Andrew8604

Yes, gun emplacements on ships could be awesome! We used to be able to sit at and operate guns on the Samuel Chase attack transport ship. In VR, I couldn't get any gun sights to work, but I could sight down the barrel of 5" and 3" guns and fire at attacking planes. Occasionally, I could get hits on them. Traverse and elevation could be mapped to joystick axes. Sometime in the last year or two, that was apparently deactivated. I can't get it to work now. I had set up a mission in Marianas with 3 Samuel Chase ships and some LSTs escorted by Fletcher destroyers and Pensacola cruiser mod escorts and then have about 24 FW190's in WWII Japanese skins attack in waves of 4. It was a regular Pacific battle!! It needed improvement, sure, but it was a lot of fun even as it was, especially in VR!! ...and the sounds of all the gunfire! My wish is that they would bring it back with a lot more functionality. Or maybe as a separate module in DCS called "Ships GFCS" (Gun-Fire Control System) or "Task Force", which might include the animated, automatic spotting of planes (like the F4U) on WWII aircraft carriers. They have to be moved forward for landing operations and aft for launching operations. But the guns were generally aimed by remote Gun Directors. See my other wish list post:

That comment under the picture about the length of the ladder. I noticed that, too. With the F-4, you have to stoop down to walk under the wing, trying not to whack your head on doors and antennas. With the F-105, you look up at the underside of the wing like it was a ceiling in an average room! Of course, the F-4 is low-wing, and the F-105 is mid-wing, but still.

I'd buy a B-52D!! But I can see where others might not. The F-105D, however, is a single-seat, single-engine, fighter-bomber that will exceed Mach 1 on the deck with a significant bomb load. I'd think more would be interested...until they realize it doesn't carry Mavericks or JDAMs. Now, 20 years ago, I had the impression the F-105 was not very good with a name like "lead sled" and that something like a 3rd of them were lost in combat because apparently the planes were terrible, and the pilots weren't that smart. Others might have a similar perception and lack of interest. That is, until I read Col. Jack Broughton's book, "Thud Ridge". And I realized I was wrong! They lost so many because they were always being sent "downtown" into the thick of the most heavily defended airspace at that time, on the same exact route every time. And that those pilots had courage, dedication and determination, knowledge and skills that were impressive. And another book, "When Thunder Rolled" by another F-105 pilot, Ed Rasimus. Anyway, I'd sure like to fly the F-105D to get a much better feeling for what it was like. We need that Vietnam Map, though. Well, the F-105D could join the F-4E on the Germany Cold War map. It's just that I suspect the F-105D will take an effort close to that of the F-4E, minus Jester. Either Heatblur or Grinnelli...but like 2028 or 29, at the earliest, the way they've been going.

I think you meant F-100D. Grinnelli is doing the F-100D, not F-104. Aerges is doing the F-104. I'd hope Grinnelli could do the F-105. I think that's right up their alley. I'd like to see Magnitude do the SBD-5 Dauntless...assuming they've learned enough from the F4U-1D and have enough people to make it a 2- or 3-year job and not 10. Although, I hope they will make refinements to the F4U-1D module.

Not to take anything away from your request but did you watch this video by Reflected Simulations. I watched it a couple times and tried it and practiced it. I made about ten circuits around the carrier pattern gradually getting down to the altitude and speed required and to where I was coming out of my turn to final very close to the aft end of the carrier. When I felt comfortable, I cut the throttle (requiring left rudder to stay straight), eased it down a bit and flared to three-point attitude and caught a #5 wire. It worked!! It can be done with a little patience and practice. I was determined to do it without crashing, and I succeeded. And I'm not a great pilot. I think landing the F/A-18 and A-4E on a carrier is more difficult. I had the Essex carrier steaming 22 knots into an 8-knot wind to get about 30 knots wind-over-deck, too. It's not easy, and I've had some wave-offs and bolters that would have sent me into the barrier gear...but I realized on those that I had not fully cut the power! I've made about 5 traps of about 8 attempts. It can be done. My bolters were on a fully clear deck, so I powered through and back into the air. The barrier wires and barricade rigging don't seem to be present in the sim...that's a problem. But it's always nice to have an easy-mode option for this difficult task, if it improves the enjoyment. Same should be for in-flight refueling! ...which I still have too much trouble accomplishing. And, yes, it pretty much requires a quality joystick, throttle and rudder pedals. I use old Oculus Rift S VR goggles, too. Here's an example from a movie which edits together studio set scenes with real carrier operations involving F9F Panther jets filmed in about 1954, right before the angled decks came into use. This is also an Essex-class carrier, the last one completed (Oriskany CV-34), but with a more modern island. In about 1959, it received and angled deck, too.

The Carrier Ops one is excellent. Really got me dialed in pretty quickly. I went with 40 flaps and flew a dozen circuits around the carrier, slowly lowering my altitude and the speed, getting everything trimmed up...including a little bit of cowl flaps open and full open oil cooler. I used 2400 RPM and whatever MP gets me about 93 kts. In the turn it will slow to 90. I used 10 deg nose-up trim, 6-deg right rudder and maybe 1/2 deg right aileron. And then just be easy on the controls. Minor corrections. I made multiple passes over the end of the deck where I could have cut the throttle but just kept going around and around the pattern to get used to it. Many of my passes were wide right on the rollout, close-in to the deck. On those I could imagine getting the wave-off from the LSO. Tomorrow I'll go to 50 flaps and with a fully clear deck give it a try. In VR it looks like if you wave-off, you'll hit the island with your right wingtip. I always offset just a bit to over the port (left) edge of the flight deck, just enough of a climb to get maybe 50-75 feet above planes parked forward. I don't even change the throttle setting for the wave off, I just ease the nose up just a smidgen to get the altitude and then fly straight ahead for 15 seconds or so before turning back into the pattern to try again. I only use 25-30 deg of bank. I figure, once you cut throttle for the landing, you're committed, there's no waving off after that. Now this sequence in the movie "Bridges at Toko-Ri" makes a lot more sense to me. When do we get the F9F-2 Panther in DCS? Compare this. It's like the same pattern we'll use with the F4U. Same straight-deck Essex-class carriers (this was filmed on Oriskany CV-34 and Kearsarge CV-33, with updated islands and twin 5"-gun turrets removed).

In Mission Editor. When you place an F4U aircraft in the mission, you can click the "Additional Aircraft Properties" tab "..." and there you will see selection boxes for inner, middle and outer guns. Also, a checkbox for custom pattern, but I don't know what that does. Found this on Wikipedia under "Gun harmonization"...

...and pilot-figure models of all these guys! I'm joking...but it would be cool, at the same time.

Also, the "AI" F4U-pilots taxi on land airports with the wings folded. I'm 99.44% sure that's not a good idea. I suspect that's a side-effect of making it work realistically on the aircraft carrier. They also spawn, start up their engine and begin taxi all in about 1-2 seconds. And they seem to taxi a bit too fast.

Is that supposed to be as if the aircraft is up on jacks for repair? I think they should get rid of that. Just fix what isn't working on the aircraft. Don't do the animation of the jacked-up aircraft. That's my suggestion. I mean; to be realistic, the repair timer should be like 1 to 300 hours depending on damage, not 180 seconds. But no one would wait for that, of course. It's probably an obsolete feature. Most people just eject and go grab another aircraft, I think. But at least get rid of the "raising of the aircraft" part of "repair". But I'm pretty sure this is an ED thing, not the F4U module or Magnitude 3's doing.

I've noticed this in flight, but not on the ground. Is it possible your engine RPM was down around 700-800? I don't know if the flaps actuators are electric or hydraulic. Seems like some electrical power drops off if the RPM is below 1,000 RPM. This may be intentional to replicate the way the real aircraft behaves. But I don't know. In flight they seem to deploy to about 20, even when set to full down. ...until your speed drops somewhere below about 120 knots or so, then they fully deploy. I believe this is working as intended, and I assume as the flaps would on the real aircraft. It might be an intended function of the real aircraft's flaps? Partially to protect them from damage and partially to smooth out handling? I don't know for sure, but I suspect that what they're supposed to do. Or maybe I'm abusing them.

Dear Magnitude 3 (and Vought), Thanks!! It was a long wait. But now it's here, and it sure is cool! 1st flight... took off and landed ok...on land, in the Nevada map. Carrier ops later.

Just film of F-105Ds and Fs taxiing to arming pits and at the ramp. AIM-9B, AGM-45, ALQ-87 pods visible. One undergoing engine work near the end. Just looking at the boarding ladder, it looks like you have to climb to about the 9-foot level to get into the cockpit! Although, that may not be any different than an F-15.

Can't ED or a 3rd-party do a Vietnam Theater Map - 1968-ish, even as an interim with this level of vegetation? I say "Vietnam Theater" because it "should" cover a lot of Thailand and Laos, too. I suppose that may be a 150 GB+ map, though! Takhli, Korat, Ubon, Udorn, and Nakhon Phanom are all in Thailand. The F-4E, F-100D, A-1H, A-7E, A-6E, A-4E-C, MiG-17, MiG-19 and MiG-21 will all find homes on that map. ...coming in 2027? Then enhance the vegetation later. But right now, I'm going to try to get this Marianas WWII map and the F4U-1D!!

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!