Andrew8604

I know this Crusader should be fine from Nimitz-class carriers, but I don't know that F-8's (or F-4 Phantoms) ever operated from them. They operated from Forrestal and Kitty Hawk classes of supercarriers (and the Midway's). But I sure think it would be neat to operate the Crusader it from an angled-deck, Essex-class carrier. There would two subgroups of the 7 Essex-class carriers modified with steam catapults and angled flight decks. The first group of Intrepid, Ticonderoga and Hancock differed mainly in having the right (starboard), deck-edge elevator quite far aft. The second group of Lexington, Bon Homme Richard, Oriskany and Shangri-La had the starboard elevator substantially more forward, just aft of the island. Of course, I would be thrilled just to have the Oriskany. But with two models, they could just put the numbers 11, 14 & 19 on the first model and 16, 31, 34, & 38 on the second model. I'm sure there were minor differences between the individual ships of the 7, just as there were minor changes in armaments and antennas of each ship between yard periods. I think just the two elevator differences and their nominal radars and armaments configuration during the mid-1960's would be good enough. These 7 Essex-class carriers filled in until more supercarriers could be built, but the F-4 Phantom and A-6 Intruder were too heavy for the Essex ships, so the lighter F-8's and A-4's did the job on these ships. The F-8J would be perfect from these ships, along with the A-4E-C Skyhawk. Then maybe some pretty well detailed AI versions of the EKA-3B Skywarrior (tanker), E-1A Tracer (AEW) and SH-3A or D Sea King (or SH-2 Seasprite) helicopters and it should be all set! And when the A-7E comes along, we'll be able to add that to these ships, too. (It was actually the A-7A & B on these ships...but close enough.) So, hopefully, the F4U Corsair and the WWII Essex, plus this version of the Essex-class when the F-8J comes out! I can hope, anyway. We'll see what happens. Money in hand, waiting for the F-8J !

Ok, I'll forget every variant of every make and model, then. The sim has apparently reached its end. I'll check back in 2024, maybe...or maybe not and see if anything new has come along. I don't understand how the F-14, F-16, F-18, AV-8B, and A-10C and so forth ever came into the sim if it's all just too difficult. I'll get off the forum.

I can appreciate that it is a lot of work...a lot of work...to make these modules. Exactly how much and how difficult it is to modify them, I don't know. Unless I participate in making some of them, I can't entirely know. I just know it's a lot and we pay very little for the incredible detail and authenticity. I almost giggle to myself every time when I put on the VR goggles and sit in the cockpit with the canopy open. I can't believe how realistic it all looks!! I was surprised that Heatblur gave that 2nd F-14 for free. But I also don't understand who makes these modules and how much money they make for creating them. Are they basically volunteers, or do they get somewhat compensated for their time? I don't know how many copies DCS sells. 1,000? 10,000? But how many years of work did they put into the F-14B, for example? But, too, there must be some commonality and experience gained with each module that can benefit making another. Coding, for instance. Each module must have sections of code that can be reused on other modules...no?

"Shares" is probably not the right term to use. I didn't mean like an investment that's going to pay dividends. The only "return" on the "investment" would be the personal joy of flying a well done module. And no, I did not mean a reduction in quality. They would still have to meet the highest standards.

But, if a developer has gone to all the effort to make an F-4E, for instance, is it really that much more work to make the F-4D, or the F-4B? (maybe just those three, right there, E, D & B). There are similarities in panels, in systems, in 3D model, in flight model. The F-4 Phantom is a rare plane that I think needs several versions. First do the F-4E, like so many people want, but then a US Navy version, the B or the J. But the B is very similar to the C, so might as well sell the B & C together. The J is probably quite similar to the D, so might as well sell them together. OR maybe it makes more sense for C&D and B&J. I would be one of those people who would buy them all. I just don't see how after building an F-4E, building an F-4B would be like starting entirely from scratch. We have the F-14B and the F-14A+. Now, with something like the F-100 Super Sabre (if that should ever get built), I would say only the D model, possibly the F model as a "Wild Weasel". But possibly skip it if an F-105F or G is going to be made. I see no need for the C and A variants. The systems of the F-100 shouldn't be much more complicated than the F-86F. Some of the instruments and panels of the F-86F appear in the F-100, I believe. There is definite similarities. For the F-105, again, the D variant would be the main one. I see no reason to make the B variant. Again, they modified the two-seat F-105F for "Wild Weasel" role. And then came the F-105G, dedicated "wild weasel", which I think was updated F-105F's. The "D" is the main one. Anyway. we'd be very lucky just to get an F-4E, at this point. But I do see your point, too. I'd like to see the F-86D. So, much like the F-86F, but different wing, different stabilizer, engine with afterburner, different nose, longer fuselage...lots of differences, almost a new plane...it would have been called the F-95A, but US Congress wouldn't fund a new plane so they kept it F-86 "D". And I'd like the F-102A or the F-106A, as well...single-seat interceptors for us old single-player fans. There could be a whole series of classic interceptors...but not likely popular with the young folks. It would take a very dedicated and determined volunteer developer. Just not likely to ever happen, though. Too bad. The Lightning would be one of these. The MiG-19 and MiG-21 are of this group...and we have them. I have more of a liking for the American planes, though. I understand their instruments better. The Navy F4D-1 (F-6A) Skyray would be another of this class.

So, how about a $149, flyable B-52D, for the Vietnam Map? Too expensive, you say? Not if it has good AI crewmembers, well scripted with procedures and realistic voices. And if it has very realistic vintage radar displays and full-functioning systems. 7 Crew positions that could be occupied by Players or AI crewmembers. So, you could fly it by yourself, as you can an F-14. Or, fly it with 2 to 6 other online players, not that 4 to 7 players would ever coordinate to do that, as most everyone wants to fly it. It could be one heck of a simulation, though. No need to jump all over me. I know it probably has a snowball's chance in hell of ever happening. But it could be damned cool viewed in VR! Might have to have a $449 price tag. A lot of people pay that much for a Warthog joystick. How much did you pay for your computer...which is dull and boring without DCS? You want the module, or not? What this sim needs is a financial model where players start buying "shares" in a potential module. Maybe DCS holds the funds, or some other independent agent does. A developer then offers to build the module. As they meet progress deadlines, they receive a portion of the funds up to about 60%. When they finish the module, they receive the remainder of the funds and future sales. If they don't meet certain deadlines early on, they receive no more funds and the remaining funds are refunded to the players. After the module is released, it is sold at a typical module price, so that sales might be sufficient. The original investing players would end up paying the most. That might not seem fair, except that the module would not exist if they didn't. You want a particular aircraft, say the above B-52D, enough of you have to pay up front. Some might pay $1,200 or more...if they really want that module. But $1,200, alone won't do it. But there could be a hundred or more that might invest $25 to $150. If a module starts to gain funding, a person could invest more and accelerate its funding. If after a couple years there is very little additional investment and the module is not being built, then the player has the option to withdraw funds and place them in a different module, if they wish. Something like this. Just a rough idea. Needs refinement. Think it would work? We have to come up with something because module production is too slow. A Vietnam Map is not very interesting without an F-4 Phantom, F-105 Thunderchief, A-6 Intruder, A-1E & A-1H Skyraider, HH-3 Jolly Green, F-100 Super Sabre and the B-52.

NTTR fly 245 mag from Las Vegas for 125NM and you arrive at China Lake NWS airfield. From up at 20,000-35,000 feet it looks okay. But down low, it's very apparent it has low res texture...its just a satellite picture, no details. For a Vietnam Map, no one "should" fly low level from Takhli or Korat Air Bases in Thailand to North Vietnam. Would burn too much fuel down there. So that terrain could be of lower detail texturing, I would think. Does that save any gigabytes on map size? I don't understand what really does use up the GB's. For that matter, why couldn't the poly level be the same as NTTR or Normandy? If there's a will, there's a way. Well, the topic said they wanted to hear our ideas for a new map in DCS. I don't know if the request is truly from a map developer, but I and several others expressed our wishes for the Vietnam map. That's all we can do. Hear us, or don't. But there was a substantial amount of air combat activity that took place in that area of the globe from 1965 to 1972, including a little operation called Linebacker II that involved 129 B-52's in the air at one time on a bombing mission! And included land-based, island based and carrier-based aircraft. Then I would guess North/South Korea would be of similar size and not possible, either. How about a Maple Flag map, up by Cold Lake, Alberta/Saskatchewan, Canada? That might be about 300 x 300 NM...but like NTTR, excludes naval operations. Other than that, people's ideas are all over the place. Gulf of Sidra?...because there were a few incidents and Operation Eldorado Canyon there? Korea, Vietnam, Iraq. Those are the big three...and they are big...I think people have had enough of desert, though. The developer will have to choose what they want to do. That's my tiny opinion.

Been flying the F-86F in DCS 2.7x. It sure is sweet. Would sure love to fly an F-100D in DCS. I look at pictures of the real F-100D cockpit and there is a lot of similarity to the F-86F. It's got the F-5E's guns, but four of them, instead of two. If someone ever makes a Vietnam map, the F-100D has got to be made for it.

For the 1960's portion of the Vietnam War (Rolling Thunder), I believe it was the Navy F-4B and Air Force F-4C that saw the most usage. The F-4D, E, and J seem to have mostly been used 1970-72. So, I'd vote mainly for an F-4B (similar to the F-14 in crew functions - Pilot/RIO) and the F-4C (differing from the F-4B in that the WSO (back seat) I believe had flight controls, too. These two versions had to have seen the most use. But most people will go for the F-4E because it has the "internal" gun and can deliver laser-guided bombs...and maybe because it had 'maneuvering' slats. I still prefer the F-4B/C....along with F-105D and A-4E that they often escorted or provided CAP for.

Vietnam Map, circa 1967. I think this illustration (attached) from the Internet describes pretty well what needs to be mapped. High details in about a 7nm radius around airbases in Thailand, northern South Vietnam and in all of the Route Pack IV, V & VI areas of North Vietnam. Medium levels of detail in the areas of Thailand and Laos in between the airbases and North Vietnam. Low levels of detail in adjacent areas. I think this would provide sufficient detail for missions from the historical airbases in Thailand and from carriers at Yankee Station in the South China Sea, to historical targets in North Vietnam. I think this map would be best because it historically involved many types of aircraft and many types of missions. The players are always free to use whatever aircraft and ground forces they want, of course...as they can do on any map. Plenty of Air-to-air, air-to-ground, land-based and carrier-based missions...almost everything involving in-flight refueling. However, this map needs some more aircraft modules... Chiefly... the F-105D Thunderchief and the F-4B & C Phantom II. Also, the F-100D(or F) Super Sabre, a full version of the A-4E Skyhawk, the MiG-17F, and the A-1E Skyraider...would all be nice. Modules needed as AI aircraft: KC-135A (just retro-engine the -135R), KA-3D, HH-3E "Jolly Green" Modules already in existence: MiG-21 & MiG-19, F-5E, UH-1H ...even if not the correct versions of these aircraft. Resources in existence: zu-23-2, zsu-57, (WWII 88mm flak guns to stand in for 85mm and 100mm AAA), and the SA-2 SAM and radar systems. Modules in development (apparently): F-8J Crusader & A-7E Corsair II. Again...these aircraft would be ideal for scenarios in the time of the Vietnam War. But any aircraft could be used, of course.

What made that so? I think the maker of the Falklands Map said open ocean on a map is not free. I'd like to understand why a 500nm x 500nm map with no land at all would task PC resources. On the NTTR Map there are surrounding areas of low-detail terrain that look ok from high altitude but not from low altitude. Does that save on resources? If so, can a large area map have a medium detail corridor between two high detail areas? Would that save on PC resources?

The video says it is slower than "fly-away takeoff", but a good catapult team should be able to launch aircraft at 45-second intervals. I think they only launched the first few by catapult and then there would be deck space for fly-away takeoffs, depending on sufficient wind over the deck. So, the deck would be loaded for a mission. These escort carriers were about 500 feet long and capable of only about 19 knots. Would probably set speed for 12 knots and turned into a 7-knot wind, for instance would give them about 19 knots wind-over-deck. I don't know what the nominal wind-over-deck was. There was probably a range with min and max. Too much wind might make deck handling difficult? In this training video, that officer on the island said there wasn't enough wind for fly-away takeoffs and that they'd have to use the catapult (those carriers only had one). They carried 9 Avengers and 18 Wildcats, full load. In the video, those are FM-1 Wildcats, which are General Motors license-built F4F-4's with only four 50-cal guns instead of six. So they would place maybe 6 Avengers aft on the flight deck, wings folded, 4 abeam. Then spot maybe 10 Wildcats in front of them, wings folded, and a couple Wildcats at the front of the pack with wings extended. Might not be enough deck space for a fly-away takeoff, so the first 3 to 5 Wildcats would be catapulted. After that, the remaining Wildcats might be able to make the fly-away takeoffs in quicker succession. And then the bigger, heavier Avengers would make the fly-away takeoffs....deck cleared...6 Wildcats and 3 Avengers below on the hangar deck. Those could be brought up for fly-away takeoffs, if needed. So, the catapults likely weren't used to launch every plane. Although, in the video they did because there wasn't enough wind. When the planes returned, they would make arrested landings and be quickly taxied forward, wings folded and spotted at the very front of the flight deck. Other aircraft were then taken below on the forward elevator, down to the hangar deck. The carrier would either be in launch mode or recovery mode. Could not launch and recover simultaneously. Once all aircraft were recovered, they would be moved aft by the deck crews to get ready for the next mission, rearmed and refueled. Those needing servicing were likely taken below to the hangar deck and replacements brought up to the flight deck. There's another, related video on YouTube showing the recovery process. If an aircraft returned to the carrier while it was not "spotted" for recovery, it would have to circle and wait, or if in emergency, either recover on another carrier, land on an airfield, bail out or ditch. As there is a DCS module called Supercarrier, there should probably also be a module called WWII Carrier. (I know there probably never will be, though).

Rudel, Are you going to release a WWII-era Essex-class carrier to go with your F4U Corsair? If so, any chance of a Fletcher-class destroyer and a Cleveland-class cruiser to go with it, for escorts? Or do they need to be made by ED, or whoever made those detailed Perry-class frigates and Ticonderoga-class cruisers?

Someday...maybe?

Well, I had a lot of fun with Combined Arms in single player in the Nevada map driving a vehicle in a lightly armed convoy of a dozen or so, on a 3-hour trek along highways in the Nevada desert, "to get supplies to a remote outpost". I set things up in ME so that the vehicle convoy was attacked about 4 times by pairs of AI aircraft. But one thing I did was restrict the use of air-to-surface missiles...just guns, bombs and rockets. I also had the convoy encounter some enemy ground forces, including some T-55 tanks...that was brutal. But with improved AI and improved vehicle details it could be oh so much better! Then I switched to using Rift S VR goggles...where the operating of ships' guns and ground vehicles is visually/functionally broken and unusable, with no apparent plans to fix it. I use VR goggles exclusively in DCS, flying aircraft. It is so much more immersive. Head tracking with Rift S is nearly perfect, 1-to-1. If I want to look behind me, I have to physically turn my body around, as I'd have to in a real aircraft (no swivel chair). I think, driving and manning guns on ground vehicles would be awesome in VR with detailed vehicles. I had always wanted AI to drive the Humvee while I manned the 50-cal up top. Or to be able to drive with AI manning the gun. As is, it seems like once you took control of the vehicle, you were the sole occupant. You might want to get your feet wet in DCS by first supplying animated, AI ground equipment, vehicles and personnel on an airbase...Nellis AFB, for instance. But how will that impact framerate? It's such a large base, I usually only use a small part of the ramp. If there were animated ground crews and vehicles around enough ramp space for 12 to 16 aircraft, that might not be too hard on framerate? I would think that would really bring the airbase to life and realism. Doesn't have to be overly done. Just what you might see on a real airbase. Ground crew to direct you out of parking to the taxiways and back into parking on return. Creech AFB might be a better place to start. But it sounds like your aim is surface combat. If it worked in VR, I'd love to get back to driving some vehicles...realistically detailed vehicles with functional systems...same as the aircraft. Your fan-base for this might be limited, though. Improvement of AI would be very important, I think. Even if the AI had to be run on a separate computer, to simulate all the ground units, I'd get a 2nd computer for that. I don't suppose you would be interested in creating a bunch of WWII, Pacific Theater, surface combat ships for DCS?

Thanks for the video. That was awesome. We want that angled-deck, 2-steam-catapult equipped Essex-class carrier in DCS. Shangri-La, Oriskany, Bon Homme Richard, Hancock, Lexington, Ticonderoga, and Intrepid. BTW, it's A4D, not A-4D. Those were A4D-2 or A4D-2N...A-4B or A-4C after 1962. I think these were the A-4C with radar. A(attack), 4D(4th attack model for the Navy by Douglas Corp, -2N(2nd sub-variant with Night capability radar added). Like F4U-5N Corsair is F(Fighter), 4U (4th model of fighter for navy by Vought Corp, -5N (5th sub-variant, with radar added--night fighter). Douglas had the AD Skyraider, A3D Skywarrior, A4D Skyhawk, F3D Skynight, and F4D Skyray...all in the late '50's and early 60's. On top of that was the F4U, F6U, F7U, F8U, F2H, F3H, F4H, F6F, F7F, F8F, F9F, F11F, FJ, A2J, A3J, And I think that's why McNamara changed the whole system to something compatible with the Air Force system.

Or at least an AI Zero with a decently accurate flight model.

I was wrong here. Looks like Essex, Kearsarge and Lake Champlain were all also in the Korean conflict with the same SCB-27A modification to island superstructure and two Hydraulic catapults, and quad 40mm mounts replaced with twin 3in/50 mounts, like Oriskany. And at some point, at least some of the "short-bow" (short hull) ships, like Essex, were modified with a long bow. And when those ships were further modified after 1955, with SCB-125, they received the enclosed "Hurricane bows" and angled flight decks. Which then led to several of them serving in the Vietnam War. But there were also 7 of the Essex-class carriers that participated in the Korean conflict in pretty much the WWII configuration. All-in-all, I think the Essex carrier being made for the F4U-1D would be fine for use in a Korean Conflict scenario...if we ever get any Korean Conflict-era Naval aircraft...and I hope we do, starting with an F4U-4 or -4B. ...off in the future, somewhere.

...and that's why you said "place holder". Got it. Excellent!! Looking forward, very much, to operating the Corsair from this carrier. Sounds good. Short-hull (or bow) or long-hull...to me it's like...flip a coin. I'll be happy with either one. Thank you for taking it under "construction"! ...and it will make a good home for a Hellcat, Avenger and Helldiver someday...whoever makes them...I hope. As well as Korean War vintage, F4U-4 Corsair, Panther, Banshee, Skyraider and Sikorsky HO3S-1 helicopter.

So if it's the F4U-1D, I'll buy that. I hope they would follow it up with an F4U-4 and -4B ( I think the 'B' swaps out the six 50-cal's for four 20mm's?). The fuselage, wings and empennage should be pretty much the same. Yes, a WWII Essex ship would work just fine as a Korea-era Essex. I think only the Oriskany had the modified island, until about 1955 when more were so modified. The others, were still 'stock'. Differences would be minor...maybe only in some radar antennas, like you said. "Long hull" vs "Short hull" Essex. I think they all had the same length hull at the waterline. The "long-bow" Essex ships were about 16 feet longer overall because they were built with a longer "clipper" bow that allowed carriage of a pair of quad 40mm gun mounts. They also had two quad 40mm mounts on the fantail. Whereas the "short-bow" units had only one quad 40mm mount on a bow shaped more like that of a cargo ship, and one quad 40mm mount on the fantail. The long-bow units had a flight deck about 18 feet shorter than the short-bow units, to allow the 40mm guns greater field of fire upwards. The initial Essex ships were the short-bow, and they only shipped 8 quad 40mm mounts, total. Long-bow units had at least 10 to 18 quads. Although, throughout '44 to '45, I believe additional sponsons were added to the sides of the short-bow units to add more quad 40mm's. I think F4U-1D Corsairs really only operated off Essex-class carriers in late '44 to the end of the war in Aug '45. I think by the time the Korean war started in '50, the Navy had F4U-4's on Essex ships and on CVL's and CVE's. However, we can operate them whenever we want. Sometime in the 50's, I think the 40mm mounts were replaced with twin 3in/50's, and probably most or all of the 20mm guns removed. But, of course, the main thing is having an authentic Essex-class carrier to operate from in DCS. Although...if I'm not mistaken...we will ONLY have F4U-1D's on that carrier until someone makes us some Hellcats, Helldivers and Avengers to go along with. In WWII, the CVE's (not fleet carriers or fast carriers -- only 23 knots, I think) operated the FM-2 Wildcat with the R-1820 engine and the Avenger. 18 Wildcats and 9 Avengers, typically. Another thing. I believe the catapult was only used when there were too many planes on deck to do a 'deck run' takeoff. And the catapult was hydraulic powered--no steam. Most of the time you would just make a deck run takeoff. ...I was just thinking...it would be totally awesome if the WWII carriers in DCS would automatically re-spot planes in real time, and animated!! I think it could be done. Animated, AI flight deck crew would bring Avengers up on the elevators and roll them to the aft flight deck, wings folded. Then they would bring up Wildcats and roll them aft, ahead of the Avengers. Meanwhile, the ship would be turning into the wind. Then launch those AI planes....with a player's plane embedded in the crowd, perhaps. Any extra planes would then be brought up from the hangar deck and positioned forward on the flight deck, as the ship turns back downwind to maintain its "station". Before the flights return, the ship would turn back into the wind and be ready to recover aircraft. As planes land, deck crews will fold their wings and position them forward on the flight deck, taking some of the arrived aircraft below to the hangar deck for servicing. So the elevators will animate, taking aircraft below. When all planes are recovered, the carrier will turn back to downwind and crews will position planes aft again to prepare for the launch of the next flights. And so on, cycling like that. Now that would be pretty awesome! ...And then a line of IJN battleships come out of the straights... ...and all of this in VR goggles!! It would be like you were there in 1944. Once that automated AI carrier gets perfected, do the same for Yorktown-class and Lexington-class carriers, with F4F-4 Wildcats, SBD Dauntlesses and TBD-1 Devastators on deck for Battle of Coral Sea and Battle of Midway scenarios and maps. A Midway map should be pretty quick to produce, shouldn't it? Almost all ocean with mostly deep, deep water. Can you do it, Magnitude? Well, maybe with some help of DCS and other 3rd Parties. I give you until 2024 to complete it.

Okay, if that "bogus" illustration was just a place holder...I'm sorry. I didn't understand, before. It didn't look like DCS work. The pictures, though, are NOT bogus. I respectfully beg to differ. Although, maybe we just have a misunderstanding of terminology between us. A US Navy "Quad" 40mm AA gun mount, had four 40mm barrels...quad. They were grouped on the mount as if a pair of "Twin-mounts". A "twin" 40mm mount had only two barrels, mounted close together. There were also "single" 40mm mounts with just one barrel. In the picture above of the USS Boxer, CV-21 (a "long bow" Essex-class), we can see two Quad 40mm mounts, side-by-side, with their Mk51 or Mk57 director on the tall pedestal between them on the fantail. This is a Korean War-era photo, as you can see Panther and Banshee jets on the deck...and maybe Skyraiders forward. To the best of my knowledge, there were never "Twin" 40mm mounts on Essex-class carriers. There were quad, twin and single 40mm mounts on the Independence-class light carriers, CVLs, though (not to be confused with CVE escort carriers, like the Casablanca-class). The picture above the Boxer is a "short-bow" Essex-class. It had only one quad 40mm mount on the bow and one on the stern. It also had four quad 40mm mounts on the island superstructure and two quad 40mm mounts on the port side of the ship...one each next to the open 5in mounts, forward and aft along the port side. A total of eight quad 40mm mounts (32 gun barrels, in all). Farther up this topic is a 5-view illustration of the Bunker Hill, where the locations of all eight quad 40mm mounts can be seen. The "long bow" Essex's had two quad 40mm mounts on the bow and on the stern (as the Boxer does). I believe they also had more quad 40mm mounts on additional sponsons along the port and starboard sides. I think that short-bow Essex's also had some more quad 40mm mounts on sponsons added later in the war. The way the ships' armaments and radars changed throughout the war, I think you can only make a "nominal" Essex-class. But that would be plenty good! I think they seldom aimed these 40mm mounts by the pointer and trainer positions on the mount itself...the "tractor seats" with the open iron sights. They were remotely aimed by a nearby Mk51 director sight with lead computing. My understanding is that control of various 40mm mounts could be paired up with different Mk51 directors via a fire control switchboard in the lower decks of the ships. What difference does this make to DCS? Depends on how much detail of operation is to simulated in the ship. And also would be important if there is ever to be gun positions that can be "manned" by the player. Aiming a few mounts of 40mm via a Mk51, lead-computing director could be an interesting experience in DCS. And these mounts and directors were on most other ships, too...destroyers, cruisers and battleships. I'm talking about the 1943-45 time period...and into the early 50's. The era of the F4U Corsair. My intention is not to knock you or tell you you're wrong. Just that I think I might have the more correct information, in this case. Or maybe we're miscommunicating. If you are making the Essex-class carrier for DCS in WWII configuration...and I hope you are...that you get it as authentic and accurate as possible. Can't wait to see them in DCS!! And if you already know all this stuff...I apologize for repeating it.

WWII US Navy ships? For an Essex-class carrier, I would suggest typical escorts of the time. The fleet carriers were "fast carriers". That is, the whole battle group was capable of 31 to 33 knots, I believe. DE's (destroyer escorts) and CVE's are not part of a fast carrier group. They could only do about 22 knots or so. They escorted slow amphibious groups and cargo/oiler ships. Destroyer (DD) - I would suggest the Fletcher Class. There were 175 of these built. The most numerous of probably any destroyer class of any navy. They were common. I'd suggest a version with five 5in /38 guns in single mounts (with single Mk37 fire-control system) and three twin 40mm mounts (with Mk51 FCS), as they probably would have been configured while escorting Essex-class carriers. Each twin 40mm mount had its own Mk51 director, nearby on a separate pedestal. The Mk51 was a visually aimed, lead-computing sight that then aimed the 40mm mounts assigned to it. The iron sights on the 40mm mount were a backup in the event of no Mk51's being in service. The single 40mm mounts on the APA (amphibious attack transport ships) in DCS are visually aimed by watching where the tracers go in 2D video...and good luck hitting anything with them. Light Cruiser (CL) - I suggest the Cleveland Class. 27 of these were built. Probably the most of any cruiser class. They carried 4 triple-mount 6" guns, 6 twin 5in/38 mounts, 4 quad-mount and 6 twin-mount 40mm guns with multiple Mk51 directors. Battleship (BB) - Probably the Iowa Class. 4 of these built. Besides the nine 16in guns, there were ten twin 5in mounts and 20 quad 40mm mounts. All of the above had various numbers of 20mm gun mounts, too. Light Carrier (CVL) - The Independence Class, for sure. 9 were built. With 2 quad, 8 dual and 16 single 40mm mounts, with 10 Mk51 directors. Various guns could be linked up with different directors. Essex Carrier (CV) - 24 were built, but only about 14 in time to serve in WWII. All had 4 twin 5in mounts and 4 single 5in mounts, from 8 to 18 quad 40mm mounts, and a bunch of 20mm. So 5 models of ships here. That should be a very good start. Eventually, I'd like to see an older set of 5 or 6 ships classes around the Yorktown class and Lexington class carriers. These would go along well with a Battle of Midway map and the F4F-4 Wildcat, SBD Dauntless and TBD-1 Devastator aircraft. Then all of these assets could be used in various scenarios in various maps.

Who made that picture of the F4U approaching the "Bunker Hill"? I see what looks like pairs of twin 40mm mounts imbedded in the aft edge of the flight deck. I think those are totally bogus. I'm pretty certain all 40mm mounts on US aircraft carriers, and most other US capital ships were quad mounts, where all four barrels trained and elevated together, and were usually directed by a nearby Mk51 director mount. Those manning the gun mount were mostly just handling ammunition, I believe. But they wouldn't put guns, or anybody on the aft flight deck edge (there is probably a proper name for that, I can't recall), for obvious reasons...airplanes sometimes hit that deck edge. Also, unlikely to see a completely clear deck, as shown. Most likely there would be planes parked forward on the deck and personnel visible in safe locations. And I'm pretty sure any radio antenna towers would be lowered for flight operations. And where's the LSO? A pretty picture, but not very accurate. The 5-view illustration below that is much more accurate. The Bunker Hill had eight 40mm quad-mounts...4 on the island superstructure, 1 on the bow and 1 on the fan tail (under the flight deck), and one each next to the pair of single 5-inch mounts in the gun gallery below the port side of the flight deck, fore and aft. There may have been differences in all of the Essex-class ships, and they changed a bit during each shipyard visit during WWII...they changed substantially after WWII. I would hope a "nominal" "long-bow" variant of about early 1945 would be modeled in DCS. But I'll take any one you choose. The developer will get it right. And then modify that model to be an SCB-27C variant with 2 steam catapults and an angled flight deck of the 1960's, for the F-8J Crusader. The Ticonderoga would be a good choice for both time periods. But don't get stuck on one particular ship. BTW, here's a webpage that describes the operation of a Mk51 director with a 40mm twin or quad mount pretty well. History and Technology - The Mark 51 FCS - NavWeaps -- http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-049.php

"should have different account", or is it "MUST have a different account"? For example, I have purchased nearly every module and every map...I now have two capable PC's and two sets of VR goggles. I just want to take my son and my wife (and other relatives) for a virtual flight in a two-place aircraft so they can see what I'm seeing in VR. I did this one time with the Christen Eagle via a free Internet server and sure enough, some jerk in an F-14 tried to ram me head on. I waited to the last instant and evaded, he crashed. So, I'd like to do this within my own LAN, free of jerks. And I imagine it would have much better response times in a gigabit LAN. So, I MUST purchase, say, a 2nd license of the Nevada map and a 2nd license of the Yak-52...and then it will work? Is that the case? Seems like it should be free to use within my own LAN, so long as not joining up more than two PC's. So that this kind of local "sharing of the experience" can be done.

I wish I understood what this meant. I really, really, appreciate your reply AND your maximum effort!! Whatever "Elevation spatial generation" means, it must be a limiting factor in map size? You mean it's not possible to create a map of nothing but sea water, with a flat bottom deeper than 500 feet, to an extent of 1,000 x 1,000 nautical miles? No land, just ocean...what is the maximum dimensions? How does curvature of the Earth fit in...or does it? Is it a "flat world" in DCS? Is there an x, y, z coordinate system in DCS? Does it translate this to lat-long for matching to real world charts?