AG-51_Razor

A huge thank you for these videos Wags! I noticed two things in the last one posted for the LGB's. First is, I didn't see where you can enter the code for the laser guided bombs. Secondly, I noticed that you chose Nose AND Tail for the fusing, unlike what we do in the Hornet, where we choose Tail only. Is this an operational difference between weapons or aircraft??

It turns out that the Charlie pennant also means Yes, or Affermative, which might explain it's use, since the aircraft flying by with it's tailhook extended was a "request" to come aboard. Back when all these procedures were being developed, radio was not being used either because they weren't installed or due to concerns of radio disipline for security. https://www.navy.mil/navydata/communications/flags/flags.html

That is very true but do not forget that they were taught how to manage their engine and took those lessons to heart. They never abused their engine unless it was a dire emergency and when that did occur, they reported it to their crew chief who then set about conducting a thorough inspection, and making repairs if necessary. Don't forget that one of the components of this terriffically accurate and realistic simulator is the absence of any real fear of damaging the equipment you are simulating the operation of, much less fear for your life!! :thumbup:

I believe that you are correct Upyr1, there was a single image of one that was supposed to be getting developed however, it was a model of the USS Yorktown, CV-5, which was sunk long before the Corsair ever began to operate off of a carrier, Royal or US Navy. It was a very preliminary screen shot so maybe they have changed course and have elected to go with a more relevant carrier. Like you, I also hope for an IJN representation of a carrier and carrier capable a/c, even if only AI at first. :pilotfly:

I just read this article that says a Finnish Pilot on an exchange tour with the Marines has just trapped aboard one of our carriers! That is AWESOME!! :thumbup: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/plane-landed-us-navy-aircraft-carrier-pilot-wasnt-american-81801

:thumbup:

Don't forget the CVE. Corsairs operated off of them in both WWII and Korea. :thumbup:

Thanks for the response Ala13_ManOWar, I probably should have worded my statement better. I meant that ED made their Caucus map the same way they made Normandy, NTTR and the PG map. As you said, with great detail in some places and not so much elsewhere. The point of my question was, which was the determining factor for deciding on the size of a map, the X-Y dimensions of it or the amount of detail they placed in it? I'm not sure you answered the question but I appreciate the response.

I am curious, is it the area covered by the map, or the detail that is put down on it that is the limiting factor? I mean, if you look at the Persian Gulf map, they have included a tremendous amount of detail for the majority of the cities in the middle of the map, but absolutely nothing has been placed in areas such as Qatar, Kuwait, Bassra, Iran, or along the boarder between Iran and Pakistan. There is a lot of map there that is just flat land - or some that even has terrain relief - but no human infrastructure on it. I would be in favor of a map such as has been posted by The Falcon and do with less detail but still have the land mass and ocean around it for carrier operations. That is basically what ED has done in the Caucus and Normandy as well. We have plenty of static objects with which to build suitable targets wherever we wish.:thumbup:

I would rather see more of Korea and less of China if we are going to be restricted to that size map.

This would be an AWESOME addition to the DCS World indeed! +1

Is it possible for an object to start out a little larger than it should be and then, as you get closer to it, shrink to it's scale size? Isn't that the same principal as the LOD's for an object such as a plane, only in reverse? I am just wondering about how a developer could go about making a model of an LSO, standing on the aft end of the carrier deck in front of a big wind screen/background to make him easier to see, with his arms spread out and paddles in hand to give the player some meaningful signals while trying to land. Would it be possible to make it so that the LSO would be a little larger than scale so you could see him from a couple hundred meters out, and as you get closer, he continually shrinks to his normal scale?

I'll gladly wait for the real deal :thumbup:

During the "Big Hate", carrier operations involved very little, if any, radio communications. This was due to two things; the radios were very unreliable and couldn't be depended on for voice communications early on in the development of carrier aviation so the primary means of communication was either signal flags or Morse code via aldis lamp or radio. Secondly, once in the war, communications security was very important to them. A lot of the procedures that we perform around the boat now in the Hornet or Tomcat were developed back in the late 30's through the late 40's and have served the carrier aviation community well to this day. We fly up alongside the island at 800 feet with the tail hook down, not because it looks cool, but because a long time ago, that was a signal to the carrier that you intended to land and if the carrier was prepared to accept you, they would raise the signal flag for C - Charlie. I have no idea why the Charlie pennant, maybe because it was easily identified from several hundred feet up, anyway, that became the signal that the carrier was ready to begin recoveries. The one thing that I believe that ED could develop is a way to provide visual LSO cues that would be helpful during the landing just like the IFOLS of today. I have no clue as to the best way to go about this but that would be the one thing they could do that would be most useful :pilotfly:

Yeah, it's gonna be a Some Beee ach!! :doh:

I sure hope you are right!! :thumbup:

Thanks Vampire :thumbup:

I am quite sure that you are absolutely correct on that assumption. However that does not mean we should not continue to express our opinions and/or desires here in the WWII forum so that ED will be aware that there is a strong interest in this sublect. And, by the way, carriers and Corsairs operated in theaters other than just the Pacific. :thumbup:

Have you tried Voice Attack?? It really is awesome for those things that are hard to find/deal with in the cockpit when your head and eyes need to be in the boat! :thumbup:

Is it acceptable to post in here a link to that mod??

I went through the last several update logs and saw nothing about fixing anything to do with the lights on the ships. Actually though, that is not the reason for my response here. I am wondering if this is the proper forum for reporting this kind of bug. I have been going through the other forums to see if it has been reported elsewhere but there is just too many to get through! :doh:

Since this last patch, I have noticed that none of the lights on the Strennis or any of the other ships in the screen (Normandy or Perry) are working at night. This mission is set for 2355 and there is 6/10's cloud cover with very high cloud bases and full moon. No deck edge lights, none of the lights up on the bridge or Pri-Fly or the mast head and Nav lights. Totally darken ship. Has anyone else noticed this?

In my experience, if I raise the launch bar and hit the "U" key, the JBD will lower to flush with the deck.

I'm right there with ya Baco!! A straight deck Essex class or maybe a Commencement Bay class CVE would work great for a Corsair, preferably a -4 or better yet, a -4B but any ol'd Hawg will do for me. Like Baco, I'd do just about anything for a Panther, Banshee or best of all, a good old AD-4 and a map of the Korean penninsula. :pilotfly:

Just based on the reception of the Hornet and Tomcat, I would think that it would be pretty clear to the folks at ED that a WWII carrier and some carrier based a/c would be a huge seller :thumbup: