NAVAL DEVELOPMENT Leatherneck ?

[toni]

Hey Guys, given that you will do an excellent job with the F-14 and due to it was the main Fleet defender for almost 40 years, what do you tell me about developing its homebase ? Yeah, I am talking about building a 1st person fully controlable CV, and given that ED probably will include a CVN with his Hornet module, I would mention a conventional class like the USS Saratoga CV60 ( 80s refit to SLEP ) or the USS John F Kennedy CV67 .

 

Could be challenging and interesting.

[toni]

I know that the most suitable would be a Third Party dedicated Team building Naval content, platforms + large maps , but......... who knows what a surprise we can find inside these projects.

 

Rgds.

[SPEKTRE76]

The USS Enterprise (which I have sailed on) would be a better fit. There has always been one in the Navy. In WW2 She had the most distinguished combat record.

[toni]

Indeed, a somehow controllable CVN 65 would be great, with a California class CGN for scort and both inmersed into a large Hawaian Islands scenery !

 

We will need Pearl Harbour in DCS W2.

 

:)

[Hiromachi]

Pearl Harbour ? What for ?

[toni]

RIMPAC 2017 !

[Steph]

Why not The Nimitz ...

[MegOhm_SD]

Enjoyed Pacific Ops in an old "sim". Carriers with Jugs and Corsairs.

I miss that. Pearl Harbor, Midway and even recreating Doolittles Raid.

 

That was fun stuff. Maybe one day

[MegOhm_SD]

Pearl Harbour ? What for ?

 

Because this time we know your coming

[O_Smiladon]

Because this time we know your coming

 

LOL :thumbup:

[mjmorrow]

The USS Enterprise (which I have sailed on) would be a better fit. There has always been one in the Navy. In WW2 She had the most distinguished combat record.

 

I would really like a Yorktown-class carrier, especially the USS Enterprise. A dev team able to visit NY may wish to look into making an Essex Class carrier, too. The Intrepid Sea, Air & Space Museum is literally inside and on the top deck of an Essex Class carrier, the USS Intrepid. :thumbup: MJ

Edited August 19, 2015 by mjmorrow

[Nicolq Craig]

All of those carrier would be nice but a carrier below deck (for cold start reasoming) and real carrier deck ops. Would be the thing for a DCS Naval Development. I know this might be trouble but there options to set for it.

[ESA_maligno]

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=140238

 

jijiji

[toni]

Droping ideas !

 

A full package - Raffale + Charles de Gaulle CVN - would be awesome also in a not far horizon , but honestly I would bet for separate developments, Air platforms for one side, and Naval content for another, like a Shipyard itself.

[Woogey]

[AG-51_Razor]

All of the 'gee whiz' ideas about having a fully detailed hanger deck to spawn in, and afterwards travel up to the flight deck on elevators, along with fully animated personnel directing traffic and tow tractors is cool but not very practical for a multiplayer environment.

 

According to the 1.5.0 change log just released, they have addressed the ships being synchronized for all players in the game, which is HUGE!! I believe that the next issue or feature they need to concentrate on are the number and placement of spawn points on the flight deck. There should be at least 15 to 20 spots on the flight deck that one can spawn on without interfering with the landing area and one of the cats up forward.

 

For the launch, I would expect something like how it's done in IL-2, which is to taxi up to within a small distance from the cat and press a key command to "attach" your plane to the cat, in this case it would trigger the JBD, and then another key press (possibly the same key) would fire the cat for the launch.

 

All the other stuff would just be icing on the cake and greatly appreciated but I'd rather it be kept simple and released than never see it due the complexity of all the requests. :pilotfly:

 

Just my 2 cents.

[Gierasimov]

To the contrary

 

I beg to differ, adding detailed ground crew adds immersion and professionalism not seen in any other sim. I am talking about motion - captured animations. HAWX 2, although it is flight arcade rather than sim, provides some examples, such as detailed air base with ground units and personnel going around their usual business. I would love to see that kind of detail in this excellent sim platform that DCS surely is. Aircraft Carrier without that kind of detail is "just" another object on the map, however truly immerse carrier environment would be a masterpiece not seen before.

[AG-51_Razor]

I completely understand what it is you're saying, I just don't think that kind of "immersion" is attainable in this sim. If you think about it for a second, you can imagine how un-immersive it would be for you to see yours or others' aircraft taxiing through the digital depictions of deck personnel as they are moving around, waving their hands and doing all those other things you are wishing for. It just isn't practical for the kind of program we're dealing with here.

 

I would love to see it, experience it. I just don't think it's even the slightest bit possible.

[Gierasimov]

I don't get your point

 

I completely understand what it is you're saying, I just don't think that kind of "immersion" is attainable in this sim. If you think about it for a second, you can imagine how un-immersive it would be for you to see yours or others' aircraft taxiing through the digital depictions of deck personnel as they are moving around, waving their hands and doing all those other things you are wishing for. It just isn't practical for the kind of program we're dealing with here.

 

I would love to see it, experience it. I just don't think it's even the slightest bit possible.

 

It is attainable, it is not new technology or pioneering idea.

Can you taxi through a fuel truck for instance? Honestly, I don't even know if you can. Never tried this as I was afraid my virtual pilot would die.

What makes you think of taxiing through the digital depictions of deck personnel? Is this related to multiplayer thing?

How is mp immersing with all those different people not simulating but gaming and for example ruining your landing with parking their aircraft right in the middle of a runway or with re-spawning after getting killed?

Personally I couldn't care less about MP experience since it is totally different to single player mode and I would not expect to see the same level of sim in both modes.

I don't know about you, but I am hardcore SINGLE PLAYER simmer, just wasn't able to find time to do it professionally in mp.

Anyway, it seems we are taking this discussion to another track.

[SFC Tako]

All the other stuff would just be icing on the cake and greatly appreciated but I'd rather it be kept simple and released than never see it due the complexity of all the requests. :pilotfly:

 

Couldn't agree more! Sober thinking :)

[Big Nuts]

I completely understand what it is you're saying, I just don't think that kind of "immersion" is attainable in this sim. If you think about it for a second, you can imagine how un-immersive it would be for you to see yours or others' aircraft taxiing through the digital depictions of deck personnel as they are moving around, waving their hands and doing all those other things you are wishing for. It just isn't practical for the kind of program we're dealing with here.

 

I would love to see it, experience it. I just don't think it's even the slightest bit possible.

 

 

Not even possible! This is computer land were talking about here, they can do anything at all, the infantry have skeletal animation, and follow commands. The carrier tends to be the focus when at sea, allowing for high levels of detail without rendering huge amounts of terrain. Many leagues from impossible. They have the hard stuff done already it seems.

[VincentLaw]

I agree. Simulating a high fidelity EFM/ASM module should be far more technically challenging than getting the AI to follow some choreography. There would still be a bunch of work involved in developing the system, but I don't foresee any unreasonable challenges. Skeleton infantry animation, which is planned for 2.0, is a big chunk of the prerequisite development out of the way.

[NeilWillis]

I think we're getting a little carried away here. Resources are finite, particularly the resources available to the software houses involved in DCS World.

 

Which areas are a priority? Getting the scenery to stick it's thumbs up or salute you just before you get airborne from a carrier deck, or the aircraft you'll be flying in? We have numerous complaints about the lack of contextual opposing aircraft, the lack of WW2 aircraft in general, and the endless time between a module being announced, and the fully implemented release.

 

I am sure all these things are possible, given limitless resources, and everyone using the most powerful computers available to run the cumbersome code that will be needed to run your disneyland aircraft carrier experiences. However, which matters more, the aircraft (which we do not have yet) or the environment?

 

Would it be great to have 3 or 4 different carriers, fully animated crews, hangar spaces, and all the bells and whistles? Hell yes! Is it a priority to have all this frippery when we don't have a single period of history covered comprehensively in terms of available aircraft though?

 

Reality check time maybe?

[VincentLaw]

Which areas are a priority? Getting the scenery to stick it's thumbs up or salute you just before you get airborne from a carrier deck, or the aircraft you'll be flying in? We have numerous complaints about the lack of contextual opposing aircraft, the lack of WW2 aircraft in general, and the endless time between a module being announced, and the fully implemented release.

Yes, I would still argue that carrier crew should be the priority. I'm not saying the entire flight deck crew needs to be simulated, but at the very least the aircraft directors and LSO should be represented. Without that, I don't think we could really call it DCS level carrier ops. We're not just talking Flaming Cliffs level either. There are some old Flanker 2.0 videos floating around and it doesn't look like much has changed since then. It's almost 2016. Why should we have to settle for 1999 level carrier operations. The bar should be set somewhere and you have basically dropped it on the floor.

[NineLine]

I am hopeful for some Canadian Navy love as well....