Chaogen

Yes you are correct. But its also one of the only places where it's that high. The wonderful thing about standards are there's so many to choose from and so wouldn't apply to Caucasus or Dubai/Iran if you want to get technical.. But doesn't matter. In [DCS] practice though I doubt the weather setting allows different weather zones to the point that if you take off from Nevada, the QNH would be different on the other side of the map. Secondly, I highly doubt people use DCS as a procedural IFR training Sim. That's what MSFS is for if you couldn't afford Certified Sim Hours. Lastly I can't comment on Military procedures as I'm sure there would be a preference to keep all friendly A/C on a synchronized level to ensure things like Angel call-outs are referenced correctly. I guess it would be helpful to know where OP was going with this.

I've flown mostly out of uncontrolled fields and just usually set my altimeter to airfield altitude to get QNH. You have the charts in your kneeboard. Sure its a little harder when you don't originate from the field, however you're going to be using QNE above the transition layer (usually 1500 ft AGL) anyway. And when you come back down (in the Tomcat at least) the radar Altimeter can either get you in the pattern and back on the ground or help you reset your QNH with a visual fix and some math.

Why not some Kaman Seasprites? Historically appropriate as the predecessor to the Seahawk, not in active US Navy service, and able to fire Torpedoes and Guided Missiles including the Hellfires and Mavericks (granted they were the international versions). Even as far as Sidewinder and Sparrows on a test beds. Its an often overlook Naval Helo with many capabilities that should fit comfortably in the DCS realm, and also appropriate to operate from Frigates and Destroyers.

That's because Helo Pilots for some reason think that they don't have to play nice with fixed wing traffic. I've had 3 incidents of Helo's who didn't bother to let anyone know what they're doing, almost causing mid-airs, including a Jet Ranger that flew right overhead the airfield at pattern altitude with multiple planes in circuit without ever reporting their position or intention to CTAF. Never intended to land. Just passing through.

It's not anger. I just said I fly helo's too. But I'm being realistic. Until a Seahawk shows up, I'm not going to ask for animations or Deck Ops. Just because you can land other helos (or as I pointed out a Harrier) on something, doesn't necessitate the need for animations. Marshaling a helo would be a lot more coding than what exist today, not to mention completely different approaches with accompanying radio traffic recordings, landing spots ect. Also making sure helo's don't block the Flight Deck unless the Deck Crew can also move A/C on the carrier, since they don't use skid helos (as part of REGULAR OPERATIONS like Sea Horses, Sea Sprites, Sea Kings, Sea Hawks) on Super Carriers. All of this is just going to cause significant performance impacts in MP, not to mention severe de-sync issues. So how about we start with getting the normal flight ops to be done, and working well, before throwing these nice to haves, albeit not exactly realistic, on top op it. Actually I'd rather see the animations added to the Tarawas since those are a far better Helo Ops vessel than a A/C Carrier.

To your point. Which other module owners are going to buy the Carrier Module if they can't use it, which is what I asked in the other thread? I'm willing to say that the majority of Tomcat Owners also have the Hornet. Therefor if all the potential buyers get a discount then no-one gets a discount. If anything it should be the other way around. People buying the carrier to support ED should get a discount, since they can't use it.

Easy. Let me clarify since apparently, I have to. NONE of the current modules available, operate from the Theodore-Subclass. NONE of the photos you provided show that either. We're not discussing Oliver Perry Class Frigates, LHDs or LHAs here. OP was regarding the Super Carrier. An Army Haiti OP isn’t “Evidence” let alone a Mexican Navy Mi-8 on a US Navy LHD. Not even touching the tons of photos with Saigon Hueys getting pushed into the water, which are all before the Theodor was even built.. Here’s a photo of cars on the Reagan. Doesn’t mean I want the deck crew to marshal around my Jeep. Furthermore, just because I can land my Harrier on the back of a Ticonderoga doesn’t mean it should animated deck crew. Lastly before you get on your 10000 spare parts flying in close formation with a Jesus Nut standing between you and certain death high horse, a third of my time is in helo’s, and would love a proper offensive Helo. If it was the Sea/SuperCobra I would welcome having a Deck Crew to handle it. But again that would be specific to the LHA/LHDs and more appropriate as part of a later update to the Tarawa’s as a whole. No reason for it to be included on the Theodor’s.

I find all this demanding discounts based on module ownership fairly amusing and puzzling at the same time. The only 2 modules that use the Nimitz class today, is the F-18 and F-14. Why would anyone that do not own these modules be interested in buying the Carrier Module. And I'm going to assume the majority of F-14 owners also own the F-18 since a lot of us practiced carrier ops in prep for the F-14. So by demanding a discount, consequently everyone is getting a discount.. Essentially ED's only course is to jack the price up, so that they can at least get some profit margin out of it post the discount riots. Only people I see loosing out is F-14 owners that do not have the F-18 which I would bet is not significant enough to offset everyone getting a discount. Just make it a flat price, other than the discount for EA which is fine. That is understood to be the trade-off of Beta releases. As for the Kuznetsov. First people were upset that the Nimitz gets updated but not the Kuznetsov, demanding it gets attention. Now that you are getting an update, you want a discount too. Again if everyone gets a discount, then ultimately no-one gets a discount. These pricing arguments are ridiculous. Like demanding a discount on dollar menu items. Justifying the cost. Scaling the prices. Give me a break. Given fact that everyone here has at least several hundred vested in the PCs alone not including DCS, no one here can tell me they are that hard up to complain about a couple of dollars this or that way because of a discount.

Besides there are no Helo Modules that fit in the Carrier Ops environment, so until that happens I don't see it being a consideration.

Just out of curiosity, what/why exactly would you like to do with the Control on a axis?

Oh.. No,no.no. The trackir. Sold it to someone who had neither and was about to buy a new one. It was sitting on a shelf gathering dust.

I get what your saying, but some of it you'll just have to write off as "This isn't real life". Head movement limitations is really going to mess people up. It's bad enough people get sick in VR with natural head movement, let alone desynced movement. I agree other effects could level the playing field and I like the blurred effect and colors. I have noticed if you turn your head any way but forward on a CAT shot, you black out for half a second. That said, I'm fine with no change too. I prefer to stay our of the merge anyway. Yes. That's what I was talking about. I have the VR Zoom mapped but unless I keep my head very still when using it, I can feel motion sickness starting to kick in. I have never gotten it from any other game, including the continuous walking movements ect, but the VR Zoom is as close as I've gotten. I also mostly use it in the cockpit, as opposed to finding a target. I was just saying I understand why some people who have both prefer trackir. Zoom and frame rates. I personally won't go back and even ended up selling mine. The depth perception and ability to fly formation or do AAR isn't worth going back for.

My Index does just fine with resolution and if you're in a merge, its not like the target is a single pixel. I also lean to the side and back so I can at least directly upwards in a turn fight. The advantage I perceive from VR is that the 1 to 1 relationship with head movement gives me better SA to where exactly the bandit is in relation to my Aircraft and which way to maneuver. With trackir I could never take my eyes off the bandit to look at what my A/C was doing, since I would struggle to reacquire it, given that your head movement is so exaggerated. Not saying you can't learn to adapt to it, obviously guys like Maverick and others have done so, but with VR its more intuitive. I think the real advantage with trackir is zoom, albeit just a tad unrealistic. I do have the zoom button bound, but it is unpleasant to use in VR.

Understood. I commend you for going into MP prepared. And if the feature would help you then great. That said, practically the startup procedures for front and back are really independent of each other, other than the ground power which really either can request. Granted its abbreviated, but I doubt many MP pilots are going to want you to run the natops startup unless you join a serious carrier ops squad. At least in our server we always welcome people to learn an AC in MP. 1. There's almost always someone to talk you through it, and you can learn what matters and what doesn't and most importantly why. 2. None of our guys ever touch SP since its boring and uninformative. Most people started out as pilots and then we all started swapping out the back seats to cross train. Your experience online may vary, but these servers are out there. Make sure you have SRS installed (for seamless Pilot/RIO Comms) and whatever VOIP the server uses.

Myself or my RIOs are usually able to start alignment as soon as you have ground power. May not be according to the checklist/NATOPS, but we've yet to notice adverse effects. We're usually able to get the plane moving in only a few minutes with ASH. By the time the engines are spooled up alignment is almost done.

I don't know what the point is of wasting your energy with this crowd. This argument has been going on for months now, and almost every thread is now littered with Sparrowhawk and D model requests. They're so hell bent on micromanaging the plane with performance charts they're incapable of flying the A/C with the information and feedback presented, let alone comprehend energy management. The audio and shaking does an excellent job of telling you if you are inducing more drag than you should and if you can't tell the AOA Indexer will. You don't need FFB and you don't need G-Forces. Personally it sounds like excuses to me. The airspeed indicator is right there next to the VDI and is NOT that hard to read in VR or otherwise. Of course its not going to tell you you're flying 409.125 knots, but you don't need it. As for Jester. I'd rather have his bandit position call-outs improved than add another loop of code giving me redundant/useless information in a fight. Last night I was yelling at my RIO to tell me where the bandit is, not what my speed was. Even if I know what my speed is, what is it going to help me mid turn? The shaking will tell me if I have to back off or keep going.

Just for the sake of clarification, are you saying its "does not seem realistic." however you "Am aware it was a weakness in the real aircraft." ? That out of the way what's your G-meter max needle read after these engagements? It takes well over 10 Gs to get the Gyros out of alignment let alone break them.

Right.. So what I said in my last paragraph then. Before I clarify some things let me preface this post by saying my argument is strictly for Multiplayer Servers. What you do in single player and your personal buddy server is not the subject of my concern. As to this thread and your wish-list, that does not: 1. Require a spawn site below deck, which was the reply my first statement referred to. 2. Require a hanger deck with excruciating detail, other that the parts visible from outside. Since which unless you were on foot, would be pointless. More polygons and textures add a significant amount of resource usage which does not help in Multiplayer. I do not know which Multiplayer servers you use, but on none of the ones I've flown do people want to stick around on the carrier for 1 second more than they have to, much less 45 minutes to watch ground crew do their thing because ultimately this is a flight simulator and not a hey look at the pretty navy city airport boat and people. I appreciate we're getting a detailed one, so we can all get fully involved in the Deck OPS part of it, but beyond that I have no interest in seeing the mess hall fully animated. There are enough museum ship to go visit for that. Seriously. I would consider my PC in the upper end, but after you add VR and a mid range internet connection things get bogged down real fast. I'm not interested in a slide show of the real nice pretty navy city airport boat. I have numerous coffee table books I can go read. What I am interested in is getting marshaled to my catapult. Getting better radio comms and traffic and being able to have the barricade deployed should I need it. Beyond that empty aircraft being moved around would be cool, but not a necessity. And I would rather it be left off if the it is going to make the De-Sync issues worse. Surely everyone here distressed about the immersion can agree that is far worse. Additionally last night I spawned in on a stationary carrier and was still sliding on the deck. Considering this bug has been present for a considerable amount of time, along with so many other MP sync issues, I do not currently see the benefit of adding or animating anything beyond what we need to launch and recover the A/C FOR MULTIPLAYER until the core engine becomes better suited to add all these other features.

What I got from this thread around post 4 was how can I pull some of "that pilot sh!t" by hitting the "brakes" "so he'll fly right by", because the CADC won't allow it in any mode and even if it did the Hydraulic Wing sweep screw is far too slow for that to work in real-life or the sim.

You must be new here.

Again I have to question what the hanger deck would add. Since you can't do any of the startup procedures in the Hanger Deck, or run your engines, spawning below deck will require a ground crew to move your aircraft to the elevator before you can startup and do alignment. Actually you would have to be moved off the elevator as well, as to not hog the elevator so other players can get on the flight deck as well.. For single player this added realism is fine, but this is a Multiplayer nightmare waiting to happen. Tons of extra code, de-sync issues, performance impact, just so you can sit there for 10 minutes watching your plane get moved from one deck to another and maybe 2 weeks worth of GR material. Actually I'm pretty sure the aviators wouldn't get onboard the A/C until is was pre-flighted and armed on the Flight Deck. It just seems like a lot of extra code work for a feature that is going to be cool to do for all of 5 minutes before it will simply impede Multiplayer game play. I like the idea of static A/C being replaced by players as they join. I can see that helping with immersion a lot more. Then if it wouldn't affect code to much you could animate those being moved between decks.

So regarding the elevators, are we getting a push-back/tow-tractor feature of some sort? Otherwise whats the point of modeling/animating the hanger deck/elevators?

I do remember reading somewhere that with something like half-fuel it had a better than 1:1 dry thrust ratio and actually capable of super cruising with the F-110-GE-400s. (Not the Super 21)

Yes. We know. The point is it shouldn't, because if the damage is modeled correctly the hook on the F-16 would sheer off and the landing gear would collapse among other things. As for the F-5E you could philosophically argue that even though operationally the hook was only used for runway emergency arrests, the F-5 did start its life intended as a Navy fighter and would go on the serve as the platform for the F-18. Its also half the weight of a F-16. All the same, unless some F-5 SME wants to correct me, it too should have the tail-hook modeled to shear off landing on a carrier. For kicks, here's an interesting thread about F-5s on a Carrier. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=167762

That's fine and all for singleplayer and if you have the time but in multiplayer this just would not be feasible. Real life limitations mean that I have at most 1.5 hours to fly a day. Between INS alignments, Mission designers who like realistic deep-strike missions and now briefing rooms I'd be lucky to get one sortie in. And even if I had more time you'd probably want to get rid of hot-rearms. On the servers I fly people are spread out between at least 4 time zones, so not everyone shows up at the same time. There are very few occasions where we can coordinate strikes to this level. And if we do have FAC I have to shut the A/C down and go to Debrief Room to deconflict the laser codes? Lets be reasonable here. I like realism as much as the next person and I'm not not advocating changing codes midair or any other Ace Combat type mechanics, but its still a simulation with some artistic license and as such, the loadout window makes sense and a practical compromise..