Separate wave height slider in ME

That's true, but having sailed there for as long as you have I'm sure you're aware that there's more factors in the break lakes winds than simply it's fetch and the weather conditions that hit it with such extreme weather don't affect the PG (and while I don't doubt that the eastern black sea certainly does see storm surge, it's nothing compared to the GL)

Additionally, VA is also affected by gulf stream & weather out of gulf of Mexico. In the late 90s/early 2000s I remember ft Meade being hit with the remnants of a hurricane, so even if you don't have a long westerly fetch off VA doesn't mean there isn't a significant run for a wind to build up. It's not for nothing that coastal NC was called graveyard of the Atlantic

+1

I'd love to see this. Localised wind speed is not the only factor in wave height. Just as wave height is not the only factor in deck motion.

This is also true in littoral waters where a current coupled with a narrow channel can change the current's speed and swell. (Bernoulli's effect).

Ultimately the swell period has an equal if not greater effect on ship motion than wave top height however this effects every ship differently based on hull size, design and weight distribution. The relative direction of the swell has a major effect as well, and a good OOW or NAV will adjust heading to compensate. I have personally witnessed waves over a 27.5m height flight deck yet deck motion and winds were within SHOL.

Of course accurate fluid dynamics as they pertain to the water body would be beyond the reach of a flight sim, and if achieved would be a major FPS hit. So a simple slider to increase deck motion independent of wind would be a fantastic addition.

+1

Well, for me, I just want a pitching deck when I trying my skills at trapping. How that comes about is irrelevant to me as long as it's realistic as can be cheaply (and easily) obtained. I remember one day several years ago(?) making an approach to the Stennis in a P-51 hovering over the deck. Not realistic but funny to see.

Well, for me, I just want a pitching deck when I trying my skills at trapping. How that comes about is irrelevant to me as long as it's realistic as can be cheaply (and easily) obtained. I remember one day several years ago(?) making an approach to the Stennis in a P-51 hovering over the deck. Not realistic but funny to see.

I understand why people would want it, and I wouldn't pitch a fit if ed put it in place, I just would prefer they didn't.

And speaking of preferences, I wish port of Tacoma would get even a fraction of the wind great lakes sees. It sucks seeing slip fees going down the drain when the whole port is flat as a mirror, day after day

Ironically there has been a thread just last week in which somebody complained that ED ripped him off entirely on his A-10C because it didn't carry any AMRAAMS, which it totally should, as some bizarre mod on BMS let him do just that...

My brain is melting after reading that...

My brain is melting after reading that...

Considering that it would be more realistic to load amraams onto a Humvee than an a-10, I would have to agree with you there

My brain is melting after reading that...

You've been around here for far too long to still be shocked by something like that.

Anyway, I see two ways of handling this wave issue - provided ED wants to do anything about it in the first place:

a) simply disconnect current wind and wave state. Comparably easy to implement, I guess. The criticism I'd have here is that, while it of course is possible to create realistic conditions, by default there would be no meaningful connection between these two anymore.

b) have a complicated system that calculates wave states on geographic location and previous winds? While that would be rather realistic, the obvious problems are that it requires a whole more lot of work to implement, plus it's likely to be rather complicated in use for mission designers, many of who might decide to not bother. An additional problem I see here is that it would easily be one of those things that are done very well in DCS just shining the spotlight on things not far away from it that are mediocre at best and in my opinion would be much more important.

I may have worded myself poorly. My intention was to suggest the disconnect feature as an option in the editor for those who so wish to do for some reason.

Those representing the wind=waves school of thought could simply let the defaults apply.

The Kuz can access the black Sea thru a loophole , however short of breaking international treaties , the nato carriers can't transit the Turkish straits to the black sea

Give it time. I'm sure a certain someone has the Montreux Convention on their list of "international agreements to rip up".

Because I see no reason to be for it. Additionally, if all we get are a while bunch of "+1s" & "agree! we need this" , it skews the perception of whether something is really wanted or needed. I have zero problem being a dissenting opinion if I have data to back it up.

 

We all have different things we key in on...just look at the threads on gun dispersion

I mean, we're asking for _the option_ to tune the wave size independently.

It is not by means wanted as a forced feature for everyone to set.

Why... what... err..

It doesn't take anything away from you.

Let's play a game of "what if" and some people want to try landing their planes in crappy weather. You saying it doesn't warrant any change in the name of realism has the same weight as anyone saying +1 so how about you just... let people wish? It's an option, no one is going to take your precious charts away from you :)

 

If the wave physics are how they are now when Marianas map drops and we actually need to place ~70kts winds to get a swell that feels like anything, ED is either going to have to visit the wave setting through "how to model a sea" or "how to make this a slider" and do we wanna guess which is probably easier?

This is a public discussion forum. Not everyone posting has to agree with the OP. It being a ''wish'' thread is utterly and completely irrelevant. If you want an echo chamber, may I suggest starting your own read-only blog where you can curate comments and censor everyone who doesn't agree with you.

Thank you, zhukov032186

+1

Put simply it means we can simulate pitching deck ops without the need for unrealistically extreme wind velocity!

Currently you will end up with at least 50 knots wind over deck to get some decent pitching action.

It sounds like a great idea to me. "Real world" wave behaviours shouldn't be of concern because of course missions can use what existing maps we have as proxies for some other area.

Seems reasonable enough.

They like it when they come down to Australia sometimes.

Your looking for swell height tho.

Wind waves are a local manifestation of the energy that has been transferred to the sea from the wind. This energy travels downwind away from the source area, rather like ripples in a pond when a stone is dropped in, or from the bow wave from a ship. These waves that move away from their source are known as swell. The stronger the winds at the source area, the bigger will be the swell and the further will it travel. The longer that the wind blows in the source area, the longer will the swell persist, even long after the wind has ceased or changed direction.

The very large amounts of energy transferred to the sea results in swell waves being fast moving and extending far deeper than the waves produced locally by the wind. Many of us are familiar with the long rolling swells that come in from the Atlantic. They are particularly evident around western coasts of the British Isles, France and Spain.

http://weather.mailasail.com/Franks-Weather/How-Waves-And-Swell-Form

This is a public discussion forum. Not everyone posting has to agree with the OP. It being a ''wish'' thread is utterly and completely irrelevant. If you want an echo chamber, may I suggest starting your own read-only blog where you can curate comments and censor everyone who doesn't agree with you.

That certainly wasn't my goal and differing opinions are welcome. This, however isn't really a vote, so I feel barging through the door and being dismissive towards new ideas/wishes on the count of "not realistic enough in these two scenarios" is definitely not the way to voice said opinion.

Especially since the wish specifically was for an option to decouple the wave height IF THE MISSION MAKER SO CHOOSES. This doesn't take anything away from anyone and surely separating two joined values shouldn't be a huge development hurdle.