DCS and NAVAL OPERATIONS problems

Hello dear people from Eagle Dynamics :) Thanks for your great products, I use it daily with lots of pleasure! Although having lots of pleasure, it is not without problems.

I have a few questions:

Question 1:

I am talking on behalf of TAWDCS.org which is a community of currently 130 active pilots from Europe, United States and Middle East.

Since the release of the HORNET and TOMCAT, but also the HARRIER we have also adapted to NAVAL OPERATIONS on carriers.

We are having MASSIVE issues and problems with SPAWNING on the carriers. Since we use scripts like CTLD, MIST, MOOSE and other unique scripts to manage carrier operations, it's impossible to have more than 1 UNIT in a GROUP, otherwise certain scripting functions do not work as intended.

Are you guys working on a way to add as many as a carrier deck can fit of CLIENT SPAWNED single UNIT GROUPS on carriers? Where we (mission designers) can place CLIENT units on a carriers just like we can add STATIC units on carriers??

As ED is giving us a platform to simulate NAVAL OPS, this limitation is breaking the immersion is more ways than can be written in text.

Currently I need to add 6 carriers or more in order to have everyone able to spawn relatively at the same time. This means I need to make 6 x TACAN, 6 x CARRIER FREQ, 6 x ICLS, while it should be feasible as in real life to get 24 planes airborne off of 1 single carrier during a cycle.

There are numerous threads about the DECK SPAWNING issue, but I have not seen an official ED representative response.

There are many bigger DCS groups in the world that would THANK ED SOOOO MUCH, if you can try and provide us a beautiful solution, so the core of Naval Operations is good enough to get large client missions running of off single carriers.

Would someone from EAGLE DYNAMICS please give some news on IF they have read those many threads about this limitation and IF you are aware and planning to fix this in the near future?

Question 2:

The other massive problem is DECK SLIDING, where when the carriers turn, even at 2kts or even 25kts the planes start sliding and we crash into each other, slide off the deck or have issues arming and fueling, or have issue with INS alignment due to movement. Are you guys working on a fix for this?

Question 3:

STATICS issue on Carriers; when you have spent hours setting up a life like looking carrier deck with static planes and personnel, setting up the correct position and unit orientation and you then add a CLIENT plane on the carrier, suddenly all STATIC units get centered on the carrier and all your hard work is gone and you got to start all over with adding the correct positions.

Some static units even go off of the carrier completely and end up on a nearby land based airport.

Are you guys aware of this and working on a fix?

There are also some threads about this, but again no response from any ED representative.

I am not asking to have this fixed today, but just want to know if ED is aware of those many struggling DCS communities who are trying so hard to simulate NAVAL OPS on a very high and realistic level?

Obviously a fix for these issue would be welcomed if it would be done soon.

Thanks so much for a response from ED!

I appreciate you taking the time to read and respond to it.

Kind regards,

Dutch Baron

TAWDCS.org - CVW-88

Hello dear people from Eagle Dynamics :) Thanks for your great products, I use it daily with lots of pleasure! Although having lots of pleasure, it is not without problems.

 

I have a few questions:

 

Question 1:

I am talking on behalf of TAWDCS.org which is a community of currently 130 active pilots from Europe, United States and Middle East.

Since the release of the HORNET and TOMCAT, but also the HARRIER we have also adapted to NAVAL OPERATIONS on carriers.

We are having MASSIVE issues and problems with SPAWNING on the carriers. Since we use scripts like CTLD, MIST, MOOSE and other unique scripts to manage carrier operations, it's impossible to have more than 1 UNIT in a GROUP, otherwise certain scripting functions do not work as intended.

 

Are you guys working on a way to add as many as a carrier deck can fit of CLIENT SPAWNED single UNIT GROUPS on carriers? Where we (mission designers) can place CLIENT units on a carriers just like we can add STATIC units on carriers??

As ED is giving us a platform to simulate NAVAL OPS, this limitation is breaking the immersion is more ways than can be written in text.

Currently I need to add 6 carriers or more in order to have everyone able to spawn relatively at the same time. This means I need to make 6 x TACAN, 6 x CARRIER FREQ, 6 x ICLS, while it should be feasible as in real life to get 24 planes airborne off of 1 single carrier during a cycle.

 

There are numerous threads about the DECK SPAWNING issue, but I have not seen an official ED representative response.

 

There are many bigger DCS groups in the world that would THANK ED SOOOO MUCH, if you can try and provide us a beautiful solution, so the core of Naval Operations is good enough to get large client missions running of off single carriers.

 

Would someone from EAGLE DYNAMICS please give some news on IF they have read those many threads about this limitation and IF you are aware and planning to fix this in the near future?

 

 

Question 2:

The other massive problem is DECK SLIDING, where when the carriers turn, even at 2kts or even 25kts the planes start sliding and we crash into each other, slide off the deck or have issues arming and fueling, or have issue with INS alignment due to movement. Are you guys working on a fix for this?

 

 

Question 3:

STATICS issue on Carriers; when you have spent hours setting up a life like looking carrier deck with static planes and personnel, setting up the correct position and unit oreientation and you then add a CLIENT plane on the carrier, suddenly all STATIC units get centered on the carrier and all your hard work is gone and you got to start all over with adding the correct positions.

Some static units even go off of the carrier completely and end up on a nearby land based airport.

Are you guys aware of this and working on a fix?

There are also some threads about this, but again no response form any ED representative.

 

 

I am not asking to have this fixed today, but just want to know if ED is aware of those many struggling DCS communities who are trying so hard to simulate NAVAL OPS on a very high and realistic level?

Obviously a fix for these issue would be welcomed if it would be done soon.

 

Thanks so much for a response from ED!

I appreciate you taking the time to read and respond to it.

 

Kind regards,

 

Dutch Baron

TAWDCS.org - CVW-88

Spot on bud. :thumbup:

We have been frustrated by the constant promotion of things to come while we struggle with what we have full of bugs and no release dates provided.

I'm surprised more people are not making posts like this...well to be fair i'm not surprised. Those who have been around long enough on here or in the DCS community have learned that we are constantly ignored when it comes to core game issues. There are many i'm aware of, that don't even bother to post in the forums anymore for this reason.

The constant push of "new additions" and money making projects, while seemingly ignoring,delaying,not addressing long term problems and core engine limitations, are alienating long time supporters. I have often wondered how bigger naval focused groups manage, with the current limitations/engine problems. The truth as i've come to see it, is simple. You make do...

If that's putting extra carriers in, having to steralise weather conditions or slow ship speeds to make naval ops even remotley possible in multiplayer. To even having to use MOOSE or another framework to conduct anything like real world recovery methods.

There is an apathy from most it seems towards these problems. To even try and make noise about these issues, you open yourself up to being ignored or being jumped on by users of the forums with things like, "be patient they're doing their best" or "how do you expect them carry going on, without selling more modules".

Again generally these concerns come from long time supporters or large groups such as yourself, who have been patient for many years and supported ED and 3rd party developers with our money and time.

When we do put our heads above the parapet and even manage to gain a little traction, they are shut down fairly sharpish and just vanish into the abyss of closed threads and forum archives.

The following being a good example, which wasn't really created to show the problem, as it was/is a very easy problem to observe (it being one of your questions). But more to force some kind of recognition from ED.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=234990

After alot of pushing we got a closed thread with a [KNOWN] tag... Of course its known, it has been for years. But alas nothing will happen, we know this also.

It's going to require more effort from the player base to push these core engine problems, but again the minority that will raise their voice are shut down and most just get on with it, accepting the game limitations/lack of interest from ED and work around them. Again, i feel for you big groups, even trying to do somewhat realistic carrier ops with 5/6 guys can be a nightmare.

Additionally i would like to add, it might be worth reposting this in the main DCS 2.5 forum, perhaps with some support/testimony from members of your group, with the frustrations of trying to operate in multiplayer. Its not going to get any attention in the dark corners of the mission editor forum :P

Let's hope they think it will be a good idea to return to improve DCS after most of their staff worked on their new game. I also think this is one subject of many other (weather, tanker operation, mission planning, rearm/configuration options, ...). They might have also pushed this specific issue to solve when they get the carrier module ready.

The best solution in my eyes would be if the client could choose the parking position on an airfield or carrier.

This issue seems so easy to fix, or at least to attempt to fix. If they can establish a spawn point for the 4 catapults and 5 other positions, I do not understand why they cannot, or are reluctant to establish additional spots. I have no doubt that it is a lot more complicated than it appears to be but I still think that they could do it if they put their minds to it. Look at the problems with the Tarawa. The helicopters are all spawning in the tram line that is there for the Harrier to use for takeoff. RAZBAM claims that they can't fix it, that it is an ED issue.

For all the warts though, I am still very happy with what we have today. No doubt that there is a lot of room for improvement and I am very confident that ED will address some of these concerns but I just hope it will be sooner than later.

NineLine,

Are there any of the planned improvements going to affect the Tarawa, or enable 3rd party devs in any way to fix the issues with 3rd party carriers or is it going to just be the ED carrier module?