Vampyre

... and have them graded.:thumbup:

Indeed. Everything is subject to change.

If we get a early to mid 2000's F/A-18C as is indicated by the software load then I wouldn't get my hopes up for those two weapons to be included.

They very well might be. I have not looked into it.

Unless they eventually decide to do a Phantom other than the F-4E like, I don't know, An F-4J or F-4S.

No, The LAU-7 can't fire the weapon. The LAU-127 of the Super Hornet could technically fire a AIM-120 but cannot carry them on the wingtips due to weight restrictions of the wingfold.

I'd be satisfied with a Marinefliger PA-200 with Kormoran and HARM.

The wings are exactly the same on all F/A-18C Hornets regardless of where they are operated.

I would love to get my hands on a Navy Phantom. The F-4J or F-4S would fit right in on a , ahem, Forrestal class CV that might be in the works by another developer... or someone could do a Midway class CV to go with possible ship assets. they would also fit right in with the A-7E and A-6E that are planned. Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see a USAF F-4D, F-4E (both early slatted and late models ARN-101 birds) and F-4G Wild Weasel V as well. I wouldn't mind an RF-4C too if reconnaissance ever becomes a thing in DCS. The German F-4F would be awesome too... I'm not so much into the ICE/KWS modification but an honest rendition of the mid 80's Cold War upgraded mud mover version would be perfect.

This will get you started: http://navyair.com/CV_NATOPS_Manual.pdf For any of you future Harrier drivers: http://www.edavirtual.org/download/books/Harrier/NAVAIR-00-80T-106.pdf If you want to delve a little more into the how and why of flight deck and hangar deck operations: https://info.publicintelligence.net/USNavy-CVN-FlightDeck.pdf For Helo operations off of the small boys: http://www.public.navy.mil/airfor/srss/Documents/PUBS/NAVAIR%2000-80t-122%20HOP.pdf The Ouija board for the flight deck and hangar deck will be specific to the ship you are operating off of be it a Forrestal or Nimitz... heck there are different Nimitz class boards because the latest boats are longer than the original design.

An objective view points to more than just one aircraft type as being needed for DCS WWII to flourish and expand to more than just fighter vs fighter slugfests. You are correct in pointing out that the maps will not be large enough for heavy bombers. That means medium bombers, light bombers and attack aircraft. My personal preference would be for multiple versions of the B-26 Marauder (mainly because it has never been done in a WWII combat sim) but For the current map and time period we have to work with I would say the A-20 Havoc/Boston would be a better choice for the allied side than a B-25 Mitchell. The US didn't fly the B-25 on combat missions from England. They, as did the British, did fly the Havoc over Normandy in June 1944 though. The Axis side definitely needs an aircraft with better ground attack abilities. A Ju-88 would be the first choice for a medium bomber/dive bomber. Good all around multirole capability could be had with the Bf-110, Me-210/410, and the Fw-190F/G series. Dedicated ground attack aircraft like the Hs-129B would fit the role as well but were mostly used on the eastern front. So, between an A-20 and a Ju-88 I think the Ju-88 should probably be next in the line up. Of course I am totally expecting something like a CW-21 Demon to be next though.

Something small and relatively simple like a Cyclone Class PC would be interesting as a crewable vessel. It would fit in well with the SoH map too. I suppose a Frigate or Corvette would fit the bill as well.

I can think of 18 spots on the deck suitable to spawn into with fixed wing aircraft that will not interrupt takeoff or recovery cycles. Conventional thinking would have assigned spotting on the deck like the airfields. I was wondering if it would be possible to place aircraft on the deck similar to how the helicopters have a "place on ground" option in the ME. We know the dimensions of the carrier deck (with shot lines/foul lines etc) and the aircraft capable of using a carrier and with that in mind if an aircraft is placed on deck it should have a footprint (or box if you will) that other aircraft cannot overlap. Further, with the constant flux of the deck during cyclic operations perhaps deck templates could be used by the mission designer to set these spawn points for the different cycles. The flight deck is a dynamic environment and it would be nice if that was simulated... and for those who don't care about the realism perhaps there could be a spawn on catapult option that has a waiting cue. It will be interesting to see how ED goes about this.

Most of the time elevators are not moved at all during flight ops. It disrupts the flow of the deck. If you are lucky you might get one run to move mail and parts down to the hangar bay when the COD comes aboard. It is always done between cycles and is always done in a hurry. That is your prime chance to move a jet up from the hangar bay for a pro or to get bulky GSE or aircraft parts to the roof. Most of the elevator runs are done after flight ops are over for the night and before the start of the next days flight ops usually between 0200 and 0800. As for pilots riding up with the jet... no it doesn't happen. All of the ready rooms and PR shops on the Nimitz class carriers are on the O-3 level. Even if personnel were allowed to ride the elevators routinely, it would not make sense for a pilot to walk down to the hangar bay to ride an elevator back up to the flight deck.

What version had a radar? All I know of are the Vanilla OH-58A/C and OH-58D with the MMS.

Walking around a ship and riding elevators are gimmicks and I personally could care less about that as a feature. I can say that because I have firsthand experience on carriers. I highly doubt they will simulate you braining yourself on an overhead or smashing a shin on a knee knocker scurrying out of the ready room for an alert 15. As I have said several times before in the lost Hornet chit chat threads and the RAZBAM Big Ships thread, I'd rather have features of substance such as the ability to fight the ship and conduct operations using the systems and capabilities of the design as if it were one of the aircraft modules... the highest fidelity possible. I imagine the bar has been set far lower though.

Yeah, they look like clown cars don't they?:lol:

For Normandy they should have sank the cost of the assets into the map itself. If the Nimitz is a separate module and not a part of the base game then I expect a reason for it to be a separate download. For aircraft we expect top quality systems and flight modeling so I would expect the same standards for systems and sea handling for a standalone Nimitz download. This would have to be partnered with a basic in game model that everyone can see but not necessarily use just how the aircraft are implemented now. Anything less will just be another fragmentation of the MP community.

I've spent a lot of time working on the flight deck of multiple aircraft carriers so trust me when I tell you there is a slight tailwind on those shots. Look at the steam from the catapult... it's going the wrong direction.

Not exactly stopped, as it looks like Conny was just making steerage, but close. Judging by the steam from the cats, they were launching with a slight tailwind. S-3's have taken off with the ship at anchor before... I cannot seem to find the video of that though although I know one exists.

The F-414-GE-400 and F-404-GE-402 are the exact same physical size

Not really a good indicator. Some Super Hornet squadrons have taken to removing the inboard pylons and to the layman (of which probably a good 80-90% of the posters on this forum are) a pylon is a pylon regardless if it is a SUU-62, SUU-79 or SUU-80. The key differences are the IFF antenna, width and shape of the LEX, LEX fence, Shape of the H-stabs, RWR antenna's, communication's antennas, larger size of the Super and the anti-smash strobes. There are other smaller details as well but those are the primary tells.

I see my old squadron didn't make the cut. VFA-146, along with VMFA-323 was one of the two F/A-18C squadrons in CVW-9/CVW-14/CVW-11 while I was there. Not one of my photos but a good top view of DIMON 300 right after we had to replace door 18... the first diamond is missing on the spine. Here's a shot with all of the diamonds present. Again not one of my photos. Then there was the Marine Aviation Centennial bird transferred to our squadron from VFA-122 for our 2013 cruise. I got a lot of photos of this one before it was repainted in TPS and squadron colors. Also, There was this jet we called Magnum which was transferred in from NSAWC and we repainted with the "Blood Diamonds" and gave a 357 MODEX. Again not my pics.

It will only be worth it if we have a DCS: Bodily Secretions that has a slider in the mission editor that goes to 200%.

You are going to have to do a better job explaining what you are doing and what the real problem is. I am going to assume that, from the depth and substance of this report, that you have not read the manual. https://belsimtek.com/upload/docs/DCS_F-5Е-3_Flight%20Manual_ENG.pdf There are several things that will keep the missiles from firing. Missile stations have to be selected and gun/missile camera switch has to be in gun/missile. If that is set up properly you should hear a sidewinder growl. If you have previously jettisoned any stores, the select jettison switch has to be returned to the center (off) position. Also, if you have dropped any ordnance or fired any rockets then the external stores selector has to be put back to the safe position. You have to lock you're target by getting a tone from bore sight and uncaging the seeker if you need to attain a better position to fire.