Jump to content

[ALREADY REPORTED]Does the Su-33 randomly take damage / explode on Stennis deck?


Recommended Posts

Started trying Su-33 carrier landing /takeoff today. Seems I've had 1 random explosion just taxiing and 2 random damage, one parked and one taxiing.

Is this a known thing?

 

 

Edit/add:

 

 

Make that 3 random damage. One more just taxiing.


Edited by -0303-

Intel Core i7 3630QM @ 2.40GHz (Max Turbo Frequency 3.40 GHz) | 16.0GB Dual-Channel DDR3 @ 798MHz | 2047MB NVIDIA GeForce GT 635M | 447GB KINGSTON SA400S37480G (SATA-2 (SSD))

Link to post
Share on other sites

On the Stennis deck, yes strange things happen with the physics & damage. Best to stick to the Kuznetsov.

System Spec: Cooler Master Cosmos C700P Black Edition case. | AMD 5950X CPU | MSI RTX-3090 GPU | 32GB HyperX Predator PC4000 RAM | | TM Warthog stick & throttle | TrackIR 5 | Samsung 980 Pro NVMe 4 SSD 1TB (boot) | Samsung 870 QVO SSD 4TB (games) | Windows 10 Pro 64-bit.

 

Personal wish list: DCS: Su-27SM & DCS: Avro Vulcan.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not happened on Kuznetsov, true. So Su-33 isn't really meant to land on Stennis. But, neither is the Spitfire, P-51, I-16, Bf109 or A-10. Neither of those has had random damage/explosion for me.

 

I wonder about the Carl Vinson now ... Never seen on any server, never used offline, so I don't know if it also is explody.

Intel Core i7 3630QM @ 2.40GHz (Max Turbo Frequency 3.40 GHz) | 16.0GB Dual-Channel DDR3 @ 798MHz | 2047MB NVIDIA GeForce GT 635M | 447GB KINGSTON SA400S37480G (SATA-2 (SSD))

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Annoying.

 

Next Su-33 sortie. Land, slowly taxi to carrier stern <kaboom>.

Watched it externally. Sudden explosion. Definitely not anyone colliding or missile.

~~

 

 

ed/add

 

Aft elevator. At least 2 times exploded while taxiing, parked over after elevator. Also damaged there, once at least.


Edited by -0303-

Intel Core i7 3630QM @ 2.40GHz (Max Turbo Frequency 3.40 GHz) | 16.0GB Dual-Channel DDR3 @ 798MHz | 2047MB NVIDIA GeForce GT 635M | 447GB KINGSTON SA400S37480G (SATA-2 (SSD))

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Let me help you. The Su-33 is a RUSSIAN aircraft. The John C. Stennis and the Carl Vinson (Chucky V) when I was stationed aboard her. I worked flight deck (Catapults and Arresting gear) for 20 years til I retired US Navy. So I think why your RUSSIAN jets keep blowing up trying to land on MY UNITED STATES OF AMERICA naval vessel, is that there are close to 5,000 AMERICAN sailors onboard and are pissed off that the enemy has landed on their house.

 

Next time you jump in your Hornet, go on and fly yourself over and try to land on a RUUSIAN carrier packed full of angry RUSSIAN sailors with your picnic basket. I"s not the fried chicken they want to eat.

 

Ok seriously 0303. Darkfire gave you the answer, but you didn't grasp it. UNITED STATES equipment is NOT compatible with RUSSIAN equipment. Another analogy. Will your PS4 version

of ACE COMBAT 7 work in your XBOX ONE?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Dbestinfla, why do you try to derail a bug report? Su on a CVN is improbable but possible just as anything in DCS sandbox, like Stennis at the Black Sea, and bug is a bug, it need a fix not a lecture what not to do.

🖥️ i3-10100F 3.6-4.3GHz, 16GB DDR4 2666, GTX970 4GB, SSD SATA3, 27" LCD FullHD, Win 10 Home 64   🕹️ T16000M HOTAS, customTiR   ✈️ FC3, F-14A/B   🌍 NTTR, PG   🚢 Supercarrier

Link to post
Share on other sites

draconus, my deepest apologies for jumping the gun with my answer about the Su-33 not working on the USS Stennis. And if it IS a bug, it's very isolated or just maybe no one has tried it, or because they know about compatibility between two dissimilar machinery. DC builds their products 'true to life'. Just like you can't land your F-16 on a carrier. In real life it would destroy the entire landing gear, and the Mod was built ;True to Life;, therefore if attempted, the struts would be destroyed immediately upon hitting the deck, Try it, so in the future, I will not try to answer anyone factually with closure, and once identified will be fixed with next update, and let them think it's just a bug

 

n a side note, you all are a great and helpful group. and my questions have been answered and understood each time. Speaking of which I have a question concerning Trackir;s so I need to go hut down the Forum section where I need to be

Link to post
Share on other sites
DC builds their products 'true to life'. Just like you can't land your F-16 on a carrier ... DC builds their products 'true to life'.

 

Let's bring a real F-16, or any land-based jet, to a real carrier (by a chopper, for example), then start the engines and begin taxiing. Will it suddenly explode? Laws of physics and common sense says no.

 

Then why the Su-33, that can be safely landed on Stennis, is suddenly exploding in this "true to life" product?

 

Any thoughts? And I mean real thoughts, and not another example of your perverted logic.


Edited by Minsky

- Dmitriy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Excuse me for wanting modeling that makes plain common sense. Su-33 exploding while taxiing over elevators is extremely common (select Stennis in Multiplayer (Hoggit or Aerobatics server) and just watch, tell newbies <they don't listen> enjoy). It is also acknowledged by ED and reported to developers. Bug is very specific for three FC3 planes (Su-33, A-10A, Su-25T (but not Su-25A): Taxiing over red/yellow elevator lines:

 

[ALREADY REPORTED] Su-33 recoil/explode when taxiing over red/yellow elevator lines

 

[ALREADY REPORTED]A-10A damage when taxiing over Stennis red/yellow elevator lines

 

[ALREADY REPORTED]Su-25T nosewheel hits non-newtonian mud on Stennis elevators

(read text upper left corner, excuse primitive Win 10 PHOTOS video editor)

Brakes NEVER touched. Nose wheel as in mud, need to power up to slowly creep forward, nose wheel leaves red/yellow lines, free of "mud"

 

 

Russian hospitality is just fine.

I've landed the Spitfire & P-51 hundreds of times on Stennis (and taxied over elevators). Also I-16 and Bf109 a few times. This doesn't happen.

Interestingly (or not) Su-25 does NOT have this problem (not bothered to try land any other FC3 on Carrier).

 

I get that ED has bigger fish to fry, and even if they didn't, I get why FC3 planes gets low priority. It's not unreasonable I think to get the Su-33 (at least) fixed eventually. It's exploding is a bit of an annoyance. Three FC3 planes having a very similar specific issue should be a clue to something systematic.

gni8Rht.png


Edited by -0303-

Intel Core i7 3630QM @ 2.40GHz (Max Turbo Frequency 3.40 GHz) | 16.0GB Dual-Channel DDR3 @ 798MHz | 2047MB NVIDIA GeForce GT 635M | 447GB KINGSTON SA400S37480G (SATA-2 (SSD))

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dbestinfla, why do you try to derail a bug report? .

 

 

Thats like saying "hey my aircraft doesn't fly underwater, I know its not supposed to do that but it flies in the air so it should be able to fly under the water"

 

 

As someone mentioned before its a RUSSIAN aircraft, use it with the RUSSIAN aircraft carrier and you won't have any issues.

 

 

The devs have more important things to do with their time than cater to improbable fantasies and I for one see this a massive waste of their time!

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]



104th Phoenix Wing Commander / Total Poser / Elitist / Hero / Chad

Link to post
Share on other sites
dbestinfla said:
Just like you can't land your F-16 on a carrier. In real life it would destroy the entire landing gear, and the Mod was built ;True to Life;, therefore if attempted, the struts would be destroyed immediately upon hitting the deck, Try it...

Only if you try to do it same way as arrested landing.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4233335&postcount=840

 

Quote
Thats like saying "hey my aircraft doesn't fly underwater, I know its not supposed to do that but it flies in the air so it should be able to fly under the water".

You're a smart guy - you know you can do better comparison so I will not comment on this one.

 

Think again about DCS as a sandbox. I can land no problem with F-14 on Kuznetsov* just as good as with F-15 at Mozdok. I don't see any bugs there so should they just blow up there too? And even if they did - it's ED's decision to make how much of a priority bug it is, if at all. You can't make them fix your favourite bug instead or force anyone to use the game your way.

 

If it's possible it should work. Basic physics apply here.

 

Another issue with forced compatibility rises in MP or SP with "US aggressors" using mix of Eastern/Western aircraft and carriers in their scenarios.

 

So, we report and move on.

 

[*I know, Jester, shh.]

 


Edited by draconus

🖥️ i3-10100F 3.6-4.3GHz, 16GB DDR4 2666, GTX970 4GB, SSD SATA3, 27" LCD FullHD, Win 10 Home 64   🕹️ T16000M HOTAS, customTiR   ✈️ FC3, F-14A/B   🌍 NTTR, PG   🚢 Supercarrier

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

Since all these guys like to say "Russian aircraft should not be used on US carriers, wah wah wah". I purpose we agree with them, and also like real life not allow US aircraft carriers to operate in the black sea so we should remove the ability to have aircraft carriers in the Caucasus map. No modern aircraft allowed on the Normandy map. No russian aircraft in Oceana map. No russian aircraft spawnable from UAE and Saudi bases and no US aircraft allowed to fly in iraqi airspace in the persian gulf map. No ability to overfly Vegas under 1500 feet which will result in CTD automatically. I mean, lets do this.

 

Because that's exactly how dumb you sound suggesting that in this GAME.

C/S Boosted.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 9 months later...

It´s been a long time since the last post in this discussion. Used the chance to try out the Supercarrier module in the free-for-all promotion. Unfortunately my Flanker not only exploded at the elevators but even near the catapult no 2.  I contacted the support and was pleased to see that answers came after just one day. Thanks for that, ED!

 

The content of their answers was not that pleasing. I argued in the way of draconus and Minsky but all they said was that russian aircrafts are not intended to be used with US carriers. Our arguments were not taken into consideration. This is disappointing  😪

Link to post
Share on other sites

Then the question is why doesn't my F-14 F/A-18 and F-5 randomly explode when I land on the Kuznetsov and taxi?

Can we get that bug fixed? I'd really like it if the virtual russian sailors spontaneously made these planes explode in our land of make believe because thats realism or something.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good idea, Tax!

And then American helis must explode on Russian destroyers and Russian helis must explode on American destroyers too. And consequently all American aircrafts must explode on all Russian airfields! Vessels have their sailors, airfields have their ground troups. No one can explain why supercarriers are such an exception, seems as if they are treated like the holy grail by ED.

(Thanks Minsky for explaining the “C” in DCS!   😉   )


Edited by Schnuffelpuffel
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

i would also like to see the SU-33 be able to operate from the US carriers.  If the US aircraft can do so from the Kuz, then it should be OK the other way around as well.  not in RL, well OK but this is a game after all.  We do all kinds of stuff that would not happen in RL.

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
i would also like to see the SU-33 be able to operate from the US carriers.  If the US aircraft can do so from the Kuz, then it should be OK the other way around as well.  not in RL, well OK but this is a game after all.  We do all kinds of stuff that would not happen in RL.
This will never work in multiplayer though. You can try to create mod that will allow SU to hook to the catapult, which will not pass IC. But ED will never make it officially possible simply because it is not. It would require change of nose gear model and then it won't be SU-33 anymore, but proper frankensukhoi. On the other hand all you need to take off from Kuz is enough thrust.

Sent from my SpyPhone using Tapatalk

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/17/2021 at 8:03 AM, hlfritz said:

i would also like to see the SU-33 be able to operate from the US carriers.  If the US aircraft can do so from the Kuz, then it should be OK the other way around as well.  not in RL, well OK but this is a game after all.  We do all kinds of stuff that would not happen in RL.

 

It's a simulation. It's not a Battlefield X title, bro.

  • Haha 1

Hardware: Intel i5 4670K | Zalman NPS9900MAX | GeIL 16GB @1333MHz | Asrock Z97 Pro4 | Sapphire Radeon R9 380X Nitro | Samsung SSDs 840 series 120GB & 250 GB | Samsung HD204UI 2TB | be quiet! Pure Power 530W | Aerocool RS-9 Devil Red | Samsung SyncMaster SA350 24" + ASUS VE198S 19" | Saitek X52 | TrackIR 5 | Thrustmaster MFD Cougar | Speedlink Darksky LED | Razor Diamondback | Razor X-Mat Control | SoundBlaster Tactic 3D Rage ### Software: Windows 10 Pro 64Bit

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/17/2021 at 8:03 AM, hlfritz said:

i would also like to see the SU-33 be able to operate from the US carriers

Spawn or trap (hook and wire is the same) - ok. Cat launch - NO.

🖥️ i3-10100F 3.6-4.3GHz, 16GB DDR4 2666, GTX970 4GB, SSD SATA3, 27" LCD FullHD, Win 10 Home 64   🕹️ T16000M HOTAS, customTiR   ✈️ FC3, F-14A/B   🌍 NTTR, PG   🚢 Supercarrier

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...