Prowler111 Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 I would like to know your input on this issue Will you buy a DLC LHA? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkbrotherhood7 Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 (edited) For $9.99, probably! :) Can you give us more details about it? Edited October 19, 2016 by Darkbrotherhood7 Mission: "To intercept and destroy aircraft and airborne missiles in all weather conditions in order to establish and maintain air superiority in a designated area. To deliver air-to-ground ordnance on time in any weather condition. And to provide tactical reconaissance imagery" - F-14 Tomcat Roll Call [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Einherjer Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 Depends on the price, but yes I most likely would ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paganus Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 Depends on the price, but yes I most likely would ;) ^ This ...and the capabilities. It would need to do more than what the free mods are already doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QuiGon Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 Depends on what the features are, but generally speaking: yes (together with the Harrier :D) Intel i7-12700K @ 8x5GHz+4x3.8GHz + 32 GB DDR5 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bkthunder Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 I would prefer it to come together with the Harrier. Also in MP I think it would cause some issues: - player 1 has the ship DLC - player 2 doesn't have the ship DLC. - They connect to a server where the ship is sailing in the sea. - Player 1 can spwan, take off and land on the ship What happens to player 2? Can he see the ship just as we can see other players even if we don't own the module? That woudl make sense, otherwise the gameplay would feel broken. BUT, on the ship you can also land and takeoff from, so, what happens if player 2 tries to land on the ship? will he explode or something? Windows 10 - Intel i7 7700K 4.2 Ghz (no OC) - Asus Strix GTX 1080 8Gb - 16GB DDR4 (3000 MHz) - SSD 500GB + WD Black FZEX 1TB 6Gb/s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pikey Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 So a Landing Helicopter Assault hull like Tarawa with the ability to use amphibious vehicles and be part of beach landings would be an integral part of trying to get Strait of Hormuz into a fully fantastic setting, but also any other setting with beaches. Would be the killer centre peice for missions if I'm honest, you can make up smaller and more cool scenarios than you could with the massive carriers since they have this damn constraints! The size of these ships and capability suits the DCS world scaling much more, towards less conventional wars to small conflicts and supporting overseas operations. As a misison designer and virtual content provider for many people it would likely occupy centre stage for all my stuff for a long while. ___________________________________________________________________________ SIMPLE SCENERY SAVING * SIMPLE GROUP SAVING * SIMPLE STATIC SAVING * Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pikey Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 Think ED answered this one with their Kusnetsov posts. The difference would be in the model detail, a kind of FC3 vs fully m,odelled balance. AFAIK there woudl be nothing to worry about and you can bet they need to sort that out. I would prefer it to come together with the Harrier. Also in MP I think it would cause some issues: - player 1 has the ship DLC - player 2 doesn't have the ship DLC. - They connect to a server where the ship is sailing in the sea. - Player 1 can spwan, take off and land on the ship What happens to player 2? Can he see the ship just as we can see other players even if we don't own the module? That woudl make sense, otherwise the gameplay would feel broken. BUT, on the ship you can also land and takeoff from, so, what happens if player 2 tries to land on the ship? will he explode or something? ___________________________________________________________________________ SIMPLE SCENERY SAVING * SIMPLE GROUP SAVING * SIMPLE STATIC SAVING * Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pikey Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 I'm gonna add to my comments, I'd likely run up an 8-10 man naval sqn just for this, buy a domain, build a website and turn into a dribbling mess (again). ___________________________________________________________________________ SIMPLE SCENERY SAVING * SIMPLE GROUP SAVING * SIMPLE STATIC SAVING * Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grimes Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 Think ED answered this one with their Kusnetsov posts. The difference would be in the model detail, a kind of FC3 vs fully m,odelled balance. AFAIK there woudl be nothing to worry about and you can bet they need to sort that out. The difference being that the Kuznetzov is already in the game and a LHD/LHA isn't. So if they are going to have one for sale its either the case of a lower detailed model being added to the game by default or it exists as a pure DLC object. The former is much more acceptable than the latter. The right man in the wrong place makes all the difference in the world. Current Projects: Grayflag Server, Scripting Wiki Useful Links: Mission Scripting Tools MIST-(GitHub) MIST-(Thread) SLMOD, Wiki wishlist, Mission Editing Wiki!, Mission Building Forum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyre Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 (edited) I would expect a full ship module to be crewable with at least the primary positions such as Captain/bridge, Air Boss/Prifly, Weaps/CIC, Cheng/Engineering and ACHO/flight deck control. In this case, if it is a Tarawa or Essex class, an amphibious capability that uses landing craft and LCAC's to move vehicles, troops and supplies ashore would be a must... of course you could just do an Iwo Jima class and only have to worry about the air components. Edited October 19, 2016 by Vampyre Truly superior pilots are those that use their superior judgment to avoid those situations where they might have to use their superior skills. If you ever find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck! "If at first you don't succeed, Carrier Landings are not for you!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silver_Dragon Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 (edited) The main problem of a crew-able ship with pilot-able weapons / command positions is required to build by ED the appropriate dlls and base code. RAZBAM cant build them meanwhile ED dont put the blocks on the base code. The same situations has on a "pilot-able" vehicle module (not CA). A rotund Yes to more ships into DCS: World. Edited October 19, 2016 by Silver_Dragon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pikey Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 I wouldnt be expecting as much - more along the lines of what ED said is in their ships. The detail would be in the processing of aircraft, lifts and traffic control, little men waving at you etc. If it had an airboss station/view for the combined arms slot that would be great. If we try to model every weapons station that would not be great. If we turn it into "DCS: Deck Simulator" it won't be fun and people will let the AI get on with it. I would expect a full ship module to be crewable with at least the primary positions such as Captain/bridge, Air Boss/Prifly, Weaps/CIC, Cheng/Engineering and ACHO/flight deck control. In this case, if it is a Tarawa or Essex class, an amphibious capability that uses landing craft and LCAC's to move vehicles, troops and supplies ashore would be a must... of course you could just do an Iwo Jima class and only have to worry about the air components. ___________________________________________________________________________ SIMPLE SCENERY SAVING * SIMPLE GROUP SAVING * SIMPLE STATIC SAVING * Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
splash Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 After seeing the level of development and communication with the community from Razbam regarding M2000C, I think I will buy any module they release. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyre Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 I wouldnt be expecting as much - more along the lines of what ED said is in their ships. The detail would be in the processing of aircraft, lifts and traffic control, little men waving at you etc. If it had an airboss station/view for the combined arms slot that would be great. If we try to model every weapons station that would not be great. If we turn it into "DCS: Deck Simulator" it won't be fun and people will let the AI get on with it. I don't see the value that would make me want to buy a module that just looks pretty. There has to be some functionality to make it worth paying for otherwise it should just be included in the base DCS:W game. Truly superior pilots are those that use their superior judgment to avoid those situations where they might have to use their superior skills. If you ever find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck! "If at first you don't succeed, Carrier Landings are not for you!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firmek Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 I don't see the value that would make me want to buy a module that just looks pretty. There has to be some functionality to make it worth paying for otherwise it should just be included in the base DCS:W game. Fully agree. The module has to bring much more to the table than just aesthetics and nice 3D model. F/A-18, F-16, F-14, M-2000C, A-10C, AV-8B, AJS-37 Viggen, F-5E-3, F-86F, MiG-21bis, MiG-15bis, L-39 Albatros, C-101 Aviojet, P-51D, Spitfire LF Mk. IX, Bf 109 4-K, UH-1H, Mi-8, Ka-50, NTTR, Normandy, Persian Gulf... and not enough time to fully enjoy it all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pikey Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 The functionality that ED listed isn't just aesthetics, we assume a carrier module would be the same/minimum as what ED have listed in their carrier features and the features are stil being explored. If you aren't sure what these are, it will help build a picture for you if you read the carrier comentary in the offical updates forum which for your benefit I will quote here: We see 2016 as a big year for aircraft carrier operations as we plan to release both Nimitz-class aircraft carrier and Kuznetsov-class aircraft carrier modules. Both of these modules will be incredibly detailed models with working elevators, interior hanger bays, animated ship systems, and the ability to walk around inside the ships. These will be optional modules that would replace the existing ships currently in DCS World. Another point that would help Ships, especially the carrier DLC would be models of the rest of the period ARG https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphibious_ready_group#/media/File:Amphibious_assault_group_underway.jpg I think at least models of the entire component should be part of this or ED's release else the carrier would be all on it's own. ___________________________________________________________________________ SIMPLE SCENERY SAVING * SIMPLE GROUP SAVING * SIMPLE STATIC SAVING * Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azrayen Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 I voted no on this one. - I don't see an interest for a player managing an LHA in DCS. - I think ships are "environnement" today in DCS (= can be used by all players, and are AI controlled) Any LHA (or BPC) included should allow all (pilots) players to see it and use it (if their aircraft is able to... or even not, with lots of wind). So: yes to get an LHA, but no to make it a separate payware module. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Einherjer Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 I would say Everyone: see it , land on it DLC owner: control it , walkable interiors Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zaelu Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 For $9.99, probably! :) Can you give us more details about it? Depends on the price, but yes I most likely would ;) +2 And put an explanation to that LHA abbreviation... [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] I5 4670k, 32GB, GTX 1070, Thrustmaster TFRP, G940 Throttle extremely modded with Bodnar 0836X and Bu0836A, Warthog Joystick with F-18 grip, Oculus Rift S - Almost all is made from gifts from friends, the most expensive parts at least Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iLOVEwindmills Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 Really need more context to answer this. Would it be just a prop? Would it be controllable? Interiors? Systems? What happens with it in MP? Can people who don't own it still fly from it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toni Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 A proper Naval Module development is a must I think , side by side and coexisting with the ones in progress by ED, Carrier Ops . Yes, some kind of LHD would be cool, Iwo Jima class, Tarawa or Essex . A controllable unit with some proper interiors and systems would be brilliant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AG-51_Razor Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 I took Prowler's question to mean, if they built an LHA that was specifically built with helicopter flight operations (read spawn points) in mind, would we be willing to pay for it? My answer is a resounding "YES!!!" I would love to see it come with the ability to control the bridge - speed and direction - and maybe even a radar/ATC position and control the ship's weapons, but they would be just a huge bonus and not a condition of purchase. BRING IT!!! :thumbup: [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
near_blind Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 (edited) +2 And put an explanation to that LHA abbreviation... The LHA stands for Landing Helicopter Assault, which is generally a general term that encompasses an amphibious warfare ship that is capable of handling rotary wing and V/STOL aircraft. In US service, this has traditionally meant the Tarawa class of LHAs, which were designed in the 1970s as a response to declining enlistment rates by combining the roles of what would have traditionally been two classes of ships (Landing Platform Docks "LPDs" and Landing Platform Helicopters "LPH"). They were equipped with a spacious flight deck designed for mass sorties of marine laden troop helicopters, and could also facilitate AV-8 Harriers and even OV-10 Broncos. In addition to their flight decks they were also equipped with a well deck, capable of operating all existing types of amphibious vehicles, as well as what was then the brand new LCAC. There is also the new America class of LHAs, which are based directly off the Wasp class hull, but feature various improvements. The first (only) two ships of this class omit the traditional well deck for an expanded hanger deck, and essentially function as LPHs. They're specifically designed to handle large numbers of F-35Bs and MV-22 Ospreys. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_Helicopter_Assault Related are the Wasp class of LHDs, or Landing Helicopter Docks. This is a follow on to the LHAs that aimed to a series of problems and complaints that the Navy had uncovered with the previous class. Examples of changes include enlarging the flight deck, removing the obsolete cheek mounted 5'' naval cannons, relocating the rear deck elevator to the aft port quarter of the flight deck, reducing the size of the island by relocating Marine C2 spaces deeper within the hull to better protected spaces. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasp-class_amphibious_assault_ship In practice these ships will be paired with an LPD (Landing Platform Dock), and an LSD (Landing Ship Dock), as well as a CRUDESRON (Cruiser Destroyer Squadron) to form an Amphibious Ready Group or ARG. This will form the transport of a Marine Expeditionary Unit or MEU(SOC). Three of these are deployed globally at anytime, and act as America's primary global contingency force. Operationally generally the LHA/D will carry the aviation component of an MEU (duh), as well as a company of marines specializing in air assault. The LSD, which carries the majority of supplies for any operation will stay in general proximity to the LHA/D. The LPD, which carries the marine's AAV-7 "Amtrak" contingent, as well as two infantry companies, one specializing in boat assaults, will be given more leeway in it's operational discretion. If for some reason the force needs to be split, the LPD will be the one wandering off on its own. Finally these ships are all expensive as being of the utmost strategic significance to US foreign policy, so the Navy attempts to keep them as insulated from harm as possible. In event of an amphibious operation, doctrine generally emphasizes using helicopters, LCACs, and LCMs to ferry troops to the shore while the amphibious ships stay over the horizon from any threats. Once a beach head is secured and any artillery or surface missile threats have been dealt with, the ships will approach closer to shore (obviously this is not hard or fast). If any Gator Navy vets want to come in and school me on how wrong I go these points, feel free to :D Edited October 19, 2016 by near_blind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fri13 Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 (edited) The main problem of a crew-able ship with pilot-able weapons / command positions is required to build by ED the appropriate dlls and base code. RAZBAM cant build them meanwhile ED dont put the blocks on the base code. The same situations has on a "pilot-able" vehicle module (not CA). A rotund Yes to more ships into DCS: World. That is then the problem ED should build on. Meaning that ED should prepare to make systems for modules that allows to be a actual JTAC on ground (a foot soldier camping somewhere with a transmitters, range finders etc). A GCI where player can actually sit and stare the radar screen and talk. SAM systems where player can again sit and stare the radar screen and flip switches etc. Air Controller in a tower where player can move between seats or standing places (like swapping seat in a helicopter). A ground vehicle crew positions. Just like then having a placements for carriers as deck operators to guide aircrafts landings etc. That would as well give possibilities then to even have good ATC and ground crew where there would be models to swap your weapons, refuel you and guide you in/out etc. Edited October 19, 2016 by Fri13 i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S. i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts