Upgraded USS Stennis Module

[26-J39]

holdback bars.

 

 

please.. :)

[toni]

And......any explanation concerning the Soviet Carrier module hold development ?

[rrohde]

And......any explanation concerning the Soviet Carrier module hold development ?

 

I believe I read on the Russian forums (via Google translation) that Chizh said to not expect the updated Kusnezow any time soon...

 

Link: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3492547&postcount=14092

[Alfa]

As USSInchon said, pilots only enter their aircraft on the flight deck when they have been made ready for flight(fuelled and armed), which btw also happens on the flight deck for safety reasons.

 

So from a player perspective, there is really nothing to do below on the hangar deck.

 

Buuut A: Too bad you're getting them whether you like it or not (ED newsletter 21/01/2016 http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/newsletters/newsletter29012016.html, model viewer etc).

 

All the newsletter mentions is "working elevators" - that does not necessarily mean that ED plans on having players "spawn" on the hangar deck.

 

Working elevators would be useful for the general "feel" of the carrier environment - i.e. having empty aircraft moved onto/off the flight deck as part of simulating deck procedures.

[Northstar98]

As USSInchon said, pilots only enter their aircraft on the flight deck when they have been made ready for flight(fuelled and armed), which btw also happens on the flight deck for safety reasons.

 

So from a player perspective, there is really nothing to do below on the hangar deck.

 

Correct, though being pedantic it's strictly from a pilot's perspective alone, who's to say we won't get extended functionality with the carriers, especially when they're being made into their own modules (though postponed indefinitely so far) And if you want to be consistent with die hard realism, everything absolutely by the book with no permissible deviation then that's up to you... Don't have a problem with that. But remember the die hard realism, where everything is done absolutely by the book? How are you going to get your Nimitz into the black sea, where the Montreux Convention Regarding the Regime of the Straits explicitly prohibits vessels with a displacement over 15,000 tonnes or get large non-Black Sea units into there? Or are we going to bend the rules? Or the myriad of other rule bending things I bet at least half of you all do but make special case exceptions. You can't pull the 'no can't have, not realistic' when exceptions are made for other things for whatever reason. I wonder how many of you have gone around with 6 Mavericks slung under your A-10s? Sure the A-10 can carry 6 Mavericks but AFAIK due to damage caused on firing by those extra 2, the regs say no, despite the fact that in DCS doing so carries little/no consequence - the damage model is just not that sophisticated. Just like you probably could arm, fuel and board, heck maybe even start a fixed wing aircraft from inside a hangar but it would be reckless, incredibly dangerous, you'd probably make that enclosed space pretty inhospitable pretty quickly and would very, VERY unsafe. But again in DCS it's practically of very little or no consequence. The real limitation is purely regulation when it comes to DCS, the consequences of breaching are at most trivial. If you want another example how about payloads that exceed the stated MTOW? Or maximum loaded weight? In reality that would be a no no, but in DCS we can either load our aircraft to the point of ridiculous and fly dangerously or if we don't want to and keep it realistic we can do that too. I'd rather be free to choose to do what I wish than enforce one side and make it impossible/difficult to do anything else - DCS is a sandbox after all.

 

Whilst I love my realism as much as anyone else, occasionally I like a bit of free flight devoid of regulation - that's why DCS is a sandbox so we can do both with very little compromise to one another. If say ED does allow you to spawn inside the hangar but you want it die hard, by the strictly by-the-book realistic, there's an oh so simple solution - create your mission so no aircraft starts in the hangar - it's really that simple, I mean you'll probably be playing around with parking spots anyway so I can't think of why that would be any particular hassle, it's effective, quick and I'd imagine quite fool proof if carriers get the same treatment as airfields. Now the only way you can spawn in the hangar is by taxiing onto the lift, riding it down, have some "fun" taxiing it into position in the hangar and then try to convince everyone that's where you spawned.

 

All the newsletter mentions is "working elevators" - that does not necessarily mean that ED plans on having players "spawn" on the hangar deck.

 

Doesn't really matter to me, it's it actually being there that counts, you can always sort spawning aircraft in the hangar later, I'm not fussed, so long as it has a collision model. But like I said, for ships who's main party trick is to conduct flying operations that are on the smaller side of things, you physically cannot conduct flying operations with more than half a dozen aircraft at any one time - that's not a whole lot and sometimes that number is even less (see my HMS Ocean example) and that's including parked aircraft sat on deck. In order to make more use out of these ships and have more aircraft in the air during the mission you have to bring them up from the hangar because there physically isn't enough space. If we ever get the vessels and the aircraft to go with them it simply makes sense, you can pretend your pilot is an aircraft mechanic/aircraft handler if you really have to in order get over being unrealistic.

 

The same absolutely applies to surface combatants that can only have 1 aircraft perform launching/recovery with the other in the hangar (where the pilot rides brakes AFAIK) so there it absolutely makes sense. Though as of yet, we don't have any maritime helicopter modules at all and very crude ships.

Edited June 12, 2018 by Northstar98

[Alfa]

Correct, though being pedantic it's strictly from a pilot's perspective alone...

 

Yes from a pilot's perspective - what other perspective is there?

 

..who's to say we won't get extended functionality with the carriers, especially when they're being made into their own modules (though postponed indefinitely so far)

 

I doubt that "extended functionality" will go as far as letting the player act as handler on the hangar deck(or flight deck for that matter).

 

And if you want to be consistent with die hard realism, everything absolutely by the book with no permissible deviation then that's up to you... Don't have a problem with that.

 

And I don't have a problem with people doing unrealistic things in the sim, if it just so happens that its possible. But it currently isn't and the problem is that implementing it takes away ressources that would be much better spent on things that have a real impact on the experience *from a pilot's perspective* - i.e. flight deck operations that both adds to realism and allow for proper mission possibilities.

 

I think its clear to everyone that the good people of Eagle have their plate full just bringing the Hornet up to published specs - and to achieve proper carrier operations for it, there are a lot of things to do both in terms of interaction with the carrier(including flight deck procedures) as well as with the naval side of things in general.

 

But remember the die hard realism, where everything is done absolutely by the book? How are you going to get your Nimitz into the black sea, where the Montreux Convention Regarding the Regime of the Straits explicitly prohibits vessels with a displacement over 15,000 tonnes or get large non-Black Sea units into there?

 

Well the displacement restrictions are only for non-Black sea powers, but ok it does apply to a Nimitz class....although the US never actually officially accepted/signed the convention :) . But large non-Black Sea units(e.g. Ticonderoga- and Burke class) transit into the Black Sea all the time though, so no problem with realism there.

 

.. Or are we going to bend the rules?

 

Doesn't matter what I am willing to do - its what ED is willing to spend resources on and having only the Black Sea map has in the past been cited as the very reason why they didn't want to work on the naval stuff - i.e. that large scale naval operations were considered unrealistic(in part due to the Montreux convention) in that theatre. Personally I always thought that was a silly argument, because the naval units aren't Black Sea specific, so it was always only a question of when to do it - now there is a more appropriate map for the purpose, but the overall naval environment is still seriously lacking.

 

Or the myriad of other rule bending things I bet at least half of you all do but make special case exceptions. You can't pull the 'no can't have, not realistic' when exceptions are made for other things for whatever reason. I wonder how many of you have gone around with 6 Mavericks slung under your A-10s?

 

Not me - I never fly the damn thing :D

 

Just like you probably could arm, fuel and board, heck maybe even start a fixed wing aircraft from inside a hangar but it would be reckless, incredibly dangerous, you'd probably make that enclosed space pretty inhospitable pretty quickly and would very, VERY unsafe. But again in DCS it's practically of very little or no consequence. The real limitation is purely regulation when it comes to DCS, the consequences of breaching are at most trivial. If you want another example how about payloads that exceed the stated MTOW? Or maximum loaded weight? In reality that would be a no no, but in DCS we can either load our aircraft to the point of ridiculous and fly dangerously or if we don't want to and keep it realistic we can do that too. I'd rather be free to choose to do what I wish than enforce one side and make it impossible/difficult to do anything else.

 

Again its not about forbidding players from doing unrealistic things if the sim allows it nor about introducing restrictions to that effect. Its about spending resources on implementing unrealistic possibilities, when there is so much else and much more important things to spend the energy on.

 

- DCS is a sandbox after all.

 

Yes unfortunately :D

 

Whilst I love my realism as much as anyone else, occasionally I like a bit of free flight devoid of regulation - that's why DCS is a sandbox so we can do both with very little compromise to one another. If say ED does allow you to spawn inside the hangar but you want it die hard, by the strictly by-the-book realistic, there's an oh so simple solution - create your mission so no aircraft starts in the hangar - it's really that simple, I mean you'll probably be playing around with parking spots anyway so I can't think of why that would be any particular hassle, it's effective, quick and I'd imagine quite fool proof if carriers get the same treatment as airfields. Now the only way you can spawn in the hangar is by taxiing onto the lift, riding it down, have some "fun" taxiing it into position in the hangar and then try to convince everyone that's where you spawned.

 

"If say ED does allow you to spawn inside the hanger", then thats their prerogative and I don't care if people use it . But I still think it would make a little more sense to allow more than one player to spawn on- and take off from the flight deck.

 

Doesn't really matter to me, it's it actually being there that counts, you can always sort spawning aircraft in the hangar later, I'm not fussed, so long as it has a collision model. But like I said, for ships who's main party trick is to conduct flying operations that are on the smaller side of things, you physically cannot conduct flying operations with more than half a dozen aircraft at any one time - that's not a whole lot and sometimes that number is even less (see my HMS Ocean example) and that's including parked aircraft sat on deck. In order to make more use out of these ships and have more aircraft in the air during the mission you have to bring them up from the hangar because there physically isn't enough space.

 

a). the ships in question(Nimitz and Kuznetsov) for separate carrier modules are not of that category.

 

b). ships that are "on the smaller side of things" with the inability to put more than half a dosen aircraft on the flight deck at one time, are restricted accordingly - you cannot conduct large scale operations involving dosens of aircraft unless you can put them all on the deck and prep them beforehand.

 

c). even if pilots are asked to board their aircraft on the hanger deck(in order to speed things up), they still don't drive them around on the hanger deck.

 

If we ever get the vessels and the aircraft to go with them it simply makes sense, you can pretend your pilot is an aircraft mechanic/aircraft handler if you really have to in order get over being unrealistic.

 

IMHO it doesn't make any sense at all - sitting in the cockpit of an aircraft being towed around or even "riding brakes" is a far cry from taxiing around under own power.

 

The same absolutely applies to surface combatants that can only have 1 aircraft perform launching/recovery with the other in the hangar (where the pilot rides brakes AFAIK) so there it absolutely makes sense.

 

The only aircraft I can think of for such vessels are helicopters - which are stowed away in the hangars with rotorblades(and sometimes the entire tail section) folded up - how are you going to drive that out of the hangar....or are you again on about pretending to be a handler "riding brakes"?

 

Though as of yet, we don't have any maritime helicopter modules at all and very crude ships.

 

Indeed! - and frankly that is where the effort should go....which is my whole point.

[AG-51_Razor]

Hey Folks, how about we ask ED for a more functional flight deck before we go off with requests for pop up catapult control stations, animated flight deck personnel or rides up and down the elevator? How about pestering them to get the basics of just spawning on the flight deck with more than 4 people? As I have been told, even those 4 are spawning on top of one another at times. Just the basics would make me ecstatic! I'd like to build a mission where I can spawn on the flight deck along with 6-8 of my buddies, start up and taxi to the cats and launch. I'd like to see that get straightened out way before I would ever begin giving ED a hard time about the absence of animations, running around in the hanger deck and other such trivia that only contributes to the atmosphere and not to the functionality of the carrier experience.

 

I have no doubt that they will eventually make good their promises and no illusions whatsoever about the difficulty of it all. I just think that they need to be focused on the process of getting more breathers onto the flight deck for the start of a mission and after that they can branch out to more intense contributions to the atmosphere of the carrier experience. :thumbup:

[Esac_mirmidon]

Try now

 

You will be very very happy.

 

I´ve spawned with other 9 AI Hornets, each of us in his own spot over the deck, no problems. I suppose is the same in MP with clients.

[Alfa]

^^ Sounds good :)

[Northstar98]

Yes from a pilot's perspective - what other perspective is there?

Uhm CA? Like what I implicitly mentioned in my previous post? - The carriers are supposed to become modules in their own right, and as AG-51 rightly said there needs to be priorities to get done first - I'm all for that. In fact AG-51 you really nailed it with that last one :thumbup:

 

I doubt that "extended functionality" will go as far as letting the player act as handler on the hangar deck(or flight deck for that matter).

Fine do so, like I said - pretend if you really have to. I mean it's as simple as getting the aircraft to move without own power - something FSX manages without a problem, even if then a tug isn't modelled. Sure save it for later - I never said it should be made a maximum priority thing.

 

And I don't have a problem with people doing unrealistic things in the sim, if it just so happens that its possible. But it currently isn't and the problem is that implementing it takes away ressources that would be much better spent on things that have a real impact on the experience *from a pilot's perspective* - i.e. flight deck operations that both adds to realism and allow for proper mission possibilities.

Good and agreed, but I doubt what goes into making even a crude hangar will take up significant resources - you're not trying to pioneer a new technology here (well, maybe with moving collision boxes, but we should have those already). If you think focus on more pressing issues fine, absolutely - a hangar is less important over aproperly implemented flight deck, because without the flight deck there's no point even having hangars.

 

I think its clear to everyone that the good people of Eagle have their plate full just bringing the Hornet up to published specs - and to achieve proper carrier operations for it, there are a lot of things to do both in terms of interaction with the carrier(including flight deck procedures) as well as with the naval side of things in general.

Absolutely, 100% agree.

 

Doesn't matter what I am willing to do - its what ED is willing to spend resources on and having only the Black Sea map has in the past been cited as the very reason why they didn't want to work on the naval stuff - i.e. that large scale naval operations were considered unrealistic(in part due to the Montreux convention) in that theatre. Personally I always thought that was a silly argument, because the naval units aren't Black Sea specific, so it was always only a question of when to do it - now there is a more appropriate map for the purpose, but the overall naval environment is still seriously lacking.

Absolutely - we're thinking on equal terms.

 

Not me - I never fly the damn thing :D

Eh suite yourself, your missing out on a good CAS platform, but everyone's different.

 

Again its not about forbidding players from doing unrealistic things if the sim allows it nor about introducing restrictions to that effect. Its about spending resources on implementing unrealistic possibilities, when there is so much else and much more important things to spend the energy on.

Again, adding spawning positions doesn't sound anywhere near as taxing, I mean ED have done some funny business, like with the new submarines which at the moment are totally useless, and it looks like a lot more work than what would be a relatively simple 3D model, animations and spawn positions. I mean sure I might be wrong, and feel free but I doubt it will be a major hindrance 2-3 days at the absolute maximum.

 

 

Yes unfortunately :D

I'M TRIGGERED!!!

 

Nah, I like the sandbox, it's what it should be IMO.

 

"If say ED does allow you to spawn inside the hanger", then thats their prerogative and I don't care if people use it . But I still think it would make a little more sense to allow more than one player to spawn on- and take off from the flight deck.

Good and agreed.

 

a). the ships in question(Nimitz and Kuznetsov) for separate carrier modules are not of that category.

And? What happens if we do end up getting ships that are of that category? Then have inconsistencies?

 

b). ships that are "on the smaller side of things" with the inability to put more than half a dosen aircraft on the flight deck at one time, are restricted accordingly - you cannot conduct large scale operations involving dosens of aircraft unless you can put them all on the deck and prep them beforehand.

Experience on HMS Ocean says otherwise - the deck is not physically big enough - look at any picture you'll see 6 aircraft maximum on the deck at once due to space limitations and next to none parked 1-2 maximum, and it's a helicopter carrier so you'd need those handlers you were talking about to move them around anyway. Now sure want to keep it relevant to the Stennis? Fine. But I like consistency and maritime helicopters and ships like HMS Ocean aren't a total impossibility, so that's why I mention it. If you want more (which they've done) you HAVE to bring it up from the hangar, I mean, it doesn't look like you can fit 10 aircraft on the flight deck, so rule of thumb is you probably can't. I mean look at this https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/-/media/royal-navy-responsive/images/news/ships/ocean/151113-hms-ocean-osprey/mr1501504.jpg How many parked aircraft do you see up on deck? If they wanted to do anything during the mission (which is a possibility) after flying operations with the Osprey's finishes you have to bring it up from the hangar - no way around it. Then do your business of arming, fuelling etc. If you want realism feel free. I don't really see the issue.

 

c). even if pilots are asked to board their aircraft on the hanger deck(in order to speed things up), they still don't drive them around on the hanger deck.

Yep, sooo? This really doesn't mean much of anything, no reason not to have a very rudimentary form of push back/taxiing equipment facilitated in the future, even if player commanded/steered (like FSX).

 

IMHO it doesn't make any sense at all - sitting in the cockpit of an aircraft being towed around or even "riding brakes" is a far cry from taxiing around under own power.

Does it matter? You're still doing it under own power or not. I honestly couldn't care less about taxiing under own power it's a case of what you can and can't do.

 

The only aircraft I can think of for such vessels are helicopters - which are stowed away in the hangars with rotorblades(and sometimes the entire tail section) folded up - how are you going to drive that out of the hangar....or are you again on about pretending to be a handler "riding brakes"?

Yeah about all this, how are you going to taxi a helicopter from parking on the flight deck to it's launch position? You can't unfold the blades or the tail and drive it around it's simply to dangerous, so hangar or not you still need to do this...

 

Indeed! - and frankly that is where the effort should go....which is my whole point.

At least we agree on something...

 

I'm gonna cut it off here, before we lapse into full bickering.

Edited June 13, 2018 by Northstar98

[AG-51_Razor]

Thanks for the heads up Mirmidon. I can't wait to get home and try this for myself after getting the latest update installed :thumbup:

[Esac_mirmidon]

Just be the first on the Carrier when you add planes in the mission editor. The first one must be player, the rest AI.

 

Is amazing how they taxi, launch, and land one at a time while you are inside the cockpit.

 

Just one tip, start one engine and move a little to the left, the first AI will crash with you if you stay in the spawn spot. Just for a few inches but you need to move a litle before he is close to you..

Edited June 13, 2018 by Esac_mirmidon

[AG-51_Razor]

:thumbup::pilotfly::thumbup:

[moonshot]

(ED newsletter 21/01/2016 http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/newsletters/newsletter29012016.html, model viewer etc).

 

Wow. Early 2016. My jaw was literally hanging open while reading that. They were saying "this year!" over two and a half years ago. Most, not even some, but most of the items on their "this year" list still don't exist. Hell, most of them are still being given the "maybe someday" treatment.

This is just a huge reminder that with the massive amount of weapons/sensors/systems modeling left to do on the Hornet I wouldn't be surprised at all if it's still in early access 12 months, shoot, 24 months from right now, and all of those 2016 items are likely to still be missing then too.

Damn, reading that newsletter was a real bummer.

[Esac_mirmidon]

And?

 

You can enjoy what you have now, a lot.

[Northstar98]

Wow. Early 2016. My jaw was literally hanging open while reading that. They were saying "this year!" over two and a half years ago. Most, not even some, but most of the items on their "this year" list still don't exist. Hell, most of them are still being given the "maybe someday" treatment.

This is just a huge reminder that with the massive amount of weapons/sensors/systems modeling left to do on the Hornet I wouldn't be surprised at all if it's still in early access 12 months, shoot, 24 months from right now, and all of those 2016 items are likely to still be missing then too.

Damn, reading that newsletter was a real bummer.

 

Well, I knew to take it with a pinch of salt - but as far as I can remember what ED plans to do usually stay that way - though their dates are usually way off which is a shame. I also agree with your figures though it hurts - especially since the Kuznetsov has now been postponed indefinitely with no word on what will happen on the new 3D model for it :(

 

I am grateful for the Hornet, extremely so, and I haven't even bought it yet, but there's that nagging sensation that it's stole a lot of the workload for core DCS change that some of us really yearn for, oh well, I guess core DCS changes doesn't rake in the revenue and pay the staff so I guess it has to stay that way... It's a shame.

 

And?

 

You can enjoy what you have now, a lot.

 

Oh yeah of course, I don't think Moonshot was saying that DCS is ruined because of way off release dates, but think of where we'd be if we were at a place that the newsletter was painting a picture of.

[Esac_mirmidon]

Well i think when ED need to create from scratch all the technology around the Hornet four years ago the pace was slow, very slow but now, with all the new stuff more mature i preffer to think things will speed up more and more with shorter development times.

 

The upgrades need time but the more they are working on them, the less time should be needed for completion.

[moonshot]

Well i think when ED need to create from scratch all the technology around the Hornet four years ago the pace was slow, very slow but now, with all the new stuff more mature i preffer to think things will speed up more and more with shorter development times.

 

The upgrades need time but the more they are working on them, the less time should be needed for completion.

 

It's just that my expectations got re-grounded and excitement tempered, probably a good thing. It's been awhile since I've been around ED/DCS.

It's also been much more than four years for the Hornet. Back in 2010, during Warthog beta, Wags was openly stating their next module was a modern American fighter. A forum member then discovered that ED registered some domains with F-18 in the name, so it's been 'known' around these parts to be in development for at least eight.

And don't forget that blood-orange NTTR map that was released, then quickly pulled, during early Warthog beta. It took five. more. years. before they finally re-released it to you guys...as a beta, of course. I was already long gone by then. Computer had let the smoke out, kids and career showed up, etc.

So a few months ago I heard that 2.5 came out, saw that third parties can and have developed some awesome looking stuff, was legitimately appalled that the Hornet was unbelievably still in development, and decided to start dipping my toe back in.

Gotta say, fundamentally this is the exact same simulator it was ten years ago. New skin on the Caucuses, a couple new (and awesome) maps, new version number. But the same bugs, same super archaic (yet powerful) mission editor, and seemingly years and years of the exact same missed expectations.

If you're expecting the pace to pick up now I suggest doing a deep dive in these forums. That's always been the expectation, both internally and from us customers, and it never has.

Sorry about the rant. I'll end with this:

Despite everything I wrote above, DCS is still the best flight simulator on the market, bar none, combat or otherwise.

[Esac_mirmidon]

Its me or with the update 4 now is impossible to spawn more than one client at a time and also other flights are delayed until the first one takes off?

 

Prio, in update 3 i was able to set 4 client Hornets ready on the cats and another 2 cold and dark. All clients.

 

Now only one client at a time and the rest delayed until take off.

 

This is a serious drawback.

[CHPL]

developer’s point of few

 

Of cause there is a different point of few.

It’s the developer’s point of few.

I’m pretty sure, to create things like virtual airplanes, helicopters or air carriers, you need not only, know how and time. There is a big, big part passion involved.

In case of an air carrier, as platform for the F18 or the upcoming tomcat, of cause there are many things irrelevant for fling the aircraft and for many of the pilots.

But ! The developer already has done a lot of research and with the effort in creating an outstanding product he may have a different point of few. And any detail is part of the product, even if it is not relevant for game play, or some customers. Just think of your care. What’s left if you take everything not necessary for driving away?

Personally I bought the F-18 module mainly for the carrier. Fling only helicopter for me it is not only important to have the detailed flight deck. It is also important to have something going one like Deck personal and Lifts moving up and down when approaching the carrier from the side.

To know there is something going one below the flight deck, improves my personal feeling of reality, even if I never get downstairs. I appreciate the effort of creating a multi aspect ship instead of an dump empty box I can land and takeoff from and that’s it.

 

Thanks for the work done until now.

Waiting for more :thumbup: