DCS: W Carriers Modules Wishes

There does come a point where the level of accuracy of this sim raises above the level of ken or caring for the majority of members here. I could not agree more with BlackLion's suggestion regarding the ability to apply different hull numbers to the model in order to lend some authenticity to the missions, depending on their time period. However, I think it would be way too much to ask if ED to provide different 3D models to reflect the different antennas and defensive weaponry installed on the various hull numbers. It would be nice though, to have a generic Forrestal class built with the various hull numbers for them. :pilotfly:

There were some changes to self defense weapons as well, and if ED is also including hull numbers for Reagan and Bush, they have different island designs, a different hull form, only three arresting wires, and their flight decks are angled to port an extra half a degree. There were also some differences in catapults between Ike and Vinson if memory serves, and then again between Truman and Reagan.

Didn't know about the recent changes to the Reagan and Bush, of course things are bound to evolve since the class leader was commissioned 36 years before the most recent CVN-77.

However, I think they could pick 1 typical example or 2 different versions that reflect the most common configuration.

There does come a point where the level of accuracy of this sim raises above the level of ken or caring for the majority of members here. I could not agree more with BlackLion's suggestion regarding the ability to apply different hull numbers to the model in order to lend some authenticity to the missions, depending on their time period. However, I think it would be way too much to ask if ED to provide different 3D models to reflect the different antennas and defensive weaponry installed on the various hull numbers. It would be nice though, to have a generic Forrestal class built with the various hull numbers for them. :pilotfly:

I agree, having all of those 3D changes is too much, nor would I notice. :music_whistling:

Just changing the hull number would go a long way and offer the most flexibility to mission planners and scenarios. Having a slightly earlier version of the Nimitz and later configuration would be a big bonus if feasible.

I also would love to someday have a variety of carriers of different eras and classes, but I think that's jumping ahead too much. Hopefully there will be an opportunity to develop more, it will probably depend on how difficult these DLC carriers are to create (I'm hoping they are much simpler than aircraft or terrains).

-Nick

With several different USN aircraft under development and a few different eras; it would be wonderful to be able to change the side-numbers to represent different Nimitz class carriers. DCS really raises the realism bar over other Simulations and it would be great to have the flexibility to represent real events. The Nimitz was the only Nimitz carrier that deployed to the Strait of Hormuz during the late 1980s (from what I read), so the ability to choose different members of the class would allow for more accurate scenarios.

Being able to change the hull number of the carriers is an excellent suggestion. The Nimitz class would also be a reasonable substitute for the Kitty Hawk, Constellation, America and John F Kennedy (same deck configuration). Most people (myself included) probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference without pulling out reference pictures.

I disagree ! Its a main factor to release every DLC as much accurate as possible, so I suggest to focuse on a unique Nimitz class numeral . Perhaps in two or three years a Ford class could be implemented, adding EMALS and so on .

I disagree ! Its a main factor to release every DLC as much accurate as possible, so I suggest to focuse on a unique Nimitz class numeral . Perhaps in two or three years a Ford class could be implemented, adding EMALS and so on .

You're right. With the direction they're heading with being able to explore the ships in first person, there are enough differences between reach ship's internal layout and electronics suite that it would really take more than just slapping a different number in the island and a different name on the fantail. I'm hoping for the Reagan myself, because nostalgia, and because the forum rage from only 3 arresting wires would be hilarious.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

Being able to change the hull number of the carriers is an excellent suggestion. The Nimitz class would also be a reasonable substitute for the Kitty Hawk, Constellation, America and John F Kennedy (same deck configuration). Most people (myself included) probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference without pulling out reference pictures.

I don't see why carriers can't have bort numbers (or an equivalent).

It's just an animation argument applied to an object, just like anything else. Just would need a new tab created for the boat to allow you to set it.

I would like to see proper launch and recovery cycles on the carriers for AI and players. This could be handled by putting the carrier into one of 3 modes:

Launch Mode: Aircraft spawn for a cold start at the rear and starboard parking spaces of the carrier. Bow and waist catapults are used to launch aircraft. No landing possible, inbound aircraft are put into holding patterns.

Recovery Mode: Aircraft land and are parked on the bow and starboard parking spaces. No launches are possible.

Combi Mode. Aircraft land and simultaneously launch from the bow catapults only. Aircraft are parked on the starboard parking spaces. Due to the limited available space to ready and start-up aircraft, number and rate of aircraft launches is reduced. Mode most suitable for public multiplayer.

The modes would be set in the mission editor and could be changed via triggers and scripts. This would allow to create pre-planned or flexible launch-recovery schedules. Change from one mode to the other would take some time and would involve respotting of parked aircraft the free the necessary deck space. Aircraft declaring a fuel emergency would trigger the carrier being prepared for recovery.

sounds good.

As for the bort numbers:

I'd say yes. If someone wants to use the Nimitz as stand-in for the America and just changing the number is enough to help the suspension of disbelief, he should be able to do it.

The only ones able to tell that something is wrong are people who either have been there or spent a certain amount of time for research. Everybody else is like "YEAH, I'M ON A CARRIER!!" :D

Could you tell the Bismarck from the Tirpitz? The Hiryu from the Soryu? Yeah, probably. I still think that in a PC simulation game two models - perhaps with different textures - are sufficient to simulate those four ships. :)

sounds good.

 

As for the bort numbers:

I'd say yes. If someone wants to use the Nimitz as stand-in for the America and just changing the number is enough to help the suspension of disbelief, he should be able to do it.

The only ones able to tell that something is wrong are people who either have been there or spent a certain amount of time for research. Everybody else is like "YEAH, I'M ON A CARRIER!!" :D

 

Could you tell the Bismarck from the Tirpitz? The Hiryu from the Soryu? Yeah, probably. I still think that in a PC simulation game two models - perhaps with different textures - are sufficient to simulate those four ships. :)

some smaller modeling differences could also be animations in the .edm as well

it'd be a lot more efficient than having 4 complete .edm files

Not sure about the new Russian ship models, but for a while now the Normandy and Oliver Perry both have animation arguments and textures setup to change the "bort numbers" and even the ships name on the back. For whatever reason there is no way to actually change them in game. It is something I'd like to see added though. Ship names are a huge part of their identity and often have interesting historical context behind it.

F-18s and Carriers? Now we're cooking.

The line up forms behind me. I'll be jumping on that puppy right quick.

I really hope that they allow for a large number of human spawn points aboard the carriers. They know which types of a/c are able to spawn on board - F/A-18C, and the F-14 at some point in the future, and make allowances for additional AI a/c such as the E-2's and S-3's. It shouldn't be too difficult to come up with a parking scheme that would allow for a large number of us to start off on a mission together. Especially if they are going to model the hanger deck and functioning elevators - if only for the AI a/c. The same would apply to the Kuznetsov.

 

Being able to take command of the ship and direct it's speed and heading would be a HUGE bonus! :thumbup:

I would have to add to that in saying I hope they can set an option to have the aircraft in carrier configuration at start (wings folded), otherwise there will be a lot of space taken up.

I disagree ! Its a main factor to release every DLC as much accurate as possible, so I suggest to focus on a unique Nimitz class numeral . Perhaps in two or three years a Ford class could be implemented, adding EMALS and so on .

I think that the option to change hull numbers to other Nimitz class vessels serves both of our goals. It allows for a greater variety of scenarios, but those who prefer maximum accuracy of the ship itself simply won't change it.

The issue is that different users will want to simulate different scenarios or eras. For example, I have zero interest in the Ford class carriers because I prefer Naval Aviation from the late-90s to the 1950s. I'd rather they add CVN-65 (Enterprise), the Forrestal class, the Kitty Hawk class, and Midway class - I find them more interesting. Luckily, it seems that Leatherneck is developing a Forrestal class carrier for the F-14 module. :thumbup:

I also prefer accuracy of unit composition/deployment. I'd prefer to simulate the USS Nimitz deploying to the Gulf of Oman (Strait of Hormuz) in 1988 with the correct unit liveries than simulating USS John Stennis deploying to a place where it has never been or carrying units that never operated from it. But since we all have different preferences for what constitutes "accuracy", flexibility is helpful for attracting a wide-range of users.

Given the constraints of only having a few maps with (potentially) one carrier, we would be really limited with accurately recreating certain scenarios. Having varied scenarios is a really good thing.

-Nick

F-18s and Carriers? Now we're cooking.

The line up forms behind me. I'll be jumping on that puppy right quick.

Why are you forming a new line? We've already been standing in this one for months.

One thing I would really love to see/have, especially in MP, is the ability to be air boss. I wanna be in PriFly overlooking the controlled chaos on deck, with another player at the LSO position, while our boys and girls are coming home or going out on sorties.

Why are you forming a new line? We've already been standing in this one for months.

 

 

 

One thing I would really love to see/have, especially in MP, is the ability to be air boss. I wanna be in PriFly overlooking the controlled chaos on deck, with another player at the LSO position, while our boys and girls are coming home or going out on sorties.

Don't forget CATCC. That officer in the tower would get nothing done without the blue shirt AC's down stairs.

Don't forget CATCC. That officer in the tower would get nothing done without the blue shirt AC's down stairs.

I'd love to play as the Engineering Officer of the Watch, since nothing would get done without steam to the catapults and to keep the propellers going roundy-roundy, and electricity to power the radars, radios, and well, everything else.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

Would be nice, if ED adds TACAN and radio frequencies to the larger U.S. ships (carriers, destroyers, frigates). They could be used for off-set navigation near the coast.

According to the book "Jane's at the controls: How to fly and fight in the F/A-18 Hornet", U.S. carriers, destroyers and frigates are able to transmitt a TACAN signal. Thus they are large ships, it's a TACAN with full capability, like land based TACAN stations.

To me it would be very nice to have a working/ talking LSO, just like vLSO for FSX and P3D. It makes laps around the boat more challenging than a dogfight or aerial refueling in DCS.

Can I please have a carrier that has a genuine deck that I can land on. At present, if I try to land my Huey on anywhere but the core launch deck area, it just falls through the ship, which is a little embarrassing. I'm assuming that this is probably already in the priority list, but just making sure.