Upgraded USS Stennis Module

[boedha68]

Dear ED, First of all a fantastic job of the F-18C and USS Stennis.

 

- Could we have elevators on the USS Stennis. There is room enough below the deck.

- Can you maybe cooperate with Heatblur about the forrestal crew!

 

Yep, i know this is a wish for years now. Airfield- and carrier personal. :smartass:

 

Thanks in advance. The sim gets better and better!! :D

[Esac_mirmidon]

Left something for the DLC XDDD

[Silver_Dragon]

Elevators has modelled and animated on the USS Steiner but not functional actually. Expected to the future "carrier modules" to see more improvements.

ED has working on deck crew and other (mechanics, signal crew, etc).

[boedha68]

Elevators has modelled and animated on the USS Steiner but not functional actually. Expected to the future "carrier modules" to see more improvements.

ED has working on deck crew and other (mechanics, signal crew, etc).

 

Thank you Silver_Dragon. I wasn't aware of that! :thumbup:

[USSInchon]

IMHO there is no reason for a modeled hangar deck. No pilot is going to man an aircraft spotted in the hangar bay, as at no time will an aircraft be moved under power in the hangar bay. The only time the pilot is going to step into the cockpit for flight is when it is spotted on the flight deck ready for flight. Unless of course ED decides to make DCS: Air Department. The hangar bay is needless "eye candy". Now that being said, I would love for more active spots on the flight deck so as to have more aircraft involved in missions etc.

[Cik]

desperately need support for full decks

 

 

alpha strike not possible in current game, which means anything but bombing some barely defended targets isn't possible unless you have 6-12 carriers.

[cichlidfan]

IMHO there is no reason for a modeled hangar deck. No pilot is going to man an aircraft spotted in the hangar bay, as at no time will an aircraft be moved under power in the hangar bay. The only time the pilot is going to step into the cockpit for flight is when it is spotted on the flight deck ready for flight.

 

^^^ This.

[Mars Exulte]

I tried taxiing in the hangar in Arma once... I quickly realised there are some, shall we say, insurmountable issues. Adding the hangar would quite literally be wasted polys.

[joey45]

The hanger is there but the doors are closed.

[Kayos]

IMHO there is no reason for a modeled hangar deck. No pilot is going to man an aircraft spotted in the hangar bay, as at no time will an aircraft be moved under power in the hangar bay. The only time the pilot is going to step into the cockpit for flight is when it is spotted on the flight deck ready for flight. Unless of course ED decides to make DCS: Air Department. The hangar bay is needless "eye candy". Now that being said, I would love for more active spots on the flight deck so as to have more aircraft involved in missions etc.

 

It will be good for busy multiplayer servers. Everyone can spawn downstairs when the top is full and take the elevator up in turn.

[SkateZilla]

The hanger is there but the doors are closed.

 

The Doors open w/ Args 47 (Right Front), 48 (Right Middle), 53 (Right Rear), 54 (Left Rear)

The Elevators move w/ Args 57 (Right Front), 58 (Right Middle), 59 (Right Read), 60 (Left Rear)

[javelina1]

The Doors open w/ Args 47 (Right Front), 48 (Right Middle), 53 (Right Rear), 54 (Left Rear)

The Elevators move w/ Args 57 (Right Front), 58 (Right Middle), 59 (Right Read), 60 (Left Rear)

 

 

whoa, cool!

[Mars Exulte]

It will be good for busy multiplayer servers. Everyone can spawn downstairs when the top is full and take the elevator up in turn.

 

 

No, they can't. You can't back onto the elevator, you can't turn around once you're on it, etc etc.

 

 

 

The only way that is even remotely possible is if they either allow you to drive a tug (extremely unlikely and out of place), or automate the process via an AI tug or by warping you onto the elevator and it raising you to the deck. You're not going to "taxi around" downstairs.

[Nosferatuwhisky 1-1]

Having functional elevators for the actual players makes zero sense.

 

The pilot gets into the aircraft on the deck, not down below.

[TonyG]

I think it would be cool to have it.

 

As to real life....well it happens enough that the US Navy put a section in the NATOPs manual (pg 349) on how to handle manning the plane on the hangar deck.

 

[FistofZen]

I see no point in developing a carrier module, I mean, there is only one point.

[Mars Exulte]

@TonyG

Yeah, but you're still talking about being moved around by a tug, not taxiing under power.

[Northstar98]

Even though the hangar is there for maintenance, and as far as I know RN wise aircraft are always fuelled, armed, boarded, started, stored whatever from/on the flight deck. Helicopters only went into the hangar when weather is bad and there's space - saves maintenance. There's only really one special case.

 

Buuut A: Too bad you're getting them whether you like it or not (ED newsletter 21/01/2016 http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/newsletters/newsletter29012016.html, model viewer etc).

 

B: The thing near enough all of you seem to be overlooking - the Nimitz class isn't the only class of ship who's principle job is to operate aircraft. Not every aircraft carrier tops off at over 300 metres long and carry 80/90+ aircraft.

 

I have the privelage of gaining a bit of insight on one in particular - the now decommissioned HMS Ocean. Ocean only carriers up to a maximum of 18 aircraft - that number shrinks though if Chinooks are embarked. And if you want to launch/recover Chinooks in the plural, there's not enough space to park aircraft on the deck, you have to put aircraft in the hangar and raise them back up when the deck is clear. Sure the pilot may not be involved, but the hangar still needs to actually be there and the lifts still needs to work. Heck on Ocean, during Operation Cougar 2015 we even had an MV-22, that needed half the deck space for flight operations, if you need lots of aircraft in quick succession (Ocean has even managed to get it's entire air wing off at one time, which necessitated bringing aircraft practically ready to go from the hangar to the flight deck in quick succession).

 

I am sure this applies to smaller aircraft carriers also. It certainly applies to small surface combatants (which have modelled hangars, and animated doors in DCS already). Especially for surface combatants that might embark 2 aircraft but can only launch and recover one at a time with the other in the hangar. Why aren't we allowed to do this?

I mean take the Oliver Hazard Perry class frigate, it can carry 2 helicopters, if you want to use both (don't see why not) you need the hangar and you need the doors, and if a frigate is going to get that, why the heck wouldn't you do it to a carrier?

 

C: How does adding features hinder gameplay? In fact better, how does making a ship more realistic hinder gameplay? Why do we have to settle for a tiny fraction of the experience, why can't we do the whole thing if we want to. Don't want to? Fine, it's not a problem. You want to use lifts for strictly for flight deck deck level parking spaces? Fine, be my guest. DCS is a sandbox for a reason so we can have it both ways and be satisfied with no real compromise - what exactly is going to be such a massive problem having the hangars and working elevators anyway? People who never stray from the book (even though I bet anything you do once in a while) are happy, and people who want to play around, maybe bend procedure a little, or even what the whole thing are also happy - you can both go your separate ways. If you want to complain about uber realism not being enforced - you currently enjoy a 3 minute repair time regardless of where you are on the airfield and regardless of damage and I don't see many complaints about that... I mean realistically you'd go to the hangar or are we going to bring on special pleading?

Edited June 10, 2018 by Northstar98

[SUBS17]

No, they can't. You can't back onto the elevator, you can't turn around once you're on it, etc etc.

 

 

 

The only way that is even remotely possible is if they either allow you to drive a tug (extremely unlikely and out of place), or automate the process via an AI tug or by warping you onto the elevator and it raising you to the deck. You're not going to "taxi around" downstairs.

 

How about a reverse button like FSX in order to go backwards to simulate a tug could be a good work around BTW the harrier can taxi backwards lol.

[Northstar98]

How about a reverse button like FSX in order to go backwards to simulate a tug could be a good work around BTW the harrier can taxi backwards lol.

 

Tugs are another wish - they're kind of necessary for flight operations on board ships, as most can't reverse, don't think many helicopters taxi to/from parking - they use tugs. This is especially true for smaller surface combatants.

[Mars Exulte]

I don't really see anybody saying "No" persay to adding features. What most people are saying is that it isn't something you as the pilot would be doing, and besides the aforementioned Harrier (and Viggen, come to think of it) you can't maneuver well enough to make use of it. Unless, as mentioned, they add in tugs as well.

 

 

-edit

@Lunatic

Referring to a two-year old news post is far from a relevant counterpoint. The way that's worded made it sound like "2016 is a busy year, new carriers!" We're just now starting to get part of that. A lot can change in two years (not saying for or against any one point, only that... that isn't a "I win" counter argument)

Edited June 10, 2018 by zhukov032186

[Northstar98]

@Lunatic

Referring to a two-year old news post is far from a relevant counterpoint. The way that's worded made it sound like "2016 is a busy year, new carriers!" We're just now starting to get part of that. A lot can change in two years (not saying for or against any one point, only that... that isn't a "I win" counter argument)

 

How is it irrelevant, the newsletter is documenting what ED's plans are, by definition it's relevant. A posts age doesn't make it invalid, it's one of the few things we have that detail the upcoming carrier modules (which have been postponed - as IIRC by Wags).

 

Even if it was totally wrong (big assumption, at worst the release date is off, and by quite a bit, but I don't recall ED changing their minds about what they are going to/are not going to implement, sure they might do for early access/release builds but on the whole what they plan to implement doesn't really change, only the time it's actually done). Take the other things in the newsletter.

 

"DCS World 2.0 in 2016 will offer new clouds and weather effects; improved HDR; deferred lighting (more light sources); new FLIR system; an improved Air Traffic Control (ATC) system; enhanced explosions, over-wing vapor, and rain on canopy; procedural grass and vegetation; improved multiplayer with dedicated server support; a new Air Combat Generator with enhanced user control of air-to-air generated missions; new custom overlays option for the Mission Editor, and a new Virtual Reality (VR) tab in Options which will improve the DCS World experience in VR." We've only just seen new explosions this year, along with over-wing vapour and rain-on-canopy, FLIR is still planned AFAIK - nothing much has changed, sure we haven't heard much about the new ATC, yet to see dedicated server support and the weather effects but they are still on the go list.

 

Regardless, countering the newsletter means zip, because we already see those animations present and hangars modelled, I don't know about you, but I don't think it was put there because a dev got bored...

Edited June 11, 2018 by Northstar98

[Papa Spardy]

Im down for hangar bay access even though as pilots we will have nothing to do there. I just dont think it should be anywhere near the top of any priority list.

Id rather have working barricade(which are not even rendered on the FD at this time) or the Catapult Control pods that pop up, or probably the most important part of launching off carrier the holdback bars.

[USSInchon]

Honestly the thing most needed on the carrier right now is animated Yellow Shirts and Shooters.

[Papa Spardy]

I just don't see how they can implement deck crew in any way that won't take away from the experience. There are dozens of people up there and they are all have a job. We are gonna be running them over left and right.

 

Even if it was just yellow shirts directing you. How is the npc gonna know how to direct you in relation to other AC. Or know when to pass you off to the next guy.

 

I would honestly rather have realistically placed aircraft and static object that don't make the FD look so empty and no deck crew.