Andrew8604

I think there are two primary methods to making arrested landings on carriers: A cut-throttle method for straight-deck carriers and full-throttle method for angled-deck carriers. (Correct me if I'm wrong). Straight-deck: You fly over the end of the carrier flight deck in a fairly level flight path at an optimal speed and cut the throttle to mush on to the landing area of the deck at an optimal attitude to catch a wire. There's no going around once you cut the throttle--you're committed to the landing. If you don't catch a wire with the arresting hook, barricade cables will be raised to catch whatever part of the aircraft they can and stop it, probably causing aircraft damage. The landing aircraft must be stopped because there are parked aircraft forward on the deck. If the landing aircraft gets through the barricades, it will be disastrous. Multiple aircraft will be damaged, crewmen injured/killed and possibly a serious fire. If the LSO doesn't see you in the right position/condition for landing, no cut signal will be given, and you will get waved off before landing. In the wave-off, you will add power and climb back to the landing pattern to try again. Depending on the aircraft, adding power can be a problem. The F4U Corsair, F6F Hellcat and AD Skyraiders, in particular, had big props and powerful engines and could torque-roll the aircraft and pilot into the sea alongside the carrier, which would often be fatal for the pilot. Angled-deck: You fly a glidepath to the landing area of the deck with eyes on a visual landing aid at the edge of the carrier deck, with an LSO on radio giving corrective guidance and controlling the wave-off indication of the visual landing aid lights. Your aircraft flies the glidepath to the deck and hits it hard, at which point you apply full power for a go-around, whether the hook catches a wire or not. Once a wire is caught and you're being slowed, you pull the power back to idle. If no wire is caught, you're at full power as you fly off the end of the angled landing deck, back into the air to climb back to the pattern to try again. There are no parked aircraft allowed in the angled landing area during landing operations. The straight-deck system worked well enough for relatively slow propeller-driven aircraft that might approach at 90 knots airspeed to a carrier moving 20 knots into a 10-knot wind, giving 30 knots wind-over-deck and 60 knots of relative speed onto the deck and the arresting gear. If waved off, piston engines gave immediate power; jet engines were slower to accelerate. Straight-wing navy jets could approach slow enough. But with swept-wing jets, the approach speeds became too great to be done safely. That's why the angled-deck method was devised. Another problem with aircraft like the F4U Corsair was the big engine blocking the pilot's view of the flight deck during landing. This was eventually remedied with a raised cockpit (at the cost of some top speed) and the pilot flying to the deck in a turn. For the takeoffs, primarily you'll just fly off the deck from a free-rolling start, no catapult, provided there's enough free-run space on the deck for the current wind-over-deck speed. If not, then a steel bridle cable is attached to the launch hook on an aircraft and to the catapult shuttle built into the deck. Catapults in WWII were hydraulic powered, not steam. Hope that helps answer your question. Yeah, it's going to be difficult. But with practice and knowledge of the correct technique, it should become pretty reliable.

BTW, does this picture show the extent of the Cold War Germany Map?

I'd hope Grinnelli would do the F-105D after the F-100D. If the F-100D is a hit module, doing the F-105 after that would seem logical...if they'd choose to do any more. They should be able to get photogrammetry from a real F-105D. But since none are operable, they'd have to just do the best they could with flight model and sounds. If the most knowledgeable people on the F-105D in existence say it's as realistic as they can determine, who's to say it isn't realistic? Otherwise, it's probably up to Heatblur and they're probably backlogged with Eurofighter, A-6E and other versions of the F-4...it could be until 2033 before they could get to the F-105. Maybe Flying Iron or Aerges, but we're still waiting for the A-7E and the F-104. One of these experienced developers should be able to figure out the systems and 3D model from museum aircraft and manuals. And guestimate the flight model performance as best can be done. Hopefully, there will be some pilots around who remember flying the F-105 to evaluate the feel and performance. There are anecdotal accounts by pilots written in their published books, too.

Actually, they could model the Miramar map modern day, if it made it easier. It would still be cool! Modern Miramar probably has more ramp space. F/A-18C & D's ...in their final days. This would work for everything from FJ-2 Fury's (F-86F) to F-8 Crusaders to F-4B & J Phantom II's to F-14's. So long as the spawn points align precisely with the markings and the spawn headings are correct!! F-35s under the "tents" and C-130s. Osprey's and CH-53's. Field Carrier Landing Practice markings with FLOLS (or Optical Mirror Landing System) are there, with field arresting gear. And an LHD deck for the helos and AV-8Bs and F-35s

Yeah, the S-2's were probably prior to '75. I just put them as an example. Aircraft changed through the years. Basically, it's the base in a configuration of runways and buildings to more-or-less cover a range of years. And the mission designer places whatever aircraft/vehicles they want, static and dynamic. I remember seeing the relatively slow turning props of the S-2's, C-1's and E-1's on North Island or possibly on an Essex-class CVS carrier (my memory is a little fuzzy that far back), from the harbor excursion tour boats in about 1969-72, when I was a kid. The USS Bunker Hill CV-17 (AVT) was still there. I'd be all for NAS Lemoore and NAS Fallon. It's just how much can be done in a map before it reaches half a TB on the hard drive? That's why I tried to constrain the physical size of my "vision" of a Miramar map. Lots and lots of houses would not be on the map if representing 1980. It was about 1981, an F-14 flew just about over me at night and crashed about a half mile away. I was indoors and didn't see it, but I heard the loud rumble of the engines, two pops, and eerie sudden silence. Pilots made it, no one hurt. Missed houses by a hundred yards, maybe. I didn't forget NOLF Imperial Beach, just didn't mention it to be brief. I just figured, if the map does get made, those airbases and airports are sure to get included. ...as well as the navaids of the day...NDBs and VORTACs that may no longer exist today. The Navy had Brown Field in the '50s-60's, I believe, too. PAR (Precision Approach Radar) may not exist anymore at MCAS Miramar, not sure; but it was there in the early 1980s, I had a UHF receiver back around then and could hear controllers talking the pilots to the runway. That would be another neat feature to have added to DCS...even if by mod. Their AI controller voices could be nicknamed "Wash Out" and "Ramada".

I think the Vietnam Map will have to be more like this coverage, at least to begin with. The area inside of the blue boundary being the area of interest, area of highest detail. The F-105s primarily flew out of Takhli AB and Korat AB from about 1965 to 1970. I think they were phased out by F-4E's in about 1970? It's about 480nm from Takhli AB to "Thud Ridge". KC-135A (not KC-135Rs) tanker tracks stretched roughly along the magenta line from northern Thailand to over Laos. However, if ED chooses to make the Vietnam Map initially South Vietnam, Cambodia and southern Laos, including Dixie Station, I'm okay with that, too.

Great! In this case, it seems like ED should go ahead and place Vietnam Map and Korea Map in their own entries in the Forum under DCS: Tech & Terrain. Post an Announcement something like: "This is a placeholder for a long-range plan. Anticipated release MAY be in the timeframe of 2028-2032...to be announced at a later time." And lock that post. Then create a Wish List under each and move all of the related requests and wishes from around the forum to these respective Wish Lists. Allow others to add more related wishes/ideas to that folder. Maybe also with a survey: "Are you interested in purchasing the Vietnam Map at some point in the future?" ...and same for Korea Map. This way those interested can click "yes" to indicate so rather than post another topic to say so.

What is the reason they don't make 4x1 aspect ratio maps in DCS?

Yes, around 1970-1985 was the heyday at NAS Miramar. I lived near there during that time up 2022. When it changed hands in 1993 to MCAS, the excitement died down. There was lots of flying activity in the 70s and 80s! I used to watch 'em fly over my house nearly every day. I just think modeling it about 1980 would be best. Fightertown USA, Top Gun. Of course, it's DCS! You could base a bunch of F-16s or MiG-21's there if you wanted to. Maybe extend it east to include Tucson/Davis-Monthan rather than north to China Lake and Lemoore? China Lake should be added to the Nevada Map...it really should. Give 500nm of ocean. Make it about 850nm east-west and 200nm north-south...just a thought. Avoid detailing the cities of Los Angeles and Phoenix to save HD space (so it's not a 300 GB map!) and keep framerates up. Just satellite images for those cities. So, roughly 400nm x 200nm of land. Maybe the size could be kept down to 80 GB?

Definitely NAS Miramar! ...about 1980, maybe. If you want an MCAS, then El Toro, just to the north! Call it the Miramar Map, or SoCal Map, or Fightertown Map? NAS Miramar (Fightertown - F-4s, F-8s, F-14s, E-2s, Top Gun - A-4Fs, F-5Es, TA-4s) NAS North Island (S-2 Trackers, S-3 Vikings, CH-46s, SH-3s, SH-2s) NAF El Centro (Winter home of the Blue Angels) NAS Pt. Mugu (Pacific Missile Test Range) NALF San Clemente Island MCAS El Toro (F-4s, F-18s, C-130s, CH-53s?) MCAS Yuma (F-4s, AV-8Bs) MCAS Camp Pendleton (AH-1 Cobras, CH-46s) March AFB (B-52Ds, KC-135As, C-130s, T-38s?) Davis-Monthan AFB (F-4s, A-10s, A-7Ds?) Include scenery of southern Arizona out to include Tucson and Davis-Monthan AFB, and Pacific Ocean out to about 127-deg West longitude. Somehow, do not go nuts with the city scenery details of Los Angeles and Phoenix...maybe just flat satellite imagery for those cities to try to keep file size down and framerate up. About 500nm of ocean to the west (Warning Areas W-289 & W-291, where the Tic-tac UFOs were, later on) and 350nm of mountains and deserts to the east of NAS Miramar, out to about 110-deg West longitude, giving an 850nm run, east to west. Keep it just about 200nm north to south. I'd definitely purchase this map!

But the Nevada Map would then be what, maybe 200 GB?? I would rather see a Vietnam Map, first. I know ED said they will never, never, never, ever add a single byte to Nevada. But when they do... I'd say just add detail area to include the NAS Fallon airbase and area, as well as a high detail, 50nm-wide corridor to the Pacific Ocean, to include: NWC China Lake, Edwards AFB, Palmdale Plant 42, (former) George AFB, Vandenburg AFB and Ft. Irwin and Bicycle Lake Army Airfield. Include high detail California islands of San Clemente, with the airstrip there, Santa Catalina, San Nicolas and the Channel Islands (San Miguel, Santa Rosa & Santa Cruz which are uninhabited). High detail south of a line from Pismo Beach to Tehachapi; and north of a line from Gaviota to Hesperia to Parker Dam on the Colorado River; and east of a line from Tehachapi, north to Mt. Whitney, and to a point west of NAS Fallon. And then ocean out to 125-deg W and south to 31-deg N. This would allow long range aircraft carrier operations to join in to the NTTR and include the China Lake Naval Weapons Center ranges. I think this would reinvigorate the Nevada map without greatly increasing its GBs on our hard drives. I've chosen this area specifically to avoid having to render large city areas. The A-6E Intruder and A-7E Corsair II, along with Naval Phantoms, F-14s, F/A-18s and A-4 Skyhawk would be great on this expanded map.

This OH-6A is the only aircraft I've experienced in DCS where, when flying in VR with the doors off and turning, I sometimes get a sensation like I could fall out of this thing and it's a long way down! I love flying it! I was flying a night mission last night in VR. The Moon was low, and I could barely see anything outside, or inside, just the glow of the instruments and console. I was maybe 200 feet above the trees with the crack of radar directed 100mm flak shells going off above me. And I could hear the popping rotor of an AI Huey close by somewhere, and dark, "Is he above me or below me...or at my altitude?" Don't want to go lower, don't want to go higher. "What are we doing out here?" I put my nav lights and red beacon on for a few moments! Yikes! Then I hear on the radio, "Colt 5-1 engaging triple-A at bulls 225 for 22." You're doing what?? Need some parachute flare rockets. But I made it out of there and headed back to base on an approximate heading, flying mostly by instruments. Stray a little too far north or south and red 57mm tracers come up from the ground, several miles away. I can see those things arc under me and flash with bit of thunder. But I landed safely at my base, 25 miles away, where the headlights of a Mutt (from Eight Ball & Tobi's Vietnam Assets Pack) were illuminating my landing pad on an unlit airfield in the Channel map. I'll be damned if Colt 5-1 didn't make it back to base 15 minutes after I did. To the makers of this mod: thanks!

Is this a common error running single-player? I just destroyed the last of 12 enemy targets...the watchtower, and this popped up...does it mean anything? It was right at the pull-up point for a strafing run on the watchtower in the A-4E. I was able to clear this message, and the sim immediately resumed, but with focus on another window so my joystick didn't work. Crashed into the ground before I could change Windows focus back to DCS.

The OH-6A mod is marvelous! I only just discovered it and have been flying it like 16 days in a row! My favorite helicopter to fly, now. Thank you for making this! ...it's sort of like this movie clip now...

Yes! This would be interesting, someday. Powered by a Wright R-1820 Cyclone radial engine. As long as it has an engine governor, I don't have a twist-grip throttle!

When I first saw this, I thought it was about fighting the California fires.

It's swangin'! If its probe was longer and could bend, it could 'boom' itself and fly forever, delivering an endless supply of -105's out its bomb bay. This why we can't have the F-105 in DCS. People who could fly it would brag about being the only ones who could go downtown. And then a Hun pilot would get mad and say, "Why don't you go boom yourself!" How many other aircraft could go 'both ways'? I can't think of any. The F-4 Phantom II was either/or amongst variants, but not both, right? Same with the A-7 Corsair II? What about the Tornado? All else I can think of were one way or none.

I've never hit anything from up there. I was trying to test and illustrate a point. I realize now that they've thought of this, and they've probably done the best they could with a mod. They probably can't control the ballistics and air resistance to cause them to fall realistically...but close enough for low-level. Well, if you fly right over a guy with an AK at 100 knots, he's probably going to get you before you can drop a grenade on him...at least in DCS. I dropped 4 in quick succession, and they all missed him...but he got me. That's no way to go about business. Yes, it's fun!

Multi-crew ground vehicles with completed interiors and modest systems simulation, fully VR-capable. Start with the WWII M8 Greyhound scout vehicle, for example. The M8 could be an up to 4-player vehicle: a driver, a gunner, a loader/top gunner, a commander. When occupied by a single player, the player will have to operate both driving and gunnery...or stop and switch positions/tasks...multi-task. Perhaps, AI can be assigned to operate 1 or 2 of 3 tasks: operate the .50-cal gun, to drive the vehicle following a route or lead vehicle, or to use the main gun and coaxial gun to attack enemy targets detected within range, stopping to fire the main (37mm) gun. About 80% of the 3D modeling is already done in DCS. Some of the textures need to be improved. Each player in the vehicle would be able to occupy a position not occupied by another player: 1a-- driver's seat, head up, slightly out of the open hatch. Can use a hand-held M1 Carbine .30-cal rifle from here: as well as -- Mk2 Frag grenades, Mk3 concussion grenades, and smoke grenades. 1b-- driver's seat, "buttoned up", inside the vehicle, looking out the armored view window. (2 positions for one player) 2a-- 37mm gunner's position on left side with telescopic aiming sight, --can select 37mm AP or HE round and fire them, or fire the coaxial .30-cal M1919 MG. 2b-- gunner's position, heads up, looking over the top of the turret. Can use hand-held M1 Carbine .30-cal rifle from here. -- Can also use: Mk2 Frag grenades, Mk3 concussion grenades, smoke grenades, and lay anti-tank mines from here. (2 positions for one player) 3-- .50-cal gunner's position, up top. 4-- 37mm loader's position, low, to set the radios on the right wall of the hull. Radio: an SCR-508 VHF FM radio 20-27.9 MHz, with 10 of 80 possible channels spaced 100 KHz apart, named "Channel 200" for 20.0 MHz, "Channel 235" for 23.5 MHz, etc., up to "Channel 279" [allow frequencies up to 39.9 MHz for more compatibility with other DCS aircraft]. The frequencies of these 10 channels to be set in ME, as is commonly done with aircraft. 1 transmitter and 2 receivers. Transmit and receive on channel 241 and also receive on channel 255, for example. (Which I think is the reason for the 2 whip antennas.) Integrated with this radio set is an intercom to all the vehicle's crewmembers. Perhaps allow a ME option to add other radios, such as an AM UHF radio with a few channels to talk with jets, or an AM VHF radio with a few channels to talk with WWII fighters. --Realistic engine sounds --Realistic vehicle performance of speeds and hill climbing --Analog gauges for Speed in MPH (option in settings for km/h), Engine Tachometer, voltmeter, ammeter, oil pressure and coolant temperature and fuel quantity (E--F) at driver's position. (or whatever gauges the real vehicles had) --Realistic fuel consumption and range. --Speed reduction when off road, making use of roads necessary for best range and speed. 55 mph on road, 32 mph off road. --Damage modeling: --tires deflate, if hit, reducing speed --Engine damage - smoke and reduced performance --radiator damage - engine eventual overheat and failure --typical fire and explosion If successful, do this type of modeling for about a dozen other WWII vehicles: U.S. Army vehicles... *M4 Sherman and Firefly Sherman, M10 tank destroyer, add an M5 Stuart light tank, *add an M24 Chaffee light tank. *add M18 Hellcat Gun Motor Carriage 76mm gun and Whirlwind R-975 radial engine, 55 mph on road, 26 mph off road. *M3 Halftrack M16 Halftrack M4 High-speed tractor M40 155mm SPH GMC CCKW truck *Willy's MB Jeep I realize this will take a while. Maybe start with the Greyhound and the * items above. ...and vehicles of other countries.

Yes, good idea! I've wanted to do this with ridiculously persistent AI aircraft many times. While they're at it, "teach" AI aircraft going RTB, once away from threats, to do normal climb speed to best altitude for distance to base, not necessarily a maximum rate of climb! And not afterburner all the way home. Cruise at speed for best range.

Thanks for the reply! Yes, the helo works so well and is so cool, it's easy to forget it's a mod! I guess you've done about all you could do with the limitations. Amazing! And if DCS was to tell you, "Let's make the OH-6A a full module!" Would it be an easy task to convert it over? ...I'm guessing not. They should, though. While it's not the most useful combat aircraft (if you want to live), neither is the I-16, Yak-52 or the Christen Eagle II, and yet they're modules. But the OH-6A sure is fun, and cool. It IS an observation helicopter, after all...not a gunship! Somewhere else, I think YouTube, I commented that the flight model seems squirrely in yaw at the transition from forward flight to hover and at the point of skid touchdown. Well, I subsequently just made a fairly smooth transition and landing. With practice, it can be done. The lateral and longitudinal speeds seem to need to be zero when touching down, and then it's a calm landing. I've only got about 14 hrs flight time in it, with no training! ...and unlike other mods and modules, the OH-6A hasn't "killed" me yet! I rolled one over on the ground upon landing after I had one skid shot off by a KORD 12.7mm over hostile territory, but I survived, got out and walked the pilot figure 50 yards to the waiting Jeep on my airfield. ...and that was with it wobbling terribly by some other gunfire damage! Crew chief gave me a blue ribbon for at least bringing the cockpit instruments back salvageable.

I guess the HE grenades are M26/A2 with an M217 impact fuse? Because when you drop one from 5,000 feet, it takes 45 seconds to detonate on the ground. Which means it falls at an average speed of about 75 mph. Seems like it should fall faster than that, like maybe 2 or 3 times faster. If it was the M213 delay fuse, it would detonate after 4-5 seconds. The M18 smoke grenades should have the M201/A1 fuse that ignites after 1.2-2 second delay? That would mean they start trailing smoke while falling from higher levels. Currently, they don't. But maybe it's not feasible to model this.

Umm, toss out Wyoming as it was modified to be an anti-aircraft gunnery training ship before and during WWII. That would be an extensively different 3D modeling than Arkansas. The version of Arkansas you'd likely want would be its 1944 configuration. The same with the Battleship Utah that was sunk at Pearl Harbor...it was an older anti-aircraft gunnery training ship with all its 12-inch guns removed. Would be nice, eventually, having the other much forgotten "Slow Battleships" ...in 1944 configuration... New York & Texas (not at Pearl Harbor) Nevada - much modernized Uprated AA armament (Oklahoma sunk) Pennsylvania (Arizona sunk) New Mexico, Mississippi & Idaho (not at Pearl Harbor) Tennessee & California - both much modernized Colorado, Maryland & the much-modernized West Virginia (Colorado not at Pearl Harbor) Nevada, Tennessee, California and West Virginia, after being rebuilt from their extensive Pearl Harbor damage, had completely new and different superstructures resembling those of the new South Dakota class. Correction: Nevada did not get a modern superstructure, only modification of the existing. The aft tripod mainmast was removed and replaced with an aft secondary battery director, as well as 3 more directors. The open-mount 5" guns replaced by 8 twin 5"/38 turret mounts, plus 8 quad 40mm mounts added. If DCS would develop the simulation of the ship's main battery guns and directors, and the ship's anti-aircraft directors and standard gun mounts, as well as standard search radars, it would just be a matter of 3D models of these ships being incorporated into DCS, legally, I think. And it would be a lot of fun and look totally awesome!!

It's surprising the popular B-25 Mitchell is not already in DCS. (probably on ED's "want" list, but for time and resources). I would suggest this be a dual-model module. The PBJ-1J US Navy/Marines version with glass nose and APS-2 surface search radar, and the much better-known US Army Air Force B-25J without radar. Not much physical, systems or flight model difference between them. I think the PBJ-1J would be more interesting and useful in Marianas, Normandy, and Channel maps for sea search, although it requires an airfield to operate from; it's not a carrier-based aircraft (except for the Gen. Doolittle Raid with B-25B's). Of course, it could be useful in any map for WWII-era operations. This could be a 6-position, multi-crew module with about 12 view positions. Perhaps, optional Jester-like AI crew members for positions not occupied by players...primarily for observations and reporting of threat aircraft and surface contacts, and sighting of land. Also, of course, defensive operations of guns. 1--Nose gunner/bombardier with views from seated position, manning the flexible gun and manning the bombsight views. 2&3--Pilot and Co-pilot positions. 4--Flight Engineer, Navigator position with views from manning the top gun, seated for navigation and window down into bomb bay. 5--Radio (Radar?) Operator with views from seated at radios, left waist gun and right waist gun. 6--Tail Gunner It could cruise at about 200 knots with a top speed of around 235 knots, a range of up to about 1,100 NM and a ceiling of around 24,000 feet. It could carry 1 Mk-13 torpedo externally or 3,000 lbs of bombs internally, such as six 500-lb M64 bombs. It also had 6 forward-firing 50-cal machine guns, besides the 7 defensive guns and racks for four 5-inch HVAR rockets under each outer wing. I would also hope, a functional model of the Norden bombsight...or, at least after an Early Access release. As a PBJ-1J, I think it would be quite a versatile aircraft in DCS WWII. As the B-25J, a low to mid-level bomber. I think the APS-2 radar could be mounted in the nose, on the right wingtip or under the belly, aft of the bomb bay. The latter installation should allow a 360-degree azimuth scan to be displayed on a circular, PPI scope, which displays targets in an easy to interpret, natural-appearing, map-like manner. Range settings of 5, 20, 50 & 100 NM, with range rings of 1, 5, 10 & 20 NM respectively. The radar might be able to detect submarine periscopes from inside of 5 miles; otherwise, ships out to 20-25 miles depending on their size/reflectivity and aspect. I'm not sure where the display scopes were mounted in the aircraft, though. Below: I think the right seat was removed for better viewing of this museum aircraft. Under the left pilot's seat is a crawlway to the nose section. Not seen, below the view of the picture, is the forward entry hatch in the bottom of the fuselage. There is also a bottom hatch aft of the bomb bay. Here is the nose section with the bombsight installed and three 50-cal machine guns. Looking aft, from the radio operator's seat, at the left & right waist guns. I include this picture of a plastic model as an overall view of the arrangement in the fuselage, nose section not shown. ...and, of course, this is the throttle quadrant.