AG-51_Razor

I just wet myself!! :huh:

Thanks Birko!! :thumbup:

Has there ever been any WIP screen shots of this beauty published in here?

Definitely +1 for this!! :thumbup:

You will find it on any aviation chart. I am told that the Gulf map has about 2 degrees of Eastern variation. The Caucus map is about 6 degrees East. The NTTR map is about 12 degrees East. I have no idea what the Normandy map is.

Beautiful module!! Thanks ED :thumbup: Are we going to eventually get a centerline drop tank?

So, can we expect an update to OB tomorrow, and then download the Viper the next day, or will everything happen on Thursday??

To Lunatic's list I would add: C-46 or C-47 DeHavilin Caribu or Buffalow C-123 Provider

I too have the same concerns, however, I have to mention to MobiSev, sort of tongue in cheek, that the very reason for the navy's tradition of keeping a "Greenie Board" out in view of anybody that walks by the ready room, for video taping every single landing and giving the LSO so much authority over every pilot in the groove, is to try to prevent you from "messing up your landing just a little bit" :pilotfly:

The Shangra La would be an awesome suggestion since she hosted the F4U-1D in CVG-85 throughout her WWII. Korea, not so much, but what the heck, who's counting??!! I'd vote for the Sangra La to be included any day!! :thumbup:

I am hoping that, if they get it right, just starting that beast will be a great challenge!! :pilotfly:

Have you looked at your plane from the F2 view? Maybe the chocks are still in place.

Understood. Thanks Wags :thumbup:

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?