AG-51_Razor

I really do see your point and I am somewhat inclined to agree with you in general but as far as the differences between the Forrestall and Saratoga being "as clear as the day is bright!", I just can't see it. I have spent a little time now looking up the two ships as well as the class as a whole and I'll be darned if I can see anything that sticks out like a sore thumb. Granted, the pictures are not always from the same angle for both ships and some of them were of models but just from a general shape of the three ships in the class, I could not see any significant differences at all that sood out. As an aside, this conversation is interesting to me because, back when the Hornet first came out, I never once saw anyone jump on the forums and comment on the absence of the navigation post on the Stennis model, which is a fairly significant piece of hardware. It's like nobody noticed it at all, or were not that concerned about it being left off, but elsewhere, we see folks commenting on the presence or absemce of vents or small antennas on certain varients of one model or another, or even the type of flight helmet the developer used when they modeled the pilot!! LOL! You've got to love this community!

I certainly understand where you're coming from Jack, especially since you served aboard her as a "flight deck guy", but the fact is, the vast majority of the customers in DCS didn't serve aboard a Fofrestal class carrier, as a deck ape or any other rate for that matter. Add to that, the certainty that over a 30+ year career, the ship underwent several modifications/improvements that probably changed her appearance significantly. As a mission builder, it has always been a mild irritant to me that (prior to the SC) there was only one carrier to place in a mission. Sure you can change the name but in game it remained the John C Stennis. Now we have the 4 super carriers and life is good. The problem remains with the Tarawa. The solution is so simple. Look at what they did for the Arleigh Burke, Ticondaroga and Perry. You have a rather large selection of names you can assign to these ships after putting them into a mission, which actually changes their identity within the game. Now I am certain that there are many sailors that served on several of those ships that will say DCS got it all wrong but it is such a small portion of their customer base and the benefit is far greater for the whole. I would never advocate for leaving the Sara out of DCS world just because it wasn't absolutely 100% accurate, because the fact is, you could only achieve that by nailing down a specific time period for which it was modeled. With that mindset, one might argue that you should only be permitted to assign specific aircraft types and only from specific air wings. How detailed do you want to get? Like I said, I understand where you're coming from but try to see it from another side. I love the realism, the accuracy in the models and all but for such a relatively small difference in details between ships, we could have several of those beauties instead of just one. And regardless of how either you or I feel about it, in the end, it's up to HeatBlur anyway.

I would be just as happy with an Illustrius class carrier.

So am I

Yeah but hey, it's not a total loss Snappy. Now you have his undying praise!

I sure hope not! Getting the Corsair without the carrier would be like buying a pack of cigarettes with your last dime and then realizing that your lighter is out of fuel!! Or....buying a really nice bottle of wine and after getting back to the hotel room, realizing that you don't have a cork screw!!

Thanks for the update Donny. I can't wait for this to become available. I will be sitting on your doorstep, cash in hand on day #1!!

If I am not mistaken, the "Zero" was never anything but a Navy a/c. The A6M was never operated by the IJA.

I suppose that makes sense Zhukov. Thanks for the explanation.

Be careful what you wish for!!

I am suprised to read about this feature (capability) of the SU-33. I have always been under the impression that the greatest drawback to the ramp style launch system on the Kuz was the lack of a sufficient payload for the SU-33 to get off the deck. If that is the case, it would seem a bit unlikely that it could launch with a buddy pack and sufficient fuel to be of much value to the rest of the strike package, either going out or recovering. That being said, I like the idea, especially if a player could fill that role!

From what I gather reading some of ED's threads, we're going to be in 2.7 by the end of next month!

Agreed!

From reading through all these pages, it's obvious that there are as many opinions/preferences as there were variants of the iconic fighter. Personally, I could not possibly care less for any of them that weren't carrier capable naval versions but I would definitely end up buying it regardless just because I am hopelessly adicted to this world that DCS has created!

....and imbedded turbulance??!!

Beautiful Donny! Thank you.

Not to mention a couple of AA Cruisers and a BB or 2. I'd also like to see a few different types of support ships such as a fleet oiler and maybe an amunition ship (AE?). We already have a transport and an LST, plus all of the awesome mods out there for various types of ships. DOH!! I guess I got off the subject a bit.

upyr1, I don't know where it is that you got the notion that the WWII Essex class carriers did not have catapults but I can assure you that they very definitely did have them - 2 on the bow and early versions even have one athwartships in the forward hanger bay. They weren't used much, mostly because it took so much time to get them hooked up and most of the planes could deck launch anyway but when there was a shortage of realestate on the flight deck, the cats were used. By 1950, the majority of them still in commission were equipped with a more powerful hydraulic cat and a primitive jet blast deflector. And to answer your question about the ability of the Panther to get off the deck without the aid of a cat, I would say no, loaded or not.

I would love to see a few Jeep carriers come to DCS World to host those Marine squadrons and hopefully one day, some TBM's to go along with them!!

Well, if ED is behind it, they have control of the F-86 I believe and that would not be too hard to modify to an FJ-2 compared to coming up with an entirely new type airframe. I too would pay dearly for an F9F Panther and settle for the Essex class CV that is coming with the Corsair.

Yes, turns out that it was Burl Ives.

Big Newy, I am curious. How would a track file possibly help the team with this issue? It is a situation that seems to only occur randomly and cannot be reproduced at will. Having a track file of it when it happens doesn't seem to be much more useful than a simple screen shot unless there is something more to a track file than I am aware of. I would think that it would be relatively simple for ED to just make it so that an a/c assigned to a "Ramp Start" cannot possibly spawn on any one of the 4 catapults, just as an a/c assigned to a "Runway Start" would never spawn on the ramp. What am I missing? Please do not take this post as anything but a real interest in learning something new about this awesome module.

Was that Burl Ives doing the narrating??

Y'all have nobody to please but yourselves. Do that and there's no doubt that we will be extatic with it!

....and not really "topped up" either. They just gave them enough to go around the boat a couple more times if necessary.