 1!

Ok then, just to be super clear: I believe with every fiber of my being that the Stennis is free and the supercarrier is not.

A. I never said that ED or anyone else had any responsibility to update anything. What I was saying was that people will want to know how and if the supercarrier is accommodated in existing content. I don't know why this is difficult for you to understand.

B. True, they are not exact equivalents. You acknowledge the original question as a reasonable question to ask, but then say it's a question with a commonsense answer right in front of people's faces. Do you think maybe seeking facts by asking the question is better than presuming?

C. That is the core question here, so why don't we let ED decide whether to respond?

D. Such a cheek, thinking a company might be taking steps to make their product more attractive, and talk about it to boot! You seem to have missed that this thread is not a complaint about a potential lack of content, it is simply a question if there will be any. "No" is a perfectly acceptable answer, but one I believe we should allow ED to give for themselves.

Just some idle thinking here. (For me, I have ordered the SC so I don't care how things go.)

But...

What if there is NO SC Stennis? Just the other carriers and, to make up for the missing Stennis SC, perhaps a USS Trump? :megalol:. In MP, what if a non-owner CAN approach the new SC but can't trap nor launch -- just bolter or fly off into the drink. If somehow, someone manages to stay safely on the SC, the MP server can just boot the errant player. Otherwise, the owners of the SC can trap and launch.

In some of the current MP servers, they have some sort of code that penalizes errant pilots who overspeed on taxiways. The same could be applied to pilots touching the SC without ownership (being warned if in the groove at the right speed with needles.)

How will the Super Carrier be used in existing Missions?

 

It's very simple: Creator of mission, if he/she buys SC asset, can replace stock carrier asset with new SC one. If he does not buy SC asset or he does not want to replace stock carrier asset with new SC one, you can do it yourself in mission editor (unless mission is protected, then - tough luck)

As I understand it the Vinson was not replaced in original missions with the Stennis because it would break scripting, etc, inside missions and it would be a pain to alter. As the SC module is quite literally A LOT MORE than simply a visual update, it's likely drop-in/drop-out will also break something. It's worth a shot, but I wouldn't hold my breath that it won't screw something up.

@Horn

Questions in general are fine, but the addage ''no such thing as a dumb question'' is and always has been bollocks. There are indeed dumb questions, and this qualifies due to having a blatantly obvious answer.

Ok then, just to be super clear: I believe with every fiber of my being that the Stennis is free and the supercarrier is not.

 

A. I never said that ED or anyone else had any responsibility to update anything. What I was saying was that people will want to know how and if the supercarrier is accommodated in existing content. I don't know why this is difficult for you to understand.

 

B. True, they are not exact equivalents. You acknowledge the original question as a reasonable question to ask, but then say it's a question with a commonsense answer right in front of people's faces. Do you think maybe seeking facts by asking the question is better than presuming?

 

C. That is the core question here, so why don't we let ED decide whether to respond?

 

D. Such a cheek, thinking a company might be taking steps to make their product more attractive, and talk about it to boot! You seem to have missed that this thread is not a complaint about a potential lack of content, it is simply a question if there will be any. "No" is a perfectly acceptable answer, but one I believe we should allow ED to give for themselves.

My feelings follow along the lines =4c=Nikola posted right after you. I don't know why it's so hard to understand why the answer is already there. Has any other module, or even free content, gone back and changed a previous made mission/training/campaign? Not counting patch upgrades, I can't think of a single one, please tell me if I'm wrong. That being said, why do people think it will suddenly happen now? Why would ED do that? You would have to know which people purchased the SC vs those that didn't (not that hard honestly). Then you would have to update two different sets of Open Betas, one with the SC and one without so you know mess up the content of those that didn't or did purchase the SC. It adds a tonne of crap to the system that simply doesn't need to be there. Again as Nikola said, you want it in a mission, learn how to do that yourself.

A. Again, has this ever happened before? They did recreate the A-10A Campaign for the A-10C, but it was still added as NEW content, not a change to the FC3 A-10A campaign.

B. It Has Never Happened Before. Why do it just for this module? It makes no sense. It is a matter of common sense. There is nothing wrong with asking the question, I can repeat that a hundred times over. But that doesn't shield it from flak.

C. Clearly we do not see each other point here, so I'm scrapping this waste of time.

D. Ha, again you missed the point of what I was trying to say. YOU want to fly these older missions with the new SC, YOU update them. But that may be too hard.

My feelings follow along the lines =4c=Nikola posted right after you. I don't know why it's so hard to understand why the answer is already there. Has any other module, or even free content, gone back and changed a previous made mission/training/campaign? Not counting patch upgrades, I can't think of a single one, please tell me if I'm wrong. That being said, why do people think it will suddenly happen now? Why would ED do that? You would have to know which people purchased the SC vs those that didn't (not that hard honestly). Then you would have to update two different sets of Open Betas, one with the SC and one without so you know mess up the content of those that didn't or did purchase the SC. It adds a tonne of crap to the system that simply doesn't need to be there. Again as Nikola said, you want it in a mission, learn how to do that yourself.

 

A. Again, has this ever happened before? They did recreate the A-10A Campaign for the A-10C, but it was still added as NEW content, not a change to the FC3 A-10A campaign.

 

B. It Has Never Happened Before. Why do it just for this module? It makes no sense. It is a matter of common sense. There is nothing wrong with asking the question, I can repeat that a hundred times over. But that doesn't shield it from flak.

 

C. Clearly we do not see each other point here, so I'm scrapping this waste of time.

 

D. Ha, again you missed the point of what I was trying to say. YOU want to fly these older missions with the new SC, YOU update them. But that may be too hard.

Edit: I did have another reply posted, but then I considered the example I'm setting. I'm going to let you have that last word, or any more you might want to add, and leave this right here.

Not a complaint, but it does seem needlessly confusing to have chosen the Stennis as one of the five. It appears to imply some sort of in place replacement. If it doesn’t replace Stennis “classic” they could have just chosen a different 5th ship and left it at that.

Edit: I did have another reply posted, but then I considered the example I'm setting. I'm going to let you have that last word, or any more you might want to add, and leave this right here.

Understood, enjoy your flights man, sorry we could see each others points on this.

Honestly, I would have been happy with the three we'll see in EA myself. These days, the most I see in a mission are 2 Nimitz-class carriers anyway.

Not a complaint, but it does seem needlessly confusing to have chosen the Stennis as one of the five. It appears to imply some sort of in place replacement. If it doesn’t replace Stennis “classic” they could have just chosen a different 5th ship and left it at that.

They didn't ''choose'' the Stennis. The Nimitz class carrier is divided into several subclasses. The SC module is not a generic ''Nimitz'' nor is it a specific ship, it is the entire subclass (Theodore Roosevelt, I believe), which includes the Stennis and several other ships. Think of it as aircraft Blocks. There is the F-16, a generic label. Then there's F-16C. Then there's F-16C Block 50 and from there you get to individual aircraft.

The supercarrier is a Nimitz class Carrier, Theodore Roosevelt sub-class (effectively after the first few ships they made some design alterations starting with TR and ongoing ships).

You understand they have specifically named stennis as one of the 2 that will be modelling post ea right?

It’s really obvious that it won’t go back and automatically update old missions and campaigns. Mission makers will have to swap it over to the SC version and release a different version of the campaign/mission. This isn’t that difficult.

To expect anything else is going to lead to disappointment.