Jump to content

Carrier Elevators?


BonerCat

Recommended Posts

Yeh, maybe have it so the lower deck is open at the back, we could land right to the lower deck, no need for the elevators

 

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

AMP WIZARD "Forest Gumble" "When the air becomes electric....It's like a box of chocolates":captain:

Windows 11 Pro 64 bit | Intel Alder Lake i7 12700KF | Asus Prime Z690M Plus D4 | CORSAIR Vengeance LPX 64GB (2 x 32GB) DDR4 3200 | EVGA GTX 1070 SC @1594MHz/4000 MHz 8GB | 1x42" Multi Touch Screen and 1x27" 4k widescreen | Saitek x52 Pro |

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chaogen said:
Yeah. And comes with a massive disadvantage in terms of PC Resources. More Polygons and Texture Maps to render.

Dude, the current Stennis already has animated elevators, in fact so does the old Vinson and Kuznetsov... Oh no muh performance! If only they hadn't modelled this cuboid moving up and down!

You're seriously over-blowing such a simple, trivial thing to be this oh so massive (your words not mine) disadvantage, worse one that's actually already present (albeit to some degree, not fully implemented) on current assets.

To put things into perspective, the current Stennis tops out at 324,000 polygons, the Hornet (with no weapons mind) tops out at 240,000. So 1.3 empty (apart from pylons) Hornets is the same number of Polygons as one Stennis... And if that doesn't put things into perspective, wait until you see the Tomcat... An empty one (again just pylons) tops off at 716,000 polygons. Well over double one Stennis. And that's just one, wait until you put 2 or 4 up on Deck...

Hopefully you're seeing what went wrong here. You're more than welcome to check with the modelviewer...

Chaogen said:
For something you spend less than 5% of your "flight time" on?

What point are you trying to make here? What else do I spend <5% of my flight time on? Weapons employment? Countermeasure set-up? Lights? In fact what's the point of taxiing? it doesn't even take up the majority of my time! :doh:

Chaogen said:
So those of us flying VR on MP can sit and watch a slideshow of a carrier?

Again, hard to believe that you think the freaking elevators are going to be nail in the coffin for performance... As opposed to say the deck crew, or the crazy level of detailing...

Also, funny thing about DCS, it has one of those things called a mission editor, it's actually pretty useful, pretty intuitive too I'd say. What it does is that it allows players to edit their missions to whatever they want them to be. So if you don't want to sit through something or include something, don't add them - simple as. Don't want to sit through a cold-start? Start from hot. Don't want long transit times? Start closer to your target. It really isn't that hard. Sure MP takes that a little out of your hands, but then you can always choose a server that suits you, I'm sure you're able to contact mission editors or discuss feedback if there's something you don't like. We have a whole forum section dedicated to missions, and another for multiplayer...

I mean you're quite literally throwing your toys out of your pram on this one.

I mean if I said "I don't want no damn SA-5 in my mission" That's fine, no-one is forcing me to spawn one in.

Tell you one other thing about DCS, it also has something called a settings menu, it allows you to turn some features you don't want off, and the ones you do, on. If you're getting poor performance, it's got you covered too! You can turn settings down.

Chaogen said:
There are more than enough museums to go visit if you want to see what the hanger deck of an Aircraft Carrier looks like. Btw its really not that interesting. So exactly which "significant advantage" are you referring to?

Pfft what!?

There are plenty of airshows and museums where you can see basically everything wished for in DCS ever. Don't like the clouds? Well just go outside! "But I want to fly it" Simple! Just become a pilot!

Really? Seriously?

Also, here's another quick FYI for you, what you find uninteresting just maybe, might not be what others find uninteresting. I personally find 2010+ with completely glass cockpits uninteresting, I get much more of a kick out of the more hands on stuff that you get with older aircraft like the Tomcat and MiG-21bis - and I'm 20 freaking 1! *

Chaogen said:
This Carrier Module is in support of simulating Flight OPS. Not the other way around. And in Flight OPS, as we have very clearly established, you wouldn't go below deck.

Quick correction, this super carrier module is supposed to simulate, wait for it... An aircraft carrier. I mean :surprise: of all things! The hangars contribute just a teeny tiny part into making the aircraft carrier, more of an aircraft carrier. And no, like it or not aircraft handling, including bringing them up from the hangar (obviously where applicable) is a part of flight ops, just maybe a minor one and not from the pilot's perspective, which you are absolutely right on.

And what about smaller vessels? Where you can't physically support lots of aircraft up on deck, and for sorties where you have lots of aircraft in the air, you don't have much of a choice than to bring aircraft up from the hangar, arm them, fuel them, get in them and go. Like it or not aircraft handling, including bringing them up from the hangar is a major part of flight ops, just maybe not from the pilot's perspective.

True, pilots have no business being in the hangar, whatsoever (though only because procedure says so, it says so for an absolutely good reason, and having aircraft moving around in the hangar under their own power would be a massive safety hazard, I'd even describe it as terminally stupid to do so. But here's the thing, DCS is a sandbox, and like it or not as a sandbox, it means people can do whatever they like. They can do things as stupid, as inaccurate, as dangerous as they like. Or they can do the most true-to-life, historically accurate, everything by the book as they like... And that's the way it should be. IMO if it's physically, demonstrably possible then ideally we should be able to do wherever feasible.

And who says DCS can only ever be exclusively about the pilot experience? Sure it should be the number one thing, but being the number one thing and the only thing are 2 different things we already have (albeit limited), a whole host of ground vehicles, including unarmed ones. GCIs, ATCs even boom-operators all have been wished for...

Chaogen said:
Its fine to animate A/C being moved below by AI Deck Crew, which is at least predictable and doesn't require programmers to address every player action, on a deck they shouldn't be in, let alone spawn 2 hour GR video.

What? How is it any different from any other surface in DCS? Sure there's the deck sliding, once that is sussed what are you going to need to change? Like it or not how AI aircraft interact with surfaces, is pretty much identical to how player aircraft do... Sure correct me if I'm wrong by all means, but I'm seriously failing to see the difference from any other surface? One more time you can already do this stuff on current assets, including mods. It's there, it's already present, it's just not fully implemented yet. Sure a few teething bugs, some a fair bit more prohibitive than others, but they'll almost certainly get fixed, and once those do get fixed then its done. What's the problem exactly?

Okay rant over... I'll just say this one more time... this carrier module costs $50 USD ignoring any discounts... Why on Earth is anyone so fervently arguing for less features!? Especially ones we basically already have. It is absolutely beyond me.

Sure I'm not saying that hangars or elevators are high priority at all, there are far bigger fish to fry... For me, I'd simply rather have them than not, ideally I'd rather ships be as true to life in form and function as possible, does that mean absolutely everything, full interior etc? Not at all, but anything that can be added gets a plus in my book. Again of course some aspects should get to go higher up the priority pedestal than others - absolutely.

* Yes I bought the Hornet, I do really like it and enjoy it and I absolutely do not regret buying it, but it's more capability with this one, as well as for me having that IMO, amazing cockpit. Rather than the actual experience of flying it, which is very easy, it basically does it all for you, though that's also beneficial to me as I'm currently playing on a 15" laptop, with no throttle and no rudder, so having forgiving aircraft is a plus for me.


Edited by Northstar98
formatting

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dude, the current Stennis already has animated elevators, in fact so does the old Vinson and Kuznetsov... Oh no muh performance! If only they hadn't modelled this cuboid moving up and down!

 

You're seriously over-blowing such a simple, trivial thing to be this oh so massive (your words not mine) disadvantage, worse one that's actually already present (albeit to some degree, not fully implemented) on current assets.

 

To put things into perspective, the current Stennis tops out at 324,000 polygons, the Hornet (with no weapons mind) tops out at 240,000. So 1.3 empty (apart from pylons) Hornets is the same number of Polygons as one Stennis... And if that doesn't put things into perspective, wait until you see the Tomcat... An empty one (again just pylons) tops off at 716,000 polygons. Well over double one Stennis. And that's just one, wait until you put 2 or 4 up on Deck...

 

Hopefully you're seeing what went wrong here. You're more than welcome to check with the modelviewer...

 

 

 

What point are you trying to make here? What else do I spend <5% of my flight time on? Weapons employment? Countermeasure set-up? Lights? In fact what's the point of taxiing? it doesn't even take up the majority of my time! :doh:

 

Again, hard to believe that you think the freaking elevators are going to be nail in the coffin for performance... As opposed to say the deck crew, or the crazy level of detailing...

 

Also, funny thing about DCS, it has one of those things called a mission editor, it's actually pretty useful, pretty intuitive too I'd say. What it does is that it allows players to edit their missions to whatever they want them to be. So if you don't want to sit through something or include something, don't add them - simple as. Don't want to sit through a cold-start? Start from hot. Don't want long transit times? Start closer to your target. It really isn't that hard. Sure MP takes that a little out of your hands, but then you can always choose a server that suits you, I'm sure you're able to contact mission editors or discuss feedback if there's something you don't like. We have a whole forum section dedicated to missions, and another for multiplayer...

 

I mean you're quite literally throwing your toys out of your pram on this one.

 

I mean if I said "I don't want no damn SA-5 in my mission" That's fine, no-one is forcing me to spawn one in.

 

Tell you one other thing about DCS, it also has something called a settings menu, it allows you to turn some features you don't want off, and the ones you do, on. If you're getting poor performance, it's got you covered too! You can turn settings down.

 

Pfft what!?

 

There are plenty of airshows and museums where you can see basically everything wished for in DCS ever. Don't like the clouds? Well just go outside! "But I want to fly it" Simple! Just become a pilot!

 

Really? Seriously?

 

Also, here's another quick FYI for you, what you find uninteresting just maybe, might not be what others find uninteresting. I personally find 2010+ full glass cockpit aircraft with completely glass cockpits uninteresting, I get much more of a kick out of the more hands on stuff that you get with older aircraft like the Tomcat and MiG-21Bis - and I'm 20 freaking 1! *

 

 

 

Quick correction, this super carrier module is supposed to simulate, wait for it... An aircraft carrier. I mean :surprise: of all things! The hangars contribute just a teeny tiny part into making the aircraft carrier, more of an aircraft carrier. And no, like it or not aircraft handling, including bringing them up from the hangar (obviously where applicable) is a significant part of flight ops, just maybe not from the pilot's perspective, which you are absolutely right on.

 

And what about smaller vessels? Where you can't physically support lots of aircraft up on deck, and for sorties where you have lots of aircraft in the air, you don't have much of a choice than to bring aircraft up from the hangar, arm them, fuel them, get in them and go. Like it or not aircraft handling, including bringing them up from the hangar is a major part of flight ops, just maybe not from the pilot's perspective.

 

True, pilots have no business being in the hangar, whatsoever (though only because procedure says so, it says so for an absolutely good reason, and having aircraft moving around in the hangar under their own power would be a massive safety hazard, I'd even describe it as terminally stupid to do so. But here's the thing, DCS is a sandbox, and like it or not as a sandbox, it means people can do whatever they like. They can do things as stupid, as inaccurate, as dangerous as they like. Or they can do the most true-to-life, historically accurate, everything by the book as they like... And that's the way it should be. IMO if it's physically, demonstrably possible then ideally we should be able to do wherever feasible.

 

And who says DCS can only ever be exclusively about the pilot experience? Sure it should be the number one thing, but being the number one thing and the only thing are 2 different things we already have (albeit limited), a whole host of ground vehicles, including unarmed ones. GCIs, ATCs even boom-operators all have been wished for...

 

 

 

What? How is it any different from any other surface in DCS? Sure there's the deck sliding, once that is sussed what are you going to need to change? Like it or not how AI aircraft interact with surfaces, is pretty much identical to how player aircraft do... Sure correct me if I'm wrong by all means, but I'm seriously failing to see the difference from any other surface? One more time you can already do this stuff on current assets including mods. It's there, it's already present, it's just not fully implemented yet. Sure a few teething bugs, some a fair bit more prohibitive than others, but they'll almost certainly get fixed, and once those do get fixed then its done. What's the problem exactly?

 

Okay rant over... I'll just say this one more time... this carrier module costs $50 USD ignoring any discounts... Why on Earth is anyone so fervently arguing for less features than ones we basically already have? It is absolutely beyond me.

 

Sure I'm not saying that hangars or elevators are high priority at all, there are far bigger fish to fry... For me, I'd rather have them than not, ideally I'd rather ships be as true to life in form and function as possible, does that mean absolutely everything, full interior etc? Not at all, but anything that can be added gets a plus in my book. Again of course some aspects should get to go higher up the priority pedestal than others - absolutely.

 

 

* Yes I bought the Hornet, I do really like it and enjoy it and I absolutely do not regret buying it, but it's more capability with this one, as well as for me having that IMO, amazing cockpit. Rather than the actual experience of flying it, which is very easy, it basically does it all for you, though that's also beneficial to me as I'm currently playing on a 15" laptop, with no throttle and no rudder, so having forgiving aircraft is a plus for me.

 

So you would rather unrealistically ride elevators up and down than fly a plane? Maybe you need sim city??

I9 (5Ghz turbo)2080ti 64Gb 3200 ram. 3 drives. A sata 2tb storage and 2 M.2 drives. 1 is 1tb, 1 is 500gb.

Valve Index, Virpil t50 cm2 stick, t50 base and v3 throttle w mini stick. MFG crosswind pedals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Big.”Biggs” said:
So you would rather unrealistically ride elevators up and down than fly a plane? Maybe you need sim city??

I... I... I mean... what???

Dude seriously, here's the point I was trying to make -> •

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You're about here somewhere ->

=4c=Nikola said:
^tl;dr

TL;DR of the long ranty post.

  • Like it or not hangars and lifts are already at least partially implemented. They're at least animated on all current carriers - including the old Kuznetsov and the Vinson
  • Implying that hangars and elevators are going to be a massive performance hit is IMO ridiculous and that's the nice way of putting it.
  • Like it or not aircraft handling (incl. hangars and elevators especially on smaller carriers) is in fact a part of flight ops, just a pretty minor part and not at all from the pilot's perspective. From the pilot's perspective they get into an armed and fuelled aircraft, up on deck ready to start, taxi, fly their mission, land, shut down and get out, none of it involving the hangar. On larger carriers the hangar is only really used for maintenance but also for storage of aircraft you can't put up on deck. Here's the thing though... who says that DCS has to be exclusively from the direct perspective of a pilot at all times? Should it be the focal point? Absolutely. But I mean CA has been out since 2012, sure it leaves a lot to be desired, but there you go, something in DCS in which a player takes the role of something outside the perspective of a pilot.
  • Why does anyone want less features on a $50 (excluding discounts) module? Like what!? Surely the more features - the better value for money it is? Is there something that's not computing for me?

If you're not interested in something fine - don't use it, don't buy it, nobody is stopping you from not using it.

I understand why some might be against something for priority reasons or in light of other issues and as far as priority hangars and elevators aren't anywhere near the top, nor should they be. But if we want to make a module, surely we would want to make it so it accurately depicts the thing it's supposed to be. Having a carrier with functional elevators and a hangar would be a more accurate depiction of a real aircraft carrier. Again, I'll hammer home the point that I expect hangars and elevators to be of low-priority/nice to have kind-of thing, which is where they should be.

There's a fair few of features on some aircraft, including weapons that I simply aren't all that interested in using, I might end up never using them. But that doesn't mean I would rail against it's implementation, especially to the extent of borderline making stuff up.

For example, I can't really imagine me using the Tomcat's navgrid, however the real aircraft has it, regardless of whether or not I personally want to use it, so IMO it should be implemented, A.) because it's present on the real thing, thus making the Tomcat more feature complete wrt. it's IRL counterpart; and B.) it's feasible to do so. And even though I might not use it, I'd rather it be present than not, and on a product your paying for, especially one that claims to be the most accurate the more IRL features we get the better.


Edited by Northstar98
formatting

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s a game dude. If you don’t like the suggestion don’t use it if they choose to implement it.

 

Yep, TROLL.

On ignore...

I9 (5Ghz turbo)2080ti 64Gb 3200 ram. 3 drives. A sata 2tb storage and 2 M.2 drives. 1 is 1tb, 1 is 500gb.

Valve Index, Virpil t50 cm2 stick, t50 base and v3 throttle w mini stick. MFG crosswind pedals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

=4c=Nikola said:
It does require talent to go from:

"It’s a game dude. If you don’t like the suggestion don’t use it if they choose to implement it."

 

to:

"So you would rather unrealistically ride elevators up and down than fly a plane? Maybe you need sim city??"

 

In less than half an hour... and then dare to call someone else a troll.

Tbf I thought it required 'talent' to read what I wrote to conclude that I'd rather use DCS as an elevator simulator... Even if it was ranty and long. I was only really trying to counter arguments against, I didn't make much of an attempt for implementing elevators and hangars. I recognise that it's basically just a nice to have for those that want it for whatever reason, I just wasn't buying some of the arguments against.

What's funny though is that you're both against, effectively on the same side and yet he calls you a troll. For essentially being tolerant (I guess that's the right word) of the request. I mean, it's really something else...


Edited by Northstar98
formatting

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tbf I thought it required 'talent' to read what I wrote to conclude that I'd rather use DCS as an elevator simulator... Even if it was ranty and long. I was only really trying to counter arguments against, I didn't make much of an attempt for implementing elevators and hangars. I recognise that it's basically just a nice to have for those that want it for whatever reason, I just wasn't buying some of the arguments against.

 

What's funny though is that you're both against, effectively on the same side and yet he calls you a troll. For essentially being tolerant (I guess that's the right word) of the request. I mean, it's really something else...

 

No the funny part is I was supporting your argument but you ladies carry on without me.

Regards!

I9 (5Ghz turbo)2080ti 64Gb 3200 ram. 3 drives. A sata 2tb storage and 2 M.2 drives. 1 is 1tb, 1 is 500gb.

Valve Index, Virpil t50 cm2 stick, t50 base and v3 throttle w mini stick. MFG crosswind pedals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team

Hi all

 

please stay on topic and refrain from the personal insults.

 

Thank you

smallCATPILOT.PNG.04bbece1b27ff1b2c193b174ec410fc0.PNG

Forum rules - DCS Crashing? Try this first - Cleanup and Repair - Discord BIGNEWY#8703 - Youtube - Patch Status

Windows 11, NVIDIA MSI RTX 3090, Intel® i9-10900K 3.70GHz, 5.30GHz Turbo, Corsair Hydro Series H150i Pro, 64GB DDR @3200, ASUS ROG Strix Z490-F Gaming, HP Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don´t understand people.

It´s fine not to like the module and you are free to ignore it, but please, do it instead of criticize something you are not going to buy, and let other enjoy something that is a priority. Live and let live. There´s room for everybody.

 - "Don't be John Wayne in the Break if you´re going to be Jerry Lewis on the Ball".

About carrier ops: "The younger pilots are still quite capable of holding their heads forward against the forces. The older ones have been doing this too long and know better; sore necks make for poor sleep.'

 

PC: I7 4790K 4.6ghz | 32GB RAM | Zotac GTX 1080Ti 11Gb DDR5x | Water cooler NZXT AIO Kraken x53 | 3.5TB (x4 SSD´s) | Valve Index| Andre´s JeatSeat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dude, the current Stennis already has animated elevators, in fact so does the old Vinson and Kuznetsov... Oh no muh performance! If only they hadn't modelled this cuboid moving up and down!

……………

for me.

 

So you wrote half a dissertation based on 157 words and missed the point of my question while misconstruing my argument to fit your rant? Seems like a waste of your time, but alas. Let me esplain Lucy.

 

I did NOT say ED shouldn't model the elevators, and perhaps enough of the Hanger deck to at least look good from outside.. You go as far as to quote me, saying the AI can be modeled to move A/C around and between decks, but then respond on numerous occasions to a statement that I did not make. You also make several attempts to invalidate my post by making irrelevant comparisons, calling it absurd with straw man arguments and subverting with off-topic statements, as we gradually slide down the pyramid. So, let’s try to get back on top, shall we?

 

What I questioned was what "SIGNIFICANT ADVANTAGE" does anyone get by being able to "roll" into [and around] the hanger deck?

 

I'm talking about modeling the Hanger deck in full detail with all the equipment, mechanics refitting engines and maintaining A/C, you would find there, because god forbid ED breaks the "IMMERSION" by giving people an empty hanger that they "paid $50 for".

 

On that topic, that would be $25, which I was more than happy to do to get animated deck crew on the flight deck to direct, launch and recover my A/C. I would not have paid $50 if that ended up being the price for what was promised.. The $50 probably came from offsetting the discounts everyone was demanding for owning the only aircraft to date confirmed to be functional with this module. Which is of no use to me actually, as I fly the Tomcat and haven't touched the Hornet since March last year. But I support ED.

 

Furthermore, the Carrier module is not a Full Aircraft Carrier Simulator. If it was, I want a full bridge with animated bridge officers to captain that puppy. So not sure where you are getting your information from unless perhaps it’s on the same Wishlist?

 

You also talk about something other than Pilots perspective? What does that even refer to? The purpose of combined arms is still to operate the vehicle/equipment. Not maintain it.

 

Bottom line, I am not arguing for less features. You are arguing for more. None of which was advertised, but will impact performance no matter how much you want to downplay it. De-sync is a serious concern right now without adding more objects to the situation for little or no added value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...Furthermore, the Carrier module is not a Full Aircraft Carrier Simulator. If it was, I want a full bridge with animated bridge officers to captain that puppy. So not sure where you are getting your information from unless perhaps it’s on the same Wishlist?...

 

:huh:

 

Airboss station, ready room, LSO station, all being included later on. That might not meet your 'full aircraft carrier simulator' definition, but it's part of the way there. This isn't an all or nothing situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:huh:

 

Airboss station, ready room, LSO station, all being included later on. That might not meet your 'full aircraft carrier simulator' definition, but it's part of the way there. This isn't an all or nothing situation.

 

 

Still AIROPS related as opposed to Ship Simulator. Also all of those are not trying to run an A/C module at the same time and performance impact would remain strictly on the client accessing those features..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brace yourselves it's another long one...

Chaogen said:
I did NOT say ED shouldn't model the elevators, and perhaps enough of the Hanger deck to at least look good from outside… You go as far as to quote me, saying the AI can be modeled to move A/C around and between decks, but then respond on numerous occasions to a statement that I did not make.

Well usually when someone makes over exaggerated arguments against, that usually means that somebody is against something.

Chaogen said:
You also make several attempts to invalidate my post by making irrelevant comparisons, calling it absurd with straw man arguments and subverting with off-topic statements, as we gradually slide down the pyramid. So, let’s try to get back on top, shall we?

Christ! Misconstruing arguments, irrelevant comparisons, straw man arguments and even subversion!

Not a single example provided of such, (colour me shocked) but let’s see if I can address it…

Much of your original argument reasoned that the increase in polygon count and associated textures will bring DCS to “slideshow” performance.

Just a quick fact – the current Stennis (with this feature already present, albeit not fully implemented and the hangar isn’t that detailed) has a polycount half that of a single clean Tomcat (w. just pylons). Or is it only relevant if you bring up polygon count?

The supercarrier is supposed to have the visuals overhauled; so let’s quadruple it’s polygon count… That’s still just 2 Tomcat’s worth… Does having 2 Tomcats reduce DCS to a slideshow for you? It doesn’t for me at least and I’m playing on a laptop, with a 1050Ti on high settings…

Chaogen said:
What I questioned was what "SIGNIFICANT ADVANTAGE" does anyone get by being able to "roll" into [and around] the hanger deck?

I don’t think there is a significant advantage… I thought I made that clear when I said:

Lunatic98 said:
…Sure I'm not saying that hangars or elevators are high priority at all, there are far bigger fish to fry... For me, I'd simply rather have them than not, ideally I'd rather ships be as true to life in form and function as possible, does that mean absolutely everything, full interior etc? Not at all, but anything that can be added gets a plus in my book…

And again, when I said this:

Lunatic98 said:
…I recognise that it's basically just a nice to have for those that want it for whatever reason…

The only advantage is that it makes the aircraft carrier a little bit more representative, of a real aircraft carrier… Which is what it’s supposed to be. Not necessarily an overblown full fidelity, all the bells and whistles thing you make the request out to be. Which yeah, stop making stuff up.

Chaogen said:
I'm talking about modeling the Hanger deck in full detail with all the equipment, mechanics refitting engines and maintaining A/C, you would find there because god forbid ED breaks the "IMMERSION" by giving people an empty hanger that they "paid $50 for".

What the hell are you talking about?

Dude there’s a grand total of nobody asking for a fully detailed hangar, asking for all the trimmings or ‘Digital Mechanic Simulator’. You are without a doubt making stuff up – putting things you made up into people’s mouths. And you accuse me of misconstruing arguments…

The hypocrisy is strong with this one…

And yes, the SC module was $25 for me too, but in order to get that discount you need to fork out at least $60 on a Hornet (AFAIK that’s the price of it on sale) and I’ve bought 2! The module is still valued at $50.

Just as a side note, I’m invested in the naval environment for DCS. Not so much driving ships – I'm not really interested and I think it's out of current scope (well maybe apart from the smallest vessels e.g. fast attack craft). But the naval environment as a whole is one of the most IMO underdeveloped things; from the AI, to the damage modelling, countermeasures and even comms… I’m more than willing to fork out if it means more improvements.

Chaogen said:
Furthermore, the Carrier module is not a Full Aircraft Carrier Simulator. If it was, I want a full bridge with animated bridge officers to captain that puppy. So not sure where you are getting your information from unless perhaps it’s on the same Wishlist?

I didn’t say full aircraft carrier simulator, nor am I trying to convert DCS into a ship simulator, again, stop making stuff up.

I just said it’s supposed to simulate an aircraft carrier, to what degree I left ambiguous and you accuse me of making a straw man...

Here’s how ED describes it: “DCS: Supercarrier is the most detailed and realistic simulation of a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier ever created.”

Okay it’s advertising, so y’know pinch of salt and all that…

Among other, more important things, the real Nimitz class has a hangar and functional elevators, so to me, having functional elevators and a hangar of some description (doesn’t have to be super-duper fancy, full fidelity thing you’re making it out to be) contributes to a more realistic representation, even if a minor one.

I believe that if we can add a feature, that makes something even a tiny bit closer to reality, then we should ideally go for it, provided if it’s feasible to do so.

Key points: “ideally” and “if feasible to do so”.

Now given that, for the 67 millionth time, the current Stennis already has these features present. No ill effects on performance as far as I can tell; so I would argue that it is feasible. Given that the Stennis is free, and this is paid, I would expect at least the same, maybe with visual improvements…

Look I bring proof! https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3523562&postcount=13

Chaogen said:
You also talk about something other than Pilots perspective? What does that even refer to? The purpose of combined arms is still to operate the vehicle/equipment. Not maintain it.

Moving some more goalposts are we?

When I said “from the pilot’s perspective” I meant a playable role, that isn’t an aircraft pilot – I thought this was fairly obvious, clearly I’m mistaken…

But since were moving goalposts so instead we're talking about operators/drivers in a broad sense, what’s wrong with a push-back tug? I'm not really interested in driving one, but sure why not...

Chaogen said:
Bottom line, I am not arguing for less features. You are arguing for more.

Let’s try this one more time *deep breath*

THIS FEATURE IS ALREADY PRESENT

So if the supercarrier doesn’t include it, it means it’s a feature that has been removed, ergo less features.

Chaogen said:
None of which was advertised

Ahem… https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4010807&postcount=211&highlight=elevators.

Plus again, already present, unless they remove it...

Chaogen said:
but will impact performance no matter how much you want to downplay it.

Okay Chaogen, so how are functional elevators and a hangar going to measurably impact performance, let alone massively so? Out of all the things DCS models… Bearing in mind that this feature is present already.

Chaogen said:
De-sync is a serious concern right now without adding more objects to the situation for little or no added value.

Chaogen, I’d hate to break it to you, but the world doesn’t revolve around you. What you think of as having value might maybe, just maybe differ from what others find interesting or having value.

These lot seem to appreciate it:

We're also throwing de-sync into the mix, although I'm not sure what exactly the problem is as surprise, surprise, no examples given...

Still ended up being gigantic...


Edited by Northstar98
formatting

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe they should include a "deck crew" position and let this guys play with the elevators all day LOL oh and they can have a go at arranging them inside the hangar too,

 

DCS+Elevators(realy old, old game)+Tetris ;).

 

I would settle for being able to walk to my plane ON deck.

 

I don´t remember such a solicitation for working hangars in Air bases ;)

Then again. on land Also, the ground crew take the airplanes from the hangars to the Flight line. and Pilots go from the ready room to the Flight Line, NOT to the hangars...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Baco said:
Maybe they should include a "deck crew" position and let this guys play with the elevators all day LOL oh and they can have a go at arranging them inside the hangar too.

Am I speaking another language or something?

Baco said:
I don´t remember such a solicitation for working hangars in Air bases

Because they're already there, and have been so since at least LOMAC FC2

Baco said:
Then again. on land Also, the ground crew take the airplanes from the hangars to the Flight line. and Pilots go from the ready room to the Flight Line, NOT to the hangars...

Yep, got it! Have understood from the start...


Edited by Northstar98
formatting

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brace yourselves it's another long one...

 

Well usually when someone makes over exaggerated arguments against, that usually means that somebody is against something.

 

Still ended up being gigantic...

 

Amazing.. You still didn't answer the question I originally posed which wasn't even directed at you. You seem to count on your theatrics to substantiate your position.

 

I'm not going to quote you selective excerpts of threads to "prove" every response. We're going to be doing it all day long and that's a waste of my time. Feel free to do so, but I will not. Just to indulge you, your quote from the newsletter left out the " for a flight simulation." part.

 

You obviously lack reading comprehension. I've even repeated myself that I wasn't against the animation of the elevator deck and even suggested AI periodically move A/C up and down it.

 

I am against players going in the Hanger Deck. What on earth would anyone want to go below deck for as a "SIGNIFICANT ADVANTAGE", to determining if they will buy it or not, if it is an empty hanger deck without any equipment or other objects? That is not misconstruing an argument, just simple deductive reasoning and based on the DCS forums feedback I see every day throughout the forums. So I'm curious how that constitutes Hypocrisy? An example of that however would be accusing me of over-blowing statements yet then using a phrase like “for the 67 millionth time,”.

 

So you briefly mention my question by quoting me once again, but then simply saying you don't think there is an advantage. Obviously, the person that wrote the post thought so. Why did you even decide to jump in the middle of that, without adding something of significant value to the conversation? To add yet one more item to your post count so you can feel validate in your convictions? Guest what Lunatic98, the whole forum doesn’t revolve around you either, and your limited experience on this earth is not offset by your ability to write posts..

 

Instead you present my replies as over exaggerated argument against it. “It” being interpreted by you as an argument against animated elevators, when if fact the context was regarding players going into the hanger deck. I know this might be before your time but maybe you should get a dictionary. Since you like to use specific contextual statements to other substantiate other arguments. Here, I'll even quote it for you.. "Misconstruing: Verb. Interpret (something, especially a person's words or actions) wrongly."

 

Furthermore the animate elevator is the only thing the advertising promised. Nothing about a hanger deck and or access to it and the subsequent animated equipment and crew that would go along with it, increasing polygon count and subroutines running to accommodate those players in the hanger as the mechanics run for their lives with a powered player aircraft roaming about in the confined space.

 

Before anyone buys popcorn stocks, at this point since you are not proposing to have the hanger deck be animated in detail or have players should have complete access it, I see no reason to continue this exchange. You seem to be more interested in arguing than for the sake of being able to play semantics and misquoted statements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

< sarcasm >

 

If we're going to have a working hangar deck in game, they better have the ship-specific murals and decorations that are painted on the doors between each bay for each of the CVN's in the class that are being modeled, otherwise I want a refund!

 

Also, they better make sure the AI adheres to the proper restrictions when operating the ship with an aircraft elevator at hangar bay level, and slows the ship down to 15 knots or less (IIRC - it's been a few years) before lowering the elevators.

 

And while they're at it, when are we getting working upper and lower weapons elevators, animated bomb farms, and AI Aviation Ordnancemen screaming "IYAOYAS!" every 10 seconds?

 

And if we're going to go that far, how about modeling a virtual Central Control Station, with an AI Engineering Officer of the Watch to yell at the Air Boss about the frequency of launches between bow and waist cats, especially if the ship is providing wind over the deck by answering a high bell, and threatening to or actually shutting the catapult steam riser valves?

 

Also, I demand that ED immediately develop and implement T-AK's, T-AO's, AOE's (which would still be in service in the given timeframe), and other auxiliary ships so we can model underway replenishments, so those weapons, spare parts, fuel, and other supplies can be transferred to said modeled hangar bay.

 

I know I'm missing more, but I'll keep working on this list of things we need with the new CVN's.

 

< / sarcasm >

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I realise this is entirely futile, but hey I haven't got anything better to do... So let's try one last time...

Chaogen said:
Amazing.. You still didn't answer the question I originally posed which wasn't even directed at you.

My. God.

You really are something else aren't you?

I didn't answer your question? Well do tell me what the hell this all is then...

Lunatic98 said:

I don’t think there is a significant advantage… I thought I made that clear when I said:

 

Lunatic98 said:
…Sure I'm not saying that hangars or elevators are high priority at all, there are far bigger fish to fry... For me, I'd simply rather have them than not, ideally I'd rather ships be as true to life in form and function as possible, does that mean absolutely everything, full interior etc? Not at all, but anything that can be added gets a plus in my book…
Lunatic98 said:
…I recognise that it's basically just a nice to have for those that want it for whatever reason…
Lunatic98 said:
The only advantage is that it makes the aircraft carrier a little bit more representative, of a real aircraft carrier… Which is what it’s supposed to be. Not necessarily an overblown full fidelity, all the bells and whistles thing you make the request out to be. Which yeah, stop making stuff up.

One of us clearly lacks reading comprehension...

And worse! You even admit yourself that it wasn't directed at me! So why is it up to me to answer it? Even though I've done so 4 freaking times already...

Chaogen said:
I'm not going to quote you selective excerpts of threads to "prove" every response.

Dude, you haven't quoted anything, so I'm hardly surprised. You just spew out baseless assertions while juggling around various logical fallacies, all the while providing nothing to back up anything you say.

Chaogen said:
our quote from the newsletter left out the " for a flight simulation." part.

And? How does this go against what I said? I said:

Lunatic98 said:
I didn’t say full aircraft carrier simulator, nor am I trying to convert DCS into a ship simulator, again, stop making stuff up.
Lunatic98 said:
Just as a side note, I’m invested in the naval environment for DCS. Not so much driving ships – I'm not really interested and I think it's out of current scope

And you have the nerve to accuse me of lacking reading comprehension...

On that note - there's a reason why I quote you directly at every stage of the game, even if it makes my posts take twice as much space as they should...

Chaogen said:
I am against players going in the Hanger Deck.

Yep, got it! But quite frankly Chaogen, what other players do in DCS is none of your business...

Chaogen said:
What on earth would anyone want to go below deck for as a "SIGNIFICANT ADVANTAGE"

Because maybe people don't share a collective consciousness with you. Again, sorry to say, the world doesn't revolve around you, it doesn't revolve around me either, difference with me is that it's no business of mine to tell people what they can or can't be interested in, nor is it any business of mine to dictate what other people do in DCS, especially when it doesn't concern me one bit... You can fly as realistic, by the books mission as you like, or the least realistic as you like, you're more than able to do both as you see fit...

The assets should IMO be as realistic as feasibly possible, where resources and scope permit, does that mean absolutely everything? Of course not. I've made that clear several times already. If it isn't feasible or it's out of scope, fine! It's really no matter whatsoever... I understand there are going to be things missing, they're usually missing for a good reason, I'll accept that - I'm more than willing to compromise, and I absolutely understand the need to. I also understand priority, and the need for it. My take on this is that it's low priority

And for the 5th time, I don't see it as a significant advantage... Why are you so hung up on this "significant advantage" claim? Okay, cptmrcalm said that for him at least, it would - because he's interested in it... Apparently that's heresy or something for you and that he should just "visit a museum". Even though he says himself that it's not the highest priority for everyone... I really don't get why you're so hung up on 2 words.

You then harped on about performance, about how it will result in a slideshow - despite the current Stennis already having such features... Slideshow anyone? No? Well Chaogen, I think we've just found out why I called your performance claims an over-exaggeration...

Chaogen said:
to determining if they will buy it or not, if it is an empty hanger deck without any equipment or other objects?

The module is valued at $50 my guess is that for that price cptmrcalm would rather see functional elevators though he acknowledges that it's not the highest priority for everyone.

Quote me one post asking for extra equipment, 'Digital Mechanic Simulator', or anything else other than a hangar and functional elevators...

If you don't/can't then let me give you this simple piece of advice...

Stop. Making. Stuff. Up.

Chaogen said:
That is not misconstruing an argument, just simple deductive reasoning and based on the DCS forums feedback I see every day throughout the forums.

Oh really Sherlock? The whole the "hangar must be absolutely full-fidelity, and we need all the crews, and we need to have maintenance simulated" etc is stuff you made up! No-one, (at least in this thread) is asking for it, you are getting these requests out of nowhere. Prove me wrong, I'll listen - only there's not a single mention of it on this thread from anyone but you, this thread entitled "Carrier Elevators?".

Chaogen said:
So I'm curious how that constitutes Hypocrisy?

Lets see, you accuse me of making a straw man, subversion(!), making irrelevant comparisons, posting off-topic responses - not one single quote to support any of it (shock horror).

You then go and do the exact same things you accuse me of - that's how it constitutes hypocrisy. Only difference is I provide examples.

You big up such a trivial request, clutching at straws to twist a point into something it's not - all it was, was working elevators and a hangar of some description - again stuff that is essentially, already there - I'll quote myself again (This is seriously getting ridiculous, in fact we surpassed ridiculous a while back).

Lunatic98 said:
...and a hangar of some description (doesn’t have to be super-duper fancy, full fidelity thing you’re making it out to be).

 

Chaogen said:
An example of that however would be accusing me of over-blowing statements yet then using a phrase like “for the 67 millionth time,”

Really Chaogen? Really? This is what we're going with? Plus it may as well have been the 67th millionth time, because amazingly, you still haven't got it yet...

Chaogen said:
So you briefly mention my question by quoting me once again, but then simply saying you don't think there is a [significant] advantage. Obviously, the person that wrote the post thought so.

And I disagree with that person - I don't think it's a significant advantage, I think it's a minor advantage at best. Something that just so nudges the carrier to be more like an aircraft carrier... But of course adding stuff that's already there, magically makes DCS less of a flight sim apparently...

Chaogen said:
Why did you even decide to jump in the middle of that, without adding something of significant value to the conversation?

My oh my... Sorry Chaogen, I can't hear you from all the way up that high horse you're perched on. If you had actually read my argument, it mainly revolves around picking yours apart, seeing as you think features we already have bring performance to that of a "slideshow" (in case you didn't get it, which yeah, apparently you didn't - this is why I called the performance argument you made an over-exaggeration).

Chaogen said:
Instead you present my replies as over exaggerated argument against it.

Because they are... I was quoting you directly... It's already present with no measurable ill-effects or performance complaints. You offer no rebuttal other than sticking your fingers in your ears... You also like to throw around various logical fallacies, yet never actually addressing much of anything.

Chaogen said:
“It” being interpreted by you as an argument against animated elevators

Did you misinterpret what I said AGAIN?

My point was concerning functional elevators, and a hangar (literally a box with a collideable floor and walls, that looks like the hangar of a Nimitz class) - you know the thing that's already there. How. Many. Freaking. Times.

Chaogen said:
I know this might be before your time but maybe you should get a dictionary.

:megalol:

Chaogen said:
Furthermore the animate elevator is the only thing the advertising promised. Nothing about a hanger deck and or access to it

Oh. My. God.

IT IS ALREADY THERE!!!

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3523562&postcount=13

Seriously, it's all there on the free Stennis! Why is this so difficult for you to understand? I mean I've tried bold, italics, underlining, full caps lock AND making it oversized. I mean, do you need it highlighted? Am I not being clear? What's going on!?

And of course it makes total sense that there would be an animated elevator that leads to nowhere. Of course ignoring the fact that yet AGAIN the hangar is... Wait for it...

ALREADY THERE

Chaogen said:
and the subsequent animated equipment and crew that would go along with it

Which again, nobody is asking for - stop. making. stuff. up.

It's funny, you accuse me of attacking a straw man, you provide zip of me actually doing so and then you go on a relentless crusade against a straw man of your own... Maybe you should look up hypocrite in your dictionary, which, spoiler alert: is why I called you one in the first place.

All I'm in favour of, are features that are already there on the free Nimitz, maybe with some visual improvements and with a few things fixed... Obviously the crew up on deck, and comms being major selling points too...

I'm absolutely done, I might as well be arguing with someone from TFES at this point...


Edited by Northstar98
formatting

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

=4c=Nikola said:
It's there, but it's low poly and low res. If you want player to go there you need more polys and more pixels.

Eh I'm not really interesting in going there myself, I just see it as a nice to have really... Though I do imagine if a hangar is still present, it'll probably receive a visual improvement - even if they do so I seriously doubt such a thing will cripple performance to the extent that Chaogen would have people believe...

=4c=Nikola said:
BTW, they are making completely new model and textures. So, technically, it's not there.

True, but that's why I said it's present on current assets, namely the Stennis, and yet is performance markedly reduced? No and I doubt that a visual improvement is going to markedly impact performance when aircraft like the Tomcat surpass the Stennis' polycount by a long way...

What we do know is that functional elevators will most probably will be (it's been said numerous times they'll at least be animated) I really can't imagine it not being so (regardless of detail) if elevators are supposedly going to be functional... Plus we see the AS32A-32A Hangar Deck Tractor present in the official list of static equipment for the module (though that doesn't necessarily mean anything).

And it's already a functional feature for AI on the Stennis, which I imagine was used as test-bed. Sure it's an assumption but IMO a likely one. Unless it's necessary to remove it for some reason, though I don't see ED removing features that were already provided for, for free...

Just my take on it.


Edited by Northstar98
formatting

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys. Simulations are all about immersion. I’m an old fart and I like to be immersed.

VR so far has been the best thing for DCS – the main reason for trying it out.

 

Are elevators as important as a true dynamic campaign – controlling assets and flights in real time? No.

Are elevators as important as getting the AI planes moving around realistically instead of flying on invisible rails? No.

Getting the flight systems fully implemented? No.

Are elevators as important as getting a fully animated ground crew? No.

 

But for me, I’d want something significant to what we have already.

If I can park up on an elevator and use the radio to be lowered down into the hanger bay – even if just to roll forward off the ramp to bring up the escape menu – then I’m in.

(I don’t ever think I’ve seen that before in any flight sim?)

 

Because that would be immersive. A celebratory end to a mission. To help put into perspective the flight I just had. To add to the immersion that the ship is alive with a hive of activity.

Wow. I’d be in.

I don’t understand why people seem to think the elevators are being portrayed as important as flying features. Referring to things as sim city etc…

But heck. If they don’t implement them, then opportunity missed and ill probably pass. Depending on its other features.

But if you don’t care for them – hey, its your opinion and that’s fine.

 

As someone further back in the thread put:

“f I’m paying that much money i want elevators and hangar honestly down the road, if not at release

 

Its meant to be supercarrier not lazy implementation carrier.”

 

 

Peace. out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I can park up on an elevator and use the radio to be lowered down into the hanger bay – even if just to roll forward off the ramp to bring up the escape menu – then I’m in.

Pilots don't do that. Fantasy kills immersion. So I'm against players riding elevators. But them working for AI is OK. They are already implemented on Stennis and work. SC will work like that too, nothing really to talk about.

🖥️ Win10 i7-10700KF 32GB RTX3060   🥽 Rift S   🕹️ T16000M HOTAS   ✈️ FC3, F-14A/B, F-15E   ⚙️ CA   🚢 SC   🌐 NTTR, PG, Syria

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thats true and a fair point. Not sure on fantasy kills immersion - after all, its all a fantasy - but i think i get what your saying.

 

 

 

Maybe just an nice way of seeing the aircraft being recovered then.

 

 

 

I suppose the point still stands - so long as its a significant advancement to what we have.

 

 

regards

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pilots don't do that. Fantasy kills immersion. So I'm against players riding elevators. But them working for AI is OK. They are already implemented on Stennis and work. SC will work like that too, nothing really to talk about.

 

Not doubting for a moment what you say but i am obviously doing something wrong (nothing new there then) Any AI aircraft i have seen head for the elevator, get on it, lift does what a lift does, they then hop off, head for the hanger and then reappear on the deck and either hit anything in the way or block the landing area. I also was not aware a "real" player could do it, though i am sure i read somewhere else you can.

 

I reckon it would be a cool animation to see but for real the deck crew and not the Aircrew do all that, so i guess you would have to look at modeling tugs etc on the lift. A feature I would like to see, yes, but only after the flying side, the ATC etc is all working correctly.

How much longer, Ops? The engine’s overheating and so am I. We either stand down or blow up. Which do you want?

:pilotfly::pilotfly::pilotfly:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...