AG-51_Razor

Same here

This is exactly how I manage my P-47 also! Once the RPM is set, there's rarely a time to mess with it until back in the landing pattern.

Don't hurry on my part =Katze=, I'm just glad to hear you're still hard at it!

+1000 !!

How's the Panther coming along =Katze=?

Bozon, there is no arguing with your statement that the Hellcat was there when the battle happened, which made it more significant however that doesn't make it the better fighter of the two. The fact that the Corsair carried on from late in WWII throughout the entire Korean War while the Navy relegated the Hellcat to the Training Command, Reserve squadrons and other yeoman duties, I believe is a fairly clear statement that the Corsair was the far better plane of the two. It was faster and was eventually capable of carrying far more ordinance. This is not to denigrate the Hellcat at all. When the two planes came out of their experimental flight testing, the F6F was a far better CARRIER plane than the F4U and that is what the Navy needed at that time more than anything. One that the 3-400 hour nuggets could get aboard the carrier without much drama. Once the Corsair's teething problems were solved, it became more of a logistical issue of supporting it at sea where the Hellcat had already made a home for itself in the previous year aboard a rapidly growing fleet of CV's.

I'm pretty sure that Silver Dragon was referring to the livery of birds assigned to ETO vs those assigned to the PTO.

I apologize if this has already been "wished for". I went back 4 pages and saw nothing regarding trigger zones. First off, let me thank the ED team for giving us the ability to make trigger zones that are circles OR trapezoids. That has been a huge boon to mission builders everywhere I'm sure. What I am asking for is to give us the ability to define the trigger zone in the vertical by allowing us to set floors and/or ceilings to the trigger zones. As it is now, if we wish to keep players above or below a given altitude, the trigger has to include EACH UNIT that may possibly violate that altitude limit within a zone. I feel like this would make the process much more streamlined and easier to accomplish. Thanks for taking the time to consider this.

Absolutely agree with these comments!

Yes PLEASE, the TBF Avenger!!!

I'd be more than happy to just see the ships get some kind of AI that would let them take evasive maneuvers when being attacked by aircraft

The only thing that could top this would be them bringing an IJN carrier out along with the Zeke!.......well. maybe not thoe ONLY thing that could top it, but fairly close

"Damage must be seperated from flooding (buoyancy), meaning a "destroyed" ship can still float and a "not destroyed" ship can still flood and sink" I get the first part, about a "destroyed" ship could still remain afloat, but the second part about a "not destroyed" ship can still flood and sink doesn't make any sense to me. I recon that the whole point of attacking a ship is to sink her, thus "destroying" her. That said, I do agree with your comments over all. ED could definitely use some improvements in the shipping department as far as damage is concerned.

Just a quick addendum to this; I found that the helicopter will come back to land on the SC at night. The pisser is, it lands in the forward part of the landing area thus blocking any fixed wing from recovering for the remainder of the mission since the helo doesn't disappear after shutdown.

Thanks for the response That's good to know.

I have placed an SH-60B (stock AI) on the carrier deck with a "Follow" command and wypt #1 is landing aboard a screening Perry class DD. The follow command is terminated at the carrier's first waypoint, where the helo leaves the carrier and heads to the DD to land and shut down. This all works perfectly in the daytime but at night, once the carrier reaches its first waypoint, the helo flies to the DD and then just orbits a couple hundred meters behind it and will not land. Has anybody come across this before? Just out of curiosity, I changed out the DD for the LHA Tarawa to see if it had something to do with instrument landing systems or something like that. It made no difference. I am stumped. I have included the mission below. It is on the Persian Gulf map. The mission is very much still a WIP so no need to comment on any other aspect of it. Thanks in advance for any help or advice you may provide. Retribution.miz

I am under the impression that if you are not running the same version as the host, you simply can't join.

I used to be one of those "it'll be released when it's good and ready and I'm OK with that" kind of people but now, at close to 73, I'm thinking that I'd be willing to settle for a less than perfectly accurate rivet count in order to get my hands on the Intruder before I reach the point of no longer being able to identify one as an A-6!! "If I'd have known I was going to live this long, I would've taken better care of myself!!"

The F-4 also used a bridle, just like the A-4 and F-8. If I'm not mistaken, the A-6 Intruder was the first plane with a launch bar followed by the A-7 Corsair II.

It's looking great =Katze=! Best wishes for a merry Christmas and a very happy New Year!!

C'mon Fellas, it's not like this is a very difficult question to answer and it's not going to influence my decision to purchase the Tomcat since I already have it. I'm just wondering about how much longer it will be before we see the rest of the carriers in the Forrestal class.

Yeah, ED needs to figure out how to instill fear into the AI gunners LOL!!

Thanks for the heads up.

Can you clarify your intentions regarding the F-4J? Will it come to those of us that have purchased the F-4E or will it come as a completely new module that needs to be purchased separately?

Hey there HB, I just recently saw a video by an influencer of your Tomcat release for another platform and noticed that he mentioned there were 4 other Forrestal class CV's included in that release. What are the chances of us seeing them in the world of DCS anytime soon??