Naval Operations Wish List

Awesome. The "controlled crash" suddenly gets "uncontrolled" but they did good :thumbup:

Great watch. Imagine doing that everyday:helpsmilie:

Yeah, no. I prefer my runways stationary.

Concerning Hormuz map......

Hi there ED,

know that is still bit early and a discussion post will be opened soon but, if I am not wrong into the Hormuz map, the chance to start from a Carrier will exist . So, here goes my question, how will you manage on multi player to allow multiple pilots to be parked on a reduced CVN flight deck . So, will the carrier show up with an empty deck or ?

And, could be any possibility to start also from a position down in the hangar bay and come up via the lifters ?

And, could be any possibility to start also from a position down in the hangar bay and come up via the lifters ?

IDK abt your other question, but in regards to this, I highly doubt that it will be possible

IDK abt your other question, but in regards to this, I highly doubt that it will be possible

Why not? They're want to make a seperate carrier module, so I expect top quality, which might include hangar/deck operations as well.

@toni: The topic is kinda misleading, since your question and so the thread is more about carrier implementation in DCS and not really about the Hormuz map.

Hi there ED,

 

know that is still bit early and a discussion post will be opened soon but, if I am not wrong into the Hormuz map, the chance to start from a Carrier will exist . So, here goes my question, how will you manage on multi player to allow multiple pilots to be parked on a reduced CVN flight deck . So, will the carrier show up with an empty deck or ?

And, could be any possibility to start also from a position down in the hangar bay and come up via the lifters ?

I don't see how this isn't possible, but it would take a lot of work if it's going to be a separate module (I'm pretty sure it is though). it would also mean many new features would have to be added like the ability to have aircraft being reversed into bays so for that you'd need ground crew etc.

Oh I don't know - they could use something similar to that in FSX, where a certain key starts pushback automatically, until pressed again, with other keys to steer.

****I don't see how this isn't possible, but it would take a lot of work if it's going to be a separate module (I'm pretty sure it is though *****

A separate module would be just awesome ! Imagine a detailed and accurate Nimitz class surrounded by several units of its Carrier Battle Group .

Any early shot or drawing about guys ?

And, could be any possibility to start also from a position down in the hangar bay and come up via the lifters ?

The hangar deck is for aircraft maintenance and storage purposes. During flight operations all aircraft start on the flight deck. It takes a very long time to move an aircraft from the hangar to the flight deck. I've personally waited 13 hours straight to move a jet from the hangar spot to the elevator and then to the flight deck. Moving the elevators during flight operations is not routinely done as it disrupts the flow of the deck during the flight schedule. From a flying perspective it would be wasted time to develop a feature such as this. It is not how operations on the boat work.

Here's a little easy reading for anyone who is truly interested: 00-80T-120

https://info.publicintelligence.net/USNavy-CVN-FlightDeck.pdf

I would like a realistic carrier layout (parking positions, supply trucks, catofficer, etc) and better ai traffic first. It takes a while until a group landed completely. After that standard ai tasks for ships and aircrafts like refueling or rescue units or like a seal helicopter could send out for missions should be included. Better reaction on thread options or behavior for naval units so that they dont fire everything on every targettype within range. Working elevators and maybe setup for training or war. Means that more or less static aircrafts and equippment are parked on deck.

Indeed ! Also concerning naval environments,the different sea colors could be watched carefully. Example, REX Sea textures into FSX.

You know what I mean guys.

Considering that Iwo Jima and the Corsair were "leaked" I think it wouldn't be impossible to assume that Combined Arms may be getting some naval love soon?

After all, there isn't much to Iwo Jima except water and a little bump of land.... and a lot of water.

I think the most important thing would be to get anti-aircraft (both AAA and missiles) perfect and to have matching era naval ships as well. I think a small bridge model would be very interesting to use as well.

From my stand point it would be great if all the ships animations, behavior, weapons, models etc were fixed - the water environment we have also needs a bit of work (water like Outerra would be fantastic, especially with even a low detail, basic underwater simulation). Then it's a case of more ships, more advanced waypoint options for ships and better implementation of a naval environment. Then it would be great to see a CA strategic command of ships, even direct control for slightly less sophisticated vessels - such as patrol boats etc

For now, I would be happy if my Huey did not fall through random parts of the deck.

This would be a great thing to start with, together with choppers not falling off the deck of moving ships.

I'm sure it's been mentioned, but from a CA perspective, it'd be nice to have the possibility of sub-surface vehicles, along with ASW gameplay. Torpedos, mines, anti-ship missiles, etc.

The environment (especial the sea) looks really pretty in this video:

It would be very nice to have a full animated carrier with landing and weapons officer, push back, the possibility to use the elevators as well as a real traffic on the carrier. I can't wait to fly the hornet and the carrier ops.

I still hope for a full fidelity ship module, maybe similar to Dangerous Waters. I don't care if surface or subsurface. I want both :)

DCS:S-3 Viking

....... Matt said besides carrier ops.... And yet 80% of posts are about carrier ops...

....... Matt said besides carrier ops.... And yet 80% of posts are about carrier ops...

Yeah, I noticed that too :lol:

I'm a little late with an actual response here but here is what I would like to see for Naval ops.

Localized weather- the ability to sail into or avoid completely a multitude of weather and differing sea states on the same map. Currents and differing water temperatures at various depths are important.

Sub-surface terrain- Captain, we just grounded the ship on a sandbar/reef/flat. Will also be useful for subsurface threats such as mines and submarines.

Improved damage modeling- Hits on different parts of the ships affecting those particular areas of the ship vice the ship as a whole as it is now.

Unit systems damage- Radars/weapons mounts/command and control/propulsion systems damaged, hull integrity breached, the effects of fire and flooding, plus the crews damage control efforts to keep the ship afloat and in the fight.

Battle groups/Task Forces- Ability of a group of ships to operate efficiently and effectively as one cohesive unit with the ability to set formations and individual ship actions such as station keeping, steerage to dash ASW operations, and zig-zag patterns.

Improved targeting for task forces/battle groups- The ability to properly use AEGIS/datalinks to prioritize targets for individual missiles/guns.

Use of surface, subsurface, airborne and orbital sensors for observation and targeting.

Enable the use of rivers, lakes, swamps, marshland and other littoral waters to be navigable by smaller combatant craft.

Have the primary fighting positions of each ship crewable in multiplayer or manable in single player. AI will have to be good in either case.

... I'm sure I'll think of something else later.

***EDIT***- not even 5 minutes later.... Effects of differing water temperatures and currents on sonar operations.

Torpedos and mines would be great.

I imagine flying ASW helis or planes could be fun then.

How about adding landing ships and allowing Marine amphibious tanks to operate from them?